[isitmadeofglass]

> If it only includes the things people would be ok with you saying, there would be no need to protect it as a right.

We have freedom of speech protected as a right to allow speech against government and oppressive institutions. Not to protect you from spending the night in jail because you decided to use your speech to hurl insults at your neighbor for 6 hours straight to disturb a barbecue party you feel they should have asked you permission to hold.

Speech is not just hollow wind, speech is actions, and some actions we protect.

You have freedom of movement, but you still get arrested if you trespass. You have freedom to own a gun and shoot it at animals, but if you shoot ar humans for sport you end up facing consequences.

Somehow for almost all other freedoms we have, everyone understand that their are limitations, but as soon as the subject falls on speech everyone acts like a 6 year old kid going “ok, so I can say anything without consequence!?! Mom is a whore and Dad is a drunk!” And then whine about their speech not being free because it has consequences when they go to bed without dinner.

[amadeuspagel]

Yes, there is indeed a difference between freedom of speech and other freedoms.

I don't think there's any society in history that has not allowed more freedom in speech then in action.

Kindergarten kids are taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

Parents ask their children who was the first to use violence in a fight, and ignore attempts to explain that the violence was provoked with an insult.

[isitmadeofglass]

> I don't think there's any society in history that has not allowed more freedom in speech then in action.

Speech is action. Therefore axiomatically every society has always allowed more freedom in action than in speech because speech in being action is a subset of actions. You may be thinking about the difference between taking about a thing and doing the thing mentioned, and there there are obviously any cases where speaking about it is allowed but doing it isn’t, but that doesn’t mean you are more free in speech than in action, imagine how foolish that ends up sounding in Comparison between freedom of ownership and speech. “I am free to say that I own my butler but I am not free to actually own him, this shows I am more free in speech than i am in ownership!”

> Kindergarten kids are taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

Is a lie repeatedly told to children yes. And kids are taught to be nice otherwise the magical chimney man won’t give them gifts. The saying is obviously wrong to anyone who’s no longer a kid. Word can cause very real long term psychological trauma. The reason parents tell their kids this saying to get them to ignore the very real pains they feel when bullied ignored or neglected. That’s just bad parenting, and doesn’t really have any relevance in a discussion about freedom of speech.