Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've 'kinda' followed this thread, but I don't understand how you can say there is no consequences to free speech. I'm sure this has been covered but, if you say something and it angers somebody to the point of physical retaliation then that would be the consequences of exercising your free speech at that time.

As far as the principle of freedom from consequences, how could that be enforced, other then how it all ready is with the threat of criminal and/or civil punishment (in the example above)

If you lived alone in a perfect state of nature, then you would be able to exercise your right with no fear of consequences. But (as far as I know) you live under some form of social contract (in the case of the US, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and laws of the land) and are obligated to live and operate under the terms of those contracts.

Now if you want to talk about the terms of the contracts then that would be another thread.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually you said it

without argument maybes is all we are left with.

I didn't have an argument and neither did you so, according to your words, maybes it is.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sure, we can expect the superstitious and the dogmatic to choose violence and coercion over allowing others to speak. But my point from the beginning is there are no consequences to free speech, and that those who believe and defend the principle should demand freedom from consequences.

You can demand it all day long but nobody is obligated to fulfill your demand.

a reply to: LockNLoad

I've 'kinda' followed this thread, but I don't understand how you can say there is no consequences to free speech. I'm sure this has been covered but, if you say something and it angers somebody to the point of physical retaliation then that would be the consequences of exercising your free speech at that time.

And if it doesn't anger someone is it a consequence of me exercising my free speech? No, the anger is a consequence of the listeners own emotions, their understanding, their grasp of language, their education, and a whole host of other causal factors that have nothing to do with the speaker or the words.

a reply to: daskakik

You can demand it all day long but nobody is obligated to fulfill your demand.

No one argued otherwise. Another meaningless interjection.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No one argued otherwise. Another meaningless interjection.

If you "expect the superstitious and the dogmatic to choose violence" and they are not actually obligated then freedom of speech as you claim doesn't exist.

a reply to: daskakik

If you "expect the superstitious and the dogmatic to choose violence" and they are not actually obligated then freedom of speech as you claim doesn't exist.

No amount of chewing gum could string that logic together.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I totally understand and agree that the reaction of the person is on them, but that doesn't lessen the fact that their reaction is a consequence of you exercising your free speech, and there are laws on assault and such that deal with that reaction.

In a society no one is an island, and we hope that the laws we have in place discourage the type of behavior in my example, and for the most part they do, but some people will ignore the law or react in an emotional way and bop you on the nose. There's no help for it, sometimes people are just jerks.

a reply to: LockNLoad

I totally understand and agree that the reaction of the person is on them, but that doesn't lessen the fact that their reaction is a consequence of you exercising your free speech, and there are laws on assault and such that deal with that reaction.

It does lessen that notion. Their reaction is the consequence of their emotions, their morals, their understanding, and a wide variety of other causes, not the speech. The only effect we might be able to say is the consequence of the speech is the soundwaves on the ear drum. Anything after that is entirely under the under the jurisdiction of the listener.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They are your ideas. Not my fault you can't seem to keep them in order.

You are even telling me that I said stuff when they were your words.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And in the example I gave above what would be the reasonable assumption as to what initiated the response of emotions, morals, and other causes?

The tooth fairy or words?

While I agree with your mechanics of the effect of Free speech, it appears you are ignoring the human condition.

We are not machines, we are a bundle of emotions, morals (or lack there of), and many other things. that is why we have a lot of the laws we have, in an attempt to curb theses hot messes know as humans.

I find myself going back and forth here. The extremes are relatively easy, it's when I back away from the extremes that the water gets muddier for me. You don't think people should be murdered for what they say, easy enough

But what about someone that boycotts a business because the ownership of the business takes a position on/speaks on some issue that the boycotter disagrees with? Obviously you're not saying it is or should be illegal to boycott, but are you saying it shouldn't be done, and if not, based on what? Are you saying the boycotter in this case should refrain from boycotting because of the potential damage it could do to the exercise of free speech?

a reply to: LockNLoad

Slavery was also a part of the human condition. Even Aristotle said people are slaves because they had a slavish nature. Given time the truth and how we grapple with it will prevail.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree, but right know in this time the human condition for a lot of people is to lash out at words that they don't like.

That can not (or should not) be ignored.

(shrug) maybe some day people will grow beyond that.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Like the movie Equilibrium. It's kinda like be careful what you wish for.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yep, good movie too.

originally posted by: imwilliam
I find myself going back and forth here. The extremes are relatively easy, it's when I back away from the extremes that the water gets muddier for me. You don't think people should be murdered for what they say, easy enough

But what about someone that boycotts a business because the ownership of the business takes a position on/speaks on some issue that the boycotter disagrees with? Obviously you're not saying it is or should be illegal to boycott, but are you saying it shouldn't be done, and if not, based on what? Are you saying the boycotter in this case should refrain from boycotting because of the potential damage it could do to the exercise of free speech?

You're right, it does get muddy. I personally believe that boycotting because of a thought or speech is a threat to free speech insofar as the speaker is being ostracized or marginalized for what he said or thinks. Then again, one is free to deal with whom he chooses, and the thinking and speech might be enough reason to convince others to go elsewhere.

In regards to civil liberties, I am reminded of Noam Chomsky publically defending the people whom he regarded as genuine war criminals to teach in schools. His argument, and the argument of people like JS Mill, Rosa Luxembourg, and Orwell, is that it is precisely those with the most differing opinions that require the most defending.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree, but right know in this time the human condition for a lot of people is to lash out at words that they don't like.

That can not (or should not) be ignored.

(shrug) maybe some day people will grow beyond that.

They are mistaken, and all we can do is attempt to remove the wool from their eyes. So much more reason to defend free speech at all costs.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh I do defend free speech even if I don't like or agree with what the sound waves hitting my eardrum are telling me.

I also enjoy exercising my free speech, I just try not to be naive in thinking that I won't get punched for what my sound waves may be perceived as conveying.

I do see Les' point. Let's look at it other way. Artists make paintings all the time. That's their expression and free speech. Now when the paintings are hung in a museum, people have different reactions and emotions to the paintings. That is not the artist's fault. It's theirs.