[tw04]

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to interact with you unless forced to.

What you're talking about isn't freedom of speech, it's freedom FROM responsibility. I don't think you're going to find very many people that want to sign up for: HNThrowaway262 can do whatever he wants and you just have to take it. That's a dictatorship or a monarchy, you might want to live in that society but I don't.

Your words and actions have consequences and SHOULD.

[Aqua]

And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody?

You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.

[tw04]

So do you have an example of someone being accused by one anonymous twitter user of sexual assault and subsequently had their career and life ruined?

[themacguffinman]

How about a truck driver that was accused of racism by a Twitter rando and was quickly fired from his job?

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...

[karpierz]

Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?

For example, if someone feels me up, should I be allowed to post on Facebook detailing the encounter? Am I allowed to name them? Can I tag their employers?

If I read about someone claiming that they've been felt up, can I forward it to my friends? Can I notify my employer if they're working at the same company as me?

Essentially, can you determine a line where my freedom to speak ends?

[zimablue]

Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime or otherwise libels them, in the UK at least. If someone has committed a crime, we have courts. We've been doing this for centuries.

[karpierz]

> Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime

Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press charges, do I avoid warning anyone?

[Proziam]

Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim.

As of now, we're so afraid of stopping people from coming forward that we've allowed those with evil intentions to weaponize our empathy.

[karpierz]

> Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim.

False speech isn't protected. Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation. I don't think that "people shouldn't knowingly lie" is a particularly hard stance on free speech.

[Proziam]

> False speech isn't protected.

It is to the extent that it isn't prosecuted as a matter of policy.

> Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation

And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?

[karpierz]

If you want to have a separate conversation on whether false speech is prosecuted in the United States, we can do that. But this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is how is "cancel culture" at odds with "free speech."

> And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question "Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?"

Okay, but then you aren't disagreeing with me; just posting a tangential point. In the example posted:

> If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial?

There's no indication that the claims are false, and if they are false, that the people making the claims aren't punished. All it asks is "is it okay to share information about an accusation, even if you aren't certain it's true?"

[pseudonym2020]

I think the issue arises due to the nature of the internet being such an amplification tool. In-person social networks are on the order of 100s or 1000s.

What I'm really afraid of is reaching an audience of hundreds of millions, and having them potentially inadvertently take my words out of context. Doxing is a hard problem to solve, but I'd really prefer a SWAT team not show up at my door. Statistically, you're much more likely to reach those few bad apples with an internet-sized megaphone.

I think disagreements are fantastic to work through and how we better ourselves, but some people react pretty horribly to them.

[mumbisChungo]

>Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech.

It is though, it's just that we as a society define which consequences you are free from as the speaker (ex. some legal consequences). The internet, and social media in particular, has profoundly changed how we think about the topic. In my opinion we'd be better off as a whole if we reevaluated our perspectives when presented with new information rather than avoiding discourse entirely in favour of dogma.

>and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening

This isn't a punitive action, it's a personal choice of your wife. AFAIK you are not entitled to sex with your wife whenever you so choose. A scenario in which a contract is terminated based on something said on social media (when there's no clause in the contract covering that particular thing) is fundamentally different, for example.

[lliamander]

> What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it?

No one is forcing you to listen to anything. I'm sure you've never been forced to read r/TheDonald, or watch Alex Jones talk. If any friends on social media links you to a paper on psychological differences between the sexes being rooted in biology, you are free to ignore the link or block them all-together. If a coworker or employee starts talking about immigration restriction in a way that sounds vaguely xenophobic, you're free to ask them to keep that kind of political talk out of the workplace.

This is about the freedom that the rest of us have to choose to listen to others' speech, and to be free to engage with it and come to our own conclusion about it.

> If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to interact with you unless forced to.

Those are not relevant examples.

[zimablue]

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech"

That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards.

Freedom of speech in the constitution is freedom from reprisal by the government

Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society.

Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract.

It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen.

I've noticed a trend with the woke side of the debate to get into like high-school level semantics - redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way - does anyone understand why this seems to be a trend?

[krapp]

>Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society.

"a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that?

>Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract.

You're just moving the goalposts around the definition of "speech" so that it conveniently doesn't include the contradictions to your premise. Racial slurs and directed harassment are obviously speech. If you believe there should be consequences for that, then you believe freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

[zimablue]

It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals.

Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassment, with some level of acceptable reprisals in employment and socially, depending on the context, but at a much lower level than is currently the case, with less arbitrary application of mob justice and employer discrimination"

It's not catchy but nor is it inherently contradictory. It's what I imagine JK Rowling, Chomsky et al would say if you spoke to them about their letter.

I really think it would be useful if the anti-free-speech side of the debate stopped with this semantics and straw men about freedom from reprisals, monarchies, directed racism. I think that a person should be free to discuss eg. spaces for trans vs non-trans women and where to draw the line on sports etc, to what level the BLM is a useful movement, the relative weight of cultural vs economic vs discrimination in explaining different outcomes across ethicities and genders, positive discrimination, without being fired, cancelled or becoming unemployable. That's what most free speech people think, and all these semantic points, false definitions and straw men are kind of a waste of time

[krapp]

You seem to believe the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" implicitly justifies all possible consequences. It doesn't, it merely implies that speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that the consequences of speech often, themselves, are as much a manifestation of free expression as the original speech.

Your own counterclaim, however, that "freedom from anything means freedom from the consequences of that thing" does not even allow for the reasonable, non-arbitrary consequences you're supporting, here.

You, I and tw04 are actually in violent agreement, but it seems your politics doesn't allow you to concede the possibility that the "other side" can hold a reasonable opinion.

[lliamander]

It's not clear that you and zimablue are in agreement unless you agree that the level consequences people are currently experiencing is excessive.

For a lot of us here, the phrase "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" comes across (not unreasonably) as support for firing trump supporters or people who question system racism (etc.) which is both unjust and foolish for a number of reasons.

We also need to consider whether it is just to fire someone for something offensive (but not illegal) they did offline that was surreptitiously recorded and uploaded to the Internet to feed mob outrage.

[krapp]

> It's not clear that you and zimablue are in agreement unless you agree that the level consequences people are currently experiencing is excessive.

I actually would agree with that, but I disagree that any consequence is always excessive.

>For a lot of us here, the phrase "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" comes across (not unreasonably) as support for firing trump supporters or people who question system racism (etc.) which is both unjust and foolish for a number of reasons.

I think it is unreasonable, or at least uncharitable, to assume the most extreme interpretation possible of a phrase simply because you disagree with the politics of the people using it.

That's exactly the sort of thing "a lot of us here" accuse progressives or "the left" of doing to them.

[SketchySeaBeast]

The implication that "abstract" discussion is acceptable seems to condone dog whistling, especially given that protesting much of that speech could be considered "redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way", as that coded redefinition by the speaker is literally what dog whistles require, but seems disingenuous outside of that context.

[zimablue]

That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.

I mean, that's literally what not voting for someone is - choosing to not hire them. But that's semantics.

I'm not sure how you draw the lines on all this - if someone is spending all day tell their Jewish co-worker they need to stop the "international bankers", is that OK? Is speaking hatefully in the abstract about a group of people acceptable?

[gowld]

"Jew bankers" is a nasty slur. But is it a slur because It's unfair to Jews to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers, or unfair to bankers to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers?

If you attack a person or a race by accusing them of misbehaviors, that doesn't mean it's wrong to oppese misbehaviors!

[SketchySeaBeast]

But that's not the dog-whistle - that's too overt. There's apparently a line here when things switch, when things switch from "direct harassment" to simply "objectionable". I'm curious as to where that is.

[zimablue]

I think that elected representatives are a special category in this, whilst technically you employ them they’re operating democracy not capitalism, so it’s different in many ways- it’s more reasonable to judge their character, the power imbalance is in their favor, positive discrimination for elected representatives seems more reasonable etc etc.

The lines will always be a little blurred, but international bankers isn’t a synonym for Jews, it might be a dog whistle but it would only be a problem for me if they know the colleague is Jewish and do this day in day out after being asked to stop.

I think so much of this discussion is wasted, and we’d be more productive just to pick a few examples and argue on them about whether we shift the line.

Eg. For me Damore shouldn’t have been fired and that’s when I realized that the woke thing wasn’t a right wing straw man, it really was running big Corp America

[commandlinefan]

> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech.

Yes, it does, actually. That is, in fact, the definition of freedom of speech.

[GoblinSlayer]

The consequence of speech should be speech.

[detaro]

So no advocating for policies, laws or actions anymore?

[gruez]

There's a difference between advocating for political change, and ruining someone's life.

[detaro]

There are connections between the two though, annoyingly often. Advocating for a policy change that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for a status quo that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for some group of people to be fired. It doesn't make sense to see speech just as a consequence-less thing, in both directions.

[gruez]

You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Otherwise you get into slippery slope territory where eg. you can argue anyone who's not protesting for BLM are implicitly supporting the cops, and therefore are ruining black people's lives.

[detaro]

Sure. Not everything warrants a reaction, impact of speech highly depends on the speaker and context and reactions can be not proportionate. But I don't think a blanket "speech shouldn't have consequences" really works, because it will often have them, and often is intended to have them.

[GoblinSlayer]

Ideally policies should be based on facts and reason, not just speech.

[detaro]

But speech and opinion-forming plays naturally a large role in it, especially in a democratic system. Lots of speech does have consequences (and lots of it is intended to have consequences that aren't just speech without further consequences). Speech shouldn't have consequences just doesn't work as an absolute position IMHO, and if it isn't then it's harder to explain that counter-speech isn't allowed to have consequences. (I'm explicitly not saying that every consequence is acceptable or justified)

[GoblinSlayer]

Blatant opinion shaping is corruption of democratic system. Democracy should be driven by informed decision, not by stupid propaganda.

[bokbok8379]

How about freedom of thought? Am I still allowed to have that?