That's not the company into which I'd prefer to be lumped as a believer in free speech with consequences. I'm not sure whether or not that was your point ….
> I'm saying that unless you're really careful to specify what sort of "consequences" you're talking about, it's hard to separate your beliefs from his.
Since you refer to them as "my beliefs", I assume that yours are different. With no sarcasm, what are your beliefs? If you argue against the claim that freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences, is your position that freedom of speech should come with freedom from consequences? Surely it's not hard to imagine how that, too, can be a dangerous position to take.
Different poster, but I believe that freedom of speech not just does, but must come with freedom from consequences to be at all meaningful. Of course, there is nowhere that actually has that level of freedom of speech, but seen as a spectrum it makes sense.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences:
- of government reprisals
- of corporate reprisals
- of criminal reprisals
- of employment risks
- of relationship risks.
Pick and choose which matter to you. To me, freedom of speech applies to all, but other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)
Certainly. Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences, as they say.