ALL actions have consequences

this SHOULD be such an obvious and self evident statement - that a thread is superflous

but apparently not

time and time again - i seem to run into the delusion that " free speech is not TRUELY free - if it has consequences "

firstly - " consequences " can be positive , negative or neutral - people seem to conflate " consequences " with retribution or punishment

but hey

i maintain - that ALL actions have consequences [ speech is just another action ]

discuss

I don't know that I've ever seen that posed as an argument. I've seen conditions cited as a negator of free speech, but not consequences. I agree, consequences to speech are irrelevant to whether or not its free.

a reply to: yeahright

Haven't followed this or this thread, eh? The author has become known recently for his extreme views on censorship and free speech.

There's always a back story.

The government cannot infringe on the individual's right to free speech. That individuals peers, however, can and should hold them accountable if it justified to do so - through non-violent means, of course.

If I'm an optometrist that won't serve green-eyed people because I have some irrational belief that they are all witches and the scourge of the earth, it is within my rights to do so without the government infringing on that belief. However, if the green-eyed people organize and bring awareness to this unjust matter by rounding up all the rational people of all eye colors to boycott me and put me out of business so that I'm no longer in a profession where my beliefs discriminate against a section of society - then they are well within their rights to do so as well.

This is how it is supposed to work, but people have become lazy and beaten down into the false belief that some mythical king off in a fabled kingdom will protect them from scary things so they won't have to confront it for themselves. If we allow ourselves to sink further into this toxic mindset, that king will not longer be mythical but rather quickly transmogrify into the scary thing we need protection from.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: yeahright

Haven't followed this or this thread, eh? The author has become known recently for his extreme views on censorship and free speech.

That author is / was one of my favorite posters.

It's a shame whatever happened to him. One of the best content posters on the site.

Regardless, free speech has consequences. Always has and always will. Just can't be consequences or censorship by the Government, but private corporations and citizens censor and create consequences all the time.

If you tell the truth be prepared to run. People don't like it much.

Consequences exist regardless of whether or not there are any people taking any actions. We just wouldn't be aware of them if we didn't exist. As a consequence of nonexistence.

originally posted by: Metallicus

That author is / was one of my favorite posters.

It's a shame whatever happened to him. One of the best content posters on the site.

Yeah, that's weird? Les always brought great content to the site.

Maybe he was the victim of the consequences of free speech?

I will see myself out.

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Speech is not action.

Thought is just pre-speech.

So are you saying that ideology/personal belief has consequences?


Just by thinking a certain way or believing a certain way, does that justify punishing someone?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ignorant_ape


Speech is not action.

Thought is just pre-speech.

So are you saying that ideology/personal belief has consequences?


Just by thinking a certain way or believing a certain way, does that justify punishing someone?

Being that a consequence comes about as a reaction either physically or cognitively to an act, be it also physical or cognitive, it's a fairly simple argument. Everything said or done has a reaction to it. Whether or not it is a negative reaction, a positive one, or a neutral one depends on the receiving end of the action & how it's intents and impacts are interpreted.

Kind of like a Choose Your Own Ending: Butterfly Effect Edition, to overly simplify it.

a reply to: Nyiah


Speech is just organized noise. My speech, regardless of the structure of the sound/pitch/tone will never harm or affect you.


My actions do.

But actions aren't always predicated by speech.


Speech is just that. Speech. Noise. Noise you can turn away from, turn off, ignore.



Actions are expression.

Speech is expression.

But action is not speech.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah


Speech is just organized noise. My speech, regardless of the structure of the sound/pitch/tone will never harm or affect you.


My actions do.

But actions aren't always predicated by speech.


Speech is just that. Speech. Noise. Noise you can turn away from, turn off, ignore.



Actions are expression.

Speech is expression.

But action is not speech.

Be that as it may, speech still leads to actions. Not every time a noise comes forth from the piehole, but often enough to recognize that actions don't always happen out of the ether & have origins in thought, then speech. At that point, choice comes into the matter. Do I share the donuts with a very hungry DB and make him a little less hungry, or do I hoard them for myself, taunt him and risk a bloody nose? In that event, I'd rather have a pleasant time of it & choose to share those donuts

Not the best example I could use, but it makes the point well enough.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
this SHOULD be such an obvious and self evident statement - that a thread is superflous

but apparently not

time and time again - i seem to run into the delusion that " free speech is not TRUELY free - if it has consequences "

firstly - " consequences " can be positive , negative or neutral - people seem to conflate " consequences " with retribution or punishment

but hey

i maintain - that ALL actions have consequences [ speech is just another action ]

discuss

In general your consequences agrument is very sound. All actions due in fact have consequences, positive, negitive and neutral.

I think where the "Free Speak" discussion (and it has been going on for quite a while) gets confused has to do with INTENT of that speech.

Intent is hard to prove - but patterns of intent develop over time and repetition.

Example -

"Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater"

The intent of the person yelling could be to warn others of an actual fire.

The intent could be to cause panic.

In both cases the observable consequences are the same.

In the first case, it is forgivable even if no fire was present.

In the second, it is not forgivable but impossible to prove malice.

But, in the second perpetrator's case when more 'incite panic' case piled up against her the case can be made for a pattern of mal-intent and hence a crime.

Intent is notoriously hard to prove because we human's are so skilled at lying to ourselves particularly about our 'intentions'. We excuse out poor behavior because 'we meant well' and believe it.

An excellent on hidden intentions & motives that we all have to one degree or another:

samharris.org...

I think we need to be responsible for our speech, taking into account our audience, because of unintended consequences.

I want to hear what people really think and believe.

What is hateful, if not exactly criminal, is the incitement of hate and violence for the pursuit of some nebulous goal of the speaker.

a reply to: Nyiah

Do we punish people for simple beliefs, or do we wait until their beliefs become actions?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

Do we punish people for simple beliefs, or do we wait until their beliefs become actions?

What is the intent of the beliefs? Are they shared with others for simple debate, or purposes of incitement? FyreByrd above goes in to detail on this above me, so I'm not going to be a broken record less articulately, but suggest reading their post.

a reply to: Nyiah




Islam.

Now we all know Islam is peaceful and wonderful. But some of the Islamic faith are rather violent.


Do we punish the belief based on a trend?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

time and time again - i seem to run into the delusion that " free speech is not TRUELY free - if it has consequences "

And BTW, you're not wrong. However, I suppose the argument is that if you support free speech you probably should not actively try to intimidate other people who are saying things you don't like. Otherwise, they may do the same to you. The natural consequence of opening your mouth is that someone will hear what you have to say. If you say it loud enough, someone (somewhere) is bound to be offended. It doesn't mean you said anything wrong (otherwise everything you could possibly say would be wrong to someone). It just means everything upsets someone.

So maybe it would be best for EVERYONE to keep this in mind. It's very difficult to support free speech when you really just want to shut someone up. We've all been there.

Think lets be clear. Free speech does not and has NEVER existed. It isn't only controlled by the government it is controlled by your own peers and social circles. There is nothing extreme about me but I know full well there are things that I could think but could never say in a room full of people.

I think people have banded about the phrase free speech not actually understanding what it means to actually be free. If you live in a society (any society) you are bound by certain rules no matter what some people may think. Those rules also determine what is acceptable and what isn't and rightly sometimes if you say the wrong socially unacceptable thing that goes against the consensus you are going to get into trouble for it... don't like it... build your own island out of coke bottles and have your free place to live

a reply to: ChristianParr


I disagree.

Free expression has always existed and society and government has always looked for a way to suppress it.

originally posted by: ChristianParr
Think lets be clear. Free speech does not and has NEVER existed. It isn't only controlled by the government it is controlled by your own peers and social circles. There is nothing extreme about me but I know full well there are things that I could think but could never say in a room full of people.

I think people have banded about the phrase free speech not actually understanding what it means to actually be free. If you live in a society (any society) you are bound by certain rules no matter what some people may think. Those rules also determine what is acceptable and what isn't and rightly sometimes if you say the wrong socially unacceptable thing that goes against the consensus you are going to get into trouble for it... don't like it... build your own island out of coke bottles and have your free place to live

OK. Let's imagine that this "room full of people" you speak of is (potentially) everyone on planet earth. So every time you open your mouth you have to try not to offend anyone on earth with what you say. This is impossible, of course.

At any rate, it's entirely possible to say the most offensive things you can imagine without the people who may be most offended by it even understanding what you just said.

For example "The thought police" sounds so bad when you say it like that. But when you say something like "Cultural sensitivity" it sounds almost nice. Well, you can fertilize a lot of flowers with a truckload of bull#. I don't know what that means but it sure sounded funny.