[JadeNB]

> 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.

[FeepingCreature]

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.)

[shadowgovt]

The only speech that has no impact on that entire spectrum of human interaction is things never said.

I don't think people generally want a lack of response to their speech (if they did, they're saying nothing... Just making babbling noises best ignored). People want freedom from negative consequences. In short, people want to eat their cake and have their cake.

This is why every country ends up with laws that carve out some spectrum of consequences as inappropriate, but those laws are not all-encompassing... It is functionally impossible to eliminate all the consequences you've listed from the table while still giving listeners freedom to be their own independent agents and modify their behavior in reaction to speech. In particular, the last category you listed is a huge infringement on personal liberty of generally applied... I assume you don't expect a person in a committed relationship, hearing their partner say "I hate everything about my partner and I wish we'd never met," to not modify or end the relationship? Any legal infringement on their right to do so is an obvious curtailment of their rights.

In short, sometimes freedom of speech and freedom of association collide. One is a freedom of the speaker, the other freedom of the listener.

[JadeNB]

> Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences: … of relationship risks.

Wait, seriously? If I choose whether to have a relationship with someone based on the things they say, then you regard that as an infringement on their freedom of speech? You do later say:

> … other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)

… but I don't really understand this as a statement of position. It seems to be saying that freedom of speech should not have consequences, except when it does, except when it doesn't, and I wind up not really sure what position is being espoused.

[FeepingCreature]

I'm saying freedom of speech should not have unwanted consequences, and in that sense it cuts far beyond what anyone considers reasonable. However, that doesn't make the definition wrong; it just means we better get comfortable with balancing conflicting interests.