Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence

Do you agree with this statement?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Morandum_of_Understanding_SIGINT.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yea.

I said something really dumb and got fucked for it for a few months ago

B R E H
R
E
H

It's a true statement in the sense that calling a nigger a nigger will make them chimp out.

Yes. If someone decides to assault me for something I said then they should face the consequences.

It doesn't give someone the greenlight to assault someone for saying something that makes them mad.

It's bound to happen but fortunately in the US we have the right to bear arms to back up free speech.

>say something the government doesn't like
>get sent to a gulag
>tell them it's a violation of my free speech
>they say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences

So long as said consequences are not a violation of rights or laws, yes.

Going by that logic there was free speech in nazi Germany aswell. You were absolutely free to say that Hitler was a faggot but then you would face the consequences in form of landing in a concentration camp.

>anyone that says something I don't like should be sent to gulag

It doesn't make any sense. If that was true then you could call nazi germany and the soviet union freedom of speech because you could say whatever you want, you'd just be worked to death if you did.

In the United states the Supreme Court has rulwed that freedom of speech or freedom of religion exists INSIDE THE LAW.
It does not give you the right to hurt or harm others or break the the law in any other way.

The consequence of freedom of speech should be someone else using their freedom of speech to counter you. unless you're actively saying "gas the kikes", but then you're paying for showing your power level in public

Consequences from whom?

There is only free speech, and a lack of free speech.

"Free speech inside the law" is not a valid concept, nor should it be.

this is such a fucking stupid statement
its like saying you're free to murder people but you'll go to prison if you do
The reason freedom of speech is a thing is that, outside of special circumstances such as libel, slander, NDAs etc is that speech is on a completely different level from actions because expressing ideas are completely different from acting on those ideas.

responding to speech/expression with action is like responding to a shoplifter by dropping a fucking nuke on him

in limit

you say something people don't like, they say something back - this is ok

you say something people don't like, you get your head bashed open - this is not ok

both can be consequences - there is a difference

Yes but those consequences should be from society, not the state.

It means freedom from legal consequence like fines and jail time.

If its illegal to stalk or harass someone, its still illegal to stalk and harass them for saying something you don't like.

The violent nig/nazi who's going to punch you in the face. Of course this individual can be prosecuted or not, depending on circumstances, but this is up to the strength of the state.

It's incredibly stupid. people in north korea have free speech by that definition. when the government comes to murder them for it that's "consequences"

Yes this is why I chose to *BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPFFFFFFT*

Somewhat, yes. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

On the same merit I don't think you should see consequence because of your political views. You should be allowed to voice an opinion without fear to your livelihood.

As like most things, it's complicated and one blanket statement doesn't cover all cases. We need balance.

I only came here because of tits

As long as they're not the state, the state really can't guarantee a freedom from individuals.

Although, you are free to defend yourself even while being a dumbass.

Freedom of speech
there are consequences
then you might as well don't even have freedom of speech
>You can say what you want!
>say what you want
>fired
worst part is whatever the dominate culture is WILL be biased against certain opinions

youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A

>Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence for progressive wrongthink

ftfy

What should be the consequences of saying something that someone doesn't like?

A term usually used by those who want to either beat you up, destroy your life, bring you to court or censor you in the long run anyway.

I do not at all. It's a toxic statement of those who do not and never will believe in freedom of speach. It's hypocritical at best. The USA might not even know how precious their treasure of freedom of speach is - until you live in a country like Germany or Great Britain and your life gets destroyed over wrongthink.

she went full retard

works both ways. liberals think they can intimidate free speech by saying shit like that but the second they hear speech they don't like they chimp the fuck out.

we tolerate your shit but that tolerance is wearing thin. things are changing and you cry baby fucks better get used to it.

Freedom of speech EXACTLY DOES mean freedom from consequences.

The inverse is leftoid logic whereby they can have you tarred and feathered and financially ruined if you suggest that gayness is wrong, but "We're not violating freedom of speech because we didn't literally drive tanks into Tianamen Square :^)"

Indeed, as we said in Soviet Union, best in world soviet constitution guarantees your freedom of speech comrade, not your freedom after you made that speech.

No. Because otherwise you can use potential consequences to stop free speech.

>freedom of speach

No.........NO................NO GOD NO........

Sort of. Nobody should have any legal right to prevent anyone from saying or thinking something, but that doesn't mean people won't try.

No. Freedom of speech means EXACTLY freedom from consequence. I am not in favour of freedom of speech, though. I think all Marxist and islamist speech should be banned, and those who utter that crap severely punished.

...

From government, yes.

But it should also be protected by government.

It's not a problem that they can talk about their religion. It's a problem that criticising it, as people freely do with Christianity, is seen as xenophobic.

What'd you say?

It doesnt give the nigger the right to attack you though.

Because this wouldnt be freedom of speech anymore if it justifies assault

And what exactly does that solve? If it's banned you can't locate it. And inform people. Which is more important. You're just stuck in the "evil hate-speech" mantra.

Banning never solved a problem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Morandum_of_Understanding_SIGINT.pdf

I thought nerds were supposed to be smart? She's not tanning for looks, it's to highlight muscles in a competition.

I agree with those feet tbqf

Only as long as the consequence doesn't come from the government and doesn't violate other freedoms.

this
>inb4 fire in movie theatre

why do women do this

>did you just get my pronouns wrong?
>"Oh i'm sorry, let me reduce your sentence. Would you like a foot massage, miss?

We'll never be able to stop normal, individual conversation, and we shouldn't. Bans like these are aimed primarily at mass communication. Not only have they outlawed criticism of islam and Marxism, we are constantly faced with the false message that both of these are good. That is what I want to hit with such a ban.

And mostly, I no longer believe in democratic Western society according to the current model. The reaction to Trump and the rise of the right has shown me the Marxists have no interest in it, and we should not tolerate a totalitarian ideology that openly wants to destroy us.

Banning stops the spread of these ideologies. It stops their social profile, and makes adherents think they are fewer in number. But most of all it stops the 24/7 propaganda of these two we're constantly bombarded with.

You think you live in a free speech country now? Try saying anything you say here in public. All I want is the same for Marxism and islam.

I love you

No, the whole point of freedom of speech is no consequences.
>say something politically uncorect
>go to prison
>hehe nobody said you are free from consequences ;^)
Only retard would agree with that statment

>Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from consequence
>Freedom of sexual preference does not mean freedom from consequence
>Freedom of race does not mean freedom from consequence
Do you agree with this statement?

that's the exact definition

but, the 'free speech' in trumpspeak means that you only have freedom to say racist/xenophobic/sexist/anti-LGBTQQIAAP+/islamophobic stuff

if you want to criticize trump you can get beaten, lynched and/or harassed

no one should be free from consequence in any case

Sweden's got it right for once. Free speech isn't actually free unless you can rest assured that there won't be any severe consequences for it, death, imprisonment - that sort of thing.

Sure. If only you knew what the comsequences were.

>be muslim = go to jail
>be gay = go to jail
>be nigger = go to cotton plantation
No one should be free from consequence in any case!

Actually, it means exactly that, as long as those consequences are originating from the public and legal or judicial in nature.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to have your say without suffering consequences by public officers, government or by the law (barring libel/defamation of another individual entity, then you risk trial).

That phrase also carries stupidly violent undertones, like 'talk shit get hit', which lefties use to justify all violence.


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom FROM other's speech and opinions. That would be more correct.
Of course, if you live in a country where retaining your job depends on a person opinion, then be careful.

underrated

When consequences violate the NAP, you're chimping out and freedom of speech is british humor.

Fuck Freedom of Speech.

Right-Wing authoritarian regime when?

best point

freedom of speech is pointless when you can influence society to be punitive towards the attitudes you don't want to be spoken outloud.

I guess.

Without anonymity, there can be no free speech. For reasons you gave.