Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Your response is totally off; I am surprised because you are such a deep thinker-maybe again, overthinking. Time for bed.

I'm fairly certain you said that there are consequences of everything we say and do. I said there isn't. If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.

Actually words do merit consequences according to law. Lying to a police officer is one. lying to a judge is another.
Calling soemone a racial epitat in the wrong neighborhood is another. point is words do have consequences.

That's the consequence of the law.

Yes BUT they are still consequences of speaking To the law though. If they didnt speak most likely there would had been no consequence.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The way I try to explain what innate or natural rights are is to use an example of man (generic term) in their "natural" state of being, alone and answerable to no one but themselves and nature. Man in this state has the right to speak as they please, the right to protect ones self from harm, the right to seek food, and the right to seek shelter from the elements.

These are rights that we share with all animals.

a reply to: yuppa

Yes BUT they are still consequences of speaking To the law though. If they didnt speak most likely there would had been no consequence.

If there was no law then there would be no such consequence. The consequence of speaking is always the same, with or without the law. The fact that if someone were to speak in such a manner in a place where there is a law and in a place where there wasn't, lead to two different consequences, prove that it is a consequence of the law, not of the speech.

originally posted by: Zimnydran
That is the most ridicules thing anyone has ever tried to say.....Don't you agree?

The whole purpose of Freedom of Speech...... is for there to be no consequences from it.... or else you are not free to speak..... but afraid to speak.

Impossible. There is literally no way you could ever get humans not to react to speech. There are consequences for literally EVERY action in the universe.

Anyone caught repeating "but not free from the consequences"...should be made to go sit in the corner with a Dunce Hat on

Anyone caught pushing this argument really doesn't understand the concepts of Freedom of Speech.

a reply to: LockNLoad

In that state people (and animals) are very violent. Just establishing territories or pecking orders means you have to get violent.

I don't think that makes a case for non-violence towards expression.

I use the word expression because animals don't use just sounds. Two males squaring off for the right to take a female starts off with a lot of posturing which ends up with someone punking out or a fight.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Impossible. There is literally no way you could ever get humans not to react to speech. There are consequences for literally EVERY action in the universe.

Sorcerers used to think their words manipulated matter too.

Anyone caught pushing this argument really doesn't understand the concepts of Freedom of Speech.

Since we are making assertions without backing up the claim, you do not know what free speech is.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ironic, you reacted to the words without even really thinking about what they were saying.

a reply to: daskakik

Ironic, you reacted to the words without even really thinking about what they were saying.

You can only repeat that I'm reacting to words without being able to prove it. Dogmatism.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Sorcerers used to think their words manipulated matter too.

Thanks for the non sequitur. Any other random thoughts you need to tell me?

Since we are making assertions without backing up the claim, you do not know what free speech is.

You need evidence to show that there are consequences for anything you say? I'll give you a thought experiment instead.
Scenario:
You are the owner of a business and an employee in your company starts insulting another co-worker calling her a variety of offensive and racial names (let's say this other co-worker is a black female). Do you believe that this employee's freedom of speech should trump your right as a business owner to fire this employee for being abusive and creating an unsatisfactory working environment?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You can only repeat that I'm reacting to words without being able to prove it. Dogmatism.

krazyshot said humans react to words not that it manipulates matter.

That right there shows that you reacted just the same.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for the non sequitur. Any other random thoughts you need to tell me?

Non Sequitur? The leap in logic is yours. You said for every action there is a consequence, therefor it is impossible for no one to react to words. That's a non-sequitur.

You need evidence to show that there are consequences for anything you say? I'll give you a thought experiment instead.
Scenario:
You are the owner of a business and an employee in your company starts insulting another co-worker calling her a variety of offensive and racial names (let's say this other co-worker is a black female). Do you believe that this employee's freedom of speech should trump your right as a business owner to fire this employee?

I do, yes.

a reply to: daskakik

krazyshot said humans react to words not that it manipulates matter.

That right there shows that you reacted just the same.

Repeating and asserting the conclusion, once again, without proving it. No, my reaction is not the consequence of his words.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Non Sequitur? The leap in logic is yours. You said for every action there is a consequence, therefor it is impossible for no one to react to words. That's a non-sequitur.

Even doing no action is still a reaction to hearing words.

I do, yes.

Ok... Moving on.
Scenario 2:
The black female's friends have gotten pissed off at the first employee not being fired. They have gotten together and shout down the racist employee's words every time he starts up. Now we are presented with two questions. First, do you think that this group of people has the freedom of speech to shout this person down? Second, can you as the employer not fire all parties involved for creating a disruptive work environment?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Conclusion?

It's an observation. You even said it is expected earlier in the thread.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even doing no action is still a reaction to hearing words.

Hearing is an action performed by a listener. The consequence of hearing words is far different than a consequence of speaking them.

Ok... Moving on.
Scenario 2:
The black female's friends have gotten pissed off at the first employee not being fired. They have gotten together and shout down the racist employee's words every time he starts up. Now we are presented with two questions. First, do you think that this group of people has the freedom of speech to shout this person down? Second, can you as the employer not fire all parties involved for creating a disruptive work environment?

The employer can do what he wants. It's his business. He sets the rules.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hearing is an action performed by a listener. The consequence of hearing words is far different than a consequence of speaking them.

No. I'm talking about physically hearing the words then choosing to do nothing after hearing them. That no action is still a consequence of the words said.

The employer can do what he wants. It's his business. He sets the rules.

Really? So why is the employer allowed to do what he wants in scenario 2, but not in scenario 1? What's the difference?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. I'm talking about physically hearing the words then choosing to do nothing after hearing them. That no action is still a consequence of the words said.

False. Its a consequence of hearing the words, understanding the words, and deciding on the next course of action, all of which are caused by the listener, not the words.

Really? So why is the employer allowed to do what he wants in scenario 2, but not in scenario 1? What's the difference?

I never said he wasn't allowed to do what he wants.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
False. Its a consequence of hearing the words, understanding the words, and deciding on the next course of action, all of which are caused by the listener, not the words.

The listener, hears the words and chooses not to do something. THAT is an action. There is no middle ground here.

I never said he wasn't allowed to do what he wants.

Well what do you mean then? Because so far these are the answers I've gotten from you and how they appear to me with the way you answered them. I know you like to play the intellectual being coy with your answers, but I suggest you answer succinctly here because you look like a hypocrite right now.:
Scenario 1: The employee's right to free speech trumps the business' right to fire him; thus the business cannot fire someone for yelling racist things inside the business because it violates the employee's Freedom of Speech.
Scenario 2: The business can do whatever it wants up to and including firing these employees.

Furthermore, if you support the business firing these employees in either or both of these scenarios then you are effectively voicing support for Freedom of Speech being violated by consequences outside of government action. Which should show you that the ideal you seek is a physical impossibility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The listener, hears the words and chooses not to do something. THAT is an action. There is no middle ground here.

How is that a consequence of the words? It isn't.

Scenario 1: The employee's right to free speech trumps the business' right to fire him; thus the business cannot fire someone for yelling racist things inside the business because it violates the employee's Freedom of Speech.
Scenario 2: The business can do whatever it wants up to and including firing these employees.

You said I was the employer. I never said a business couldn't fire him. You like to pretend you're a smart guy but with the way you forget your own arguments and misrepresent mine makes you come off as a dogmatic fluff.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Deflection at its most obvious.

You are the most dogmatic here; "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true."