[nv-vn]

No. That is a strawman of their argument. They are saying that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for your speech. I don't really agree with their argument, but what they are saying is more nuanced than the way you've interpreted it. They are arguing for societal freedom of speech (morality instead of laws, I hope), meaning that you are free to speak but nobody has to listen. Consequences like firing someone from their job is different from not listening.

[ucaetano]

It was an honest question, not an argument.

I had said: "Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech", by which I was talking that private people and organizations do not have to give you the space and time for you to voice your speech.

His/her reply was that governments kill people so you should be free of the consequences of your speech.

The implication of this argument (being free of the consequences) means, for example, that your family can't not invite you over for Christmas because you're racist. Or that your friends can't stop hanging out with you, or that someone can't stop employing you.

Those are all consequences of your speech, and you're not protected from them (with a few exceptions).

[conradoqg]

I agree with you on "nobody has to give you space or time to voice your speech". If you want to be free to speak your opinion but there are harsh consequences, that speech wasn't really "free". A lot of people will agree with you, a lot will not. My point is, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in our society, it's not an absolute freedom, and I'm OK with that. Our society will take a long time before we can truly accept freedom of speech and all its consequences. The other side is: What we have always seen in our society is if you think differently than the main stream thought you should be aware that will be consequences.

What do you think?

[ucaetano]

> My point is, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in our society, it's not an absolute freedom, and I'm OK with that.

I'm ok with that, but I'd rephrase as "there is no absolute freedom of speech", or even better, "there is no absolute freedom" in our society, and I'm ok with that.

> Our society will take a long time before we can truly accept freedom of speech and all its consequences.

Do you mean

(1) (freedom of speech) and (freedom of the consequences of speech)

or

(2) accept (freedom of speech) and (consequences of speech)?

> What we have always seen in our society is if you think differently than the main stream thought you should be aware that will be consequences.

IMHO, there is no mainstream, only the immediate surroundings. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" next to that engineer who got fired will probably help you make a friend. Saying that in front of a woman will probably help you make an enemy.

Both are consequences of speech. You make, and lose, friends based on your speech. Why would someone find the positive consequences of your speech acceptable, but not the negative ones?

In life, there are always consequences. IMHO, the key part of being an adult is recognizing that your acts will have consequences, and being willing to face those consequences, positive or negative.

[conradoqg]

> I'm ok with that, but I'd rephrase as "there is no absolute freedom of speech", or even better, "there is no absolute freedom" in our society, and I'm ok with that.

I think our opinions are much alike at this point.

> Do you mean

I mean 1. I think one day we should accept freedom of speech and freedom of the consequences. That will prevent bad/good ideas to gain further power and bad/good ideas to appear as an option. Offcourse which one is bad/good will depend on the judgment of the person who listens.

> IMHO, there is no mainstream, only the immediate surroundings. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" next to that engineer who got fired will probably help you make a friend. Saying that in front of a woman will probably help you make an enemy.

Mainstream = conventional, normal. So we could say we have both, the mainstream and your surrounds (probably your surrounding has more power than the mainstream, don't know)

> Both are consequences of speech. You make, and lose, friends based on your speech. Why would someone find the positive consequences of your speech acceptable, but not the negative ones?

Agree, both are. Usually, I often disagree with my best friends, sometimes our opinions are very, very different, and as far he doesn't act against my rights (settled by laws and our society), I'll accept and tolerate our divergence.If the opinion is too different, probably there will be no willingness to talk with each other. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" will make problems, I personally strongly disagree with that phrase, however, I wouldn't fire him because of that, is his opinion, and I respect that as far he doesn't break the law. (He would have a hard time trying to convince me of that, I would say that a warm discussion would happen)

> In life, there are always consequences. IMHO, the key part of being an adult is recognizing that your acts will have consequences, and be willing to face those consequences, positive or negative.

I also agree with that. I hope one day our society would be mature enough to separate opinions from consequences.

[ucaetano]

Wait, we agree on all points? Meh, this is boring :)

Oh, I found something to pick on:

> I'll accept and tolerate our divergence

Would you continue to be friends in the same way with someone who came out and said "I just joined the KKK!"?