[notanzaiiswear]

Not freedom of consequences: that is a bit too vague. What if the consequence is that somebody shoots you dead if you say the wrong thing? According to you, they still have free speech? Actually I think some real world dictator was literally making that joke, proclaiming that there is freedom of speech in his country. He just can't guarantee for the outcomes.

[marcinzm]

Then the murderer broke the law and will be prosecuted for that. If the government doesn’t prosecute them as they support the action then there’s no freedom of speech. This is why freedom of speech is generally discussed within the context of the government as the government enforces other laws.

[notanzaiiswear]

I mean if the government kills them, obviously. Would it then be free speech? Everybody could say what they want, it's just the consequence could be a death sentence.

[belltaco]

What about people who proclaim they didn't want to get the vaccine because of their freedom, and then die from covid as a consequence? Did they still have their freedom when forcibly intubated while in a medically induced coma?

Maybe people consider death as the ultimate freedom, freedom from interference of society.

[notanzaiiswear]

That is why people are supposed to have arrangements with other people who can decide for them when they are in coma. Usually it is family, but you can also designate other people.

At least in my country that is the case, not sure how the US handles it.

Certainly there are people who prefer to not be forcibly intubated. Or consider other cases where life supporting machines are even more gruesome.