Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I remember being in my car in Fayetteville NC, just after a bunch of 82nd airborne guys returned from the desert the first time. A car cut me off, so I yelled, "learn to drive asshole!", and then that car stopped in the road an a giant man got out. He was tall and big. He looked like he ate smaller people. He asked me what I said, and I sheepishly said, "sorry, my mistake". So while I had every right to voice my opinion, it did have consequences associated with it, be them legal or not.

It was a teachable moment, and one that helped shape my attitude.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The whole reason for freedom of speech is to protect you from the government, not necessarily from other people. There are other laws that protect you from people, but that is not what the first amendment does. So I do like the statement "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences"

People must be aware that the first amendment does not protect them from other citizens.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I remember being in my car in Fayetteville NC, just after a bunch of 82nd airborne guys returned from the desert the first time. A car cut me off, so I yelled, "learn to drive asshole!", and then that car stopped in the road an a giant man got out. He was tall and big. He looked like he ate smaller people. He asked me what I said, and I sheepishly said, "sorry, my mistake". So while I had every right to voice my opinion, it did have consequences associated with it, be them legal or not.

It was a teachable moment, and one that helped shape my attitude.

You know and that is the important thing that you learned from that experience and it made you a better or at least wiser person going forward. I got my dose of that lesson early in life when I talked trash to a kid that was older and bigger than me playing street hockey. It didn't matter that I was correct in my statement that I burned him with a sick maneuver leading to the game winning score, he didn't like my taunting/gloating and thumped me up for it. Now I know to watch what I say and who I say it to and If I feel it must be said then at least be prepared for what is coming next.

This is one of those arguments that I feel like stems from a highly intelligent, mouthy and impish little guy that is mad because he is usually the smartest guy in the room but can't share his true feelings because he can't defend himself against the reaction it might receive. So he is all bitter about having to be quiet and deal with being quiet. The internet is actually a sanctuary for these people. Here they can say what they want no matter how offensive without fear of physical repercussions and it makes them feel big and superior.

"Crunk no know big words but crunk know how to smash"

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think it is in our better human nature to try to be kind and considerate to other people's feelings

But going on that basis you will never be free to say anything...because of the myriad of opposing opinions someones feelings will invariably be hurt

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You've done it again, encapsulating a critique of the dangerous path of self censorship based on not offending someones "feelings"
Well done!

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: dfnj2015

Whenever talks about Spock, I can't get past this video:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Nice avatar pic. Are you a furvert? Google it.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

While we are guaranteed to have freedom of speech nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of protection from the consequences of that speech

Thats as silly as saying there is no mention of bullets under the Second Amendment.


I thought LesMisanthrope addressed this rather well

LesMis
It is never the duty of the writer or publisher to weigh in advance the future possibility of violent reprisal for writing or speaking—it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Nice avatar pic. Are you a furvert? Google it.

Lol no I am not, it was a seasonal theme thing (ya know Easter). I'm actually about to change it again as I tend to do from time to time.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Whether due to the irrationality of those offended or not the consequences remain

So you would rather pander to irrational people than stand on your right to free speech - you condone fascism.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It's silly not to expect possible consequences when you say something that you KNOW will inflame certain people.

a reply to: Kali74

If you're my employee and your expressed opinion drives my customers away, why can't I fire you

And if that opinion had to do with a pricing error and I as your employee corrected you in front of the customer and the customer decided to not buy and you fired; me the consequences would be that I would have a valid unfair dismissal case against you

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

So you would rather pander to irrational people than stand on your right to free speech - you condone fascism.

I don't understand why some people believe this. Nobody is against free speech.
Saying something that you know will provoke people is your choice. Your right. Freedom of speech. If you don't want to risk getting hurt then don't say it. It's that simple.

a reply to: ScepticScot

None of your points have anything to do with what I said, sadly. One of the main points is that people like to pay lip-service to free speech but no less prefer restrictions, like most countries, or do nothing to defend the right in their fellow citizens, like most in this thread. Another is that it is a form of victim blaming, not unlike freedom to wear what you want, but not freedom from the consequences of wearing what you want.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The whole reason for freedom of speech is to protect you from the government, not necessarily from other people. There are other laws that protect you from people, but that is not what the first amendment does. So I do like the statement "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences"

People must be aware that the first amendment does not protect them from other citizens.

No, it isn't. Freedom of speech isn't a law. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, but isn't freedom of speech.

Do you know why it is protected? Don't worry, most don't know nor care.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The whole reason for freedom of speech is to protect you from the government, not necessarily from other people. There are other laws that protect you from people, but that is not what the first amendment does. So I do like the statement "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences"

People must be aware that the first amendment does not protect them from other citizens.

No, it isn't. Freedom of speech isn't a law. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, but isn't freedom of speech.

Do you know why it is protected? Don't worry, most don't know nor care.

Explain please. You are intentionally being cryptic. Don't leave us with "you don't care".

a reply to: Dark Ghost

No, people aren't born with rights like they are born with ears. Rights are ideas regarding duties, leniencies, and other behaviours we afford to fellow human beings through societal conduct.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You don't know? Some reading might be in order. But I'm not going to teach you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you can't explain? Gotcha.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I don't believe calling someone names has ever been deemed fighting words by the SCOTUS.

In actual fact they did call name-calling "fighting words"
took me 2 minutes to look it up and I'm not even American

en.wikipedia.org...

Chaplinsky decision[edit] Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that...