Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: introvert

I can't stand it. What does a professed introvert do for a living?

I write service reviews for hookers on Yelp for a living.

I do a variety of things.

It's complicated and I'm not sure if I'm ready to give-up the details quite yet.

It sounds like you may be one of the people I reviewed! What a coincidence!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Free Speech is only protected from the government.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Being academically correct won't save you from a freshly opened can of whoopass.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Nuance.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: introvert

I can't stand it. What does a professed introvert do for a living?

I write service reviews for hookers on Yelp for a living.

I do a variety of things.

It's complicated and I'm not sure if I'm ready to give-up the details quite yet.

It sounds like you may be one of the people I reviewed! What a coincidence!

Thank you for your patronage.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Apparently self-evident truths are no longer evident to many selves.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Apparently self-evident truths are no longer evident to many selves.

Good point, however according to the definition of liberty, it is hazy.

One such definition suggests free will to do or say as one pleases. Certainly if one pleases to harm physically or kill, well, in the U.S. that is against the law.

This definition, per mirriam webster, seems the most applicable:

a :  a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant :  privilegeb :  permission especially to go freely within specified limits 

Within specified limits, or else repercussion or consequence. As prescribed or defined by who, well, i dont make the rules.

a reply to: CreationBro

There are prescriptions on the Freedom of Speech. However, none of them have to do with offending other's feelings. Fighting words are not protected. As the Constitution is a living document, then what constitutes fighting words can be adapted to the times or, more specifically, evolve to meet modern conceptions. However, I don't believe calling someone names has ever been deemed fighting words by the SCOTUS.

In stating that people should have the right to physically react to another's words is to hope that our rights become further limited. I disagree with any further reduction in our civil liberties. Perhaps we should instead agree to act like adults. When someone's words make us angry, instead of lashing out like a 6 year old, why don't we control our emotions. You know, like rational beings?

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

That requires certain mental disciplines, disciplines that some seem unable or unwiling to learn or adhere to.

In an ideal world though Toby, wouldnt it be incredible?

here is my view. you have the right to free speech,but not the right to be heard.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Edward Snowden, Julian Assange', Chelsea Clinton, Gary McKinnon are still suffering real life consequences for their right to free speech.

There is speech that gets you accolades, speech that gets you boo's, speech that gets you clocked at rallies, speech that gets you killed and speech that gets you, your family and your friends killed.

If there were no humans and no emotions involved then anyone could say whatever is on their minds with no chance of negative repercussions, but alas, the stupid humans and their uncontrollable emotions and actions. (emphasis on the word 'uncontrollable')

Sounds like you're blaming the victim. Truth is, unless you're saying speech is manipulating your actions, you clock people at rallies by your own choices and actions.

a reply to: yuppa

HEY!

you have the right to free speech,but not the right to be heard

I love it!

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you have just exposed yourself.

There's reality and then then there's the way you'd like it to be. Seldom, if ever, the same.

Truthfully, everyone wants to be able to say exactly how they think and feel but most, hold their tongue (except internet trolls) so as not to hurt or inflame others and especially be excommunicated socially.

Reality is and the consequences-for everything you say and do- are ultimately your own responsibility. And sometimes that can be really bad. Not right-but that's the reality.

This really doesn't have to be overthought.

Yet you're saying speech has an effect of which it isn't the cause, that people cannot choose their own actions and that words do it for them.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Free Speech is only protected from the government.

Some governments are indeed better at protecting free speech than its citizens. It is rare when citizens defend and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, and much less citizens of other countries.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You seem not to understand the risks that come with free speech. And you seem not to understand that being aware of the risks and consequences do not mean that you are against free speech. It's just being sensible.

If I told you that I am a holding a gun behind my back and will kill you what would you do? I have the freedom of speech to say that to you.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Being academically correct won't save you from a freshly opened can of whoopass.

I don't wish to control another's actions. But my beliefs will save me from censoring others.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You seem not to understand the risks that come with free speech. And you seem not to understand that being aware of the risks and consequences do not mean that you are against free speech. It's just being sensible.

If I told you that I am a holding a gun behind my gun and will kill you what would you do? I have the freedom of speech to say that to you.

If you threatened me with harm or violence I would make sure to attack you first.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you threatened me with harm or violence I would make sure to attack you first.

Thanks for your honesty.
Now you understand that free speech comes with risks. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you are free of consequences.
I wish this was an ideal world but it is not.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't wish to control another's actions. But my beliefs will save me from censoring others.

So? Your beliefs won't save you from others censoring you.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you threatened me with harm or violence I would make sure to attack you first.

Thanks for your honesty.
Now you understand that free speech comes with risks. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you are free of consequences.
I wish this was an ideal world but it is not.

That's quite the non sequitur. The fact that I would act is a consequence of my not taking threats against my life lightly, not because of free speech.