[amadeuspagel]

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that.

It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech. The consequence for critizizing Kim Jong Un in Noth Korea is that you get thrown into a labor camp. Freedom of speech, after all, does not mean freedom from consequences.

The fundamental error here is to speak of consequences as if they are things that just happen, like a law of nature, and not a conscious attempt to punish people.

[pwinnski]

I think you are over-focusing on the word "consequences" here. Nobody is saying all consequences are fair play.

"you get thrown into a labor camp" seems to be a different kind of consequence than "others use their free speech to disagree with you."

I don't like it when my bad ideas or ignorant statements or heck, even my true but unpleasant statements are criticized by people who either know better than I do or worse, don't, but nobody is actually throwing me in a labor camp. I can continue to speak back to my critics and either accept their correction or continue to disagree with them.

[cgrealy]

The consequences frequently are an attempt to punish people and often justifiably so.

If someone says something racist, homophobic or sexist, then yeah, maybe I want to punish them by not buying their product or not voting for them or whatever.

But we can judge the response on its merits too.

Being thrown in jail for criticism of the government? Not ok. (Reductio ad absurdum, btw... no one has suggested that what someone says gives you carte blanche)

Boycotting homophobic sandwich restaurant? Totally fine.

Firing your employee for something they said on their own time? Exceptionally murky and very much case by case.

[happytoexplain]

>Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech.

The trajectory of the argument doesn't point anywhere near that conclusion.