>freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

>freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
It literally does though

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It literally doesn't.
    At most you could say it means freedom from consequences from the government.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Freedom of speech is a concept, not an amendment.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        And your version of the concept is moronic.
        Like all things, there are limits.
        You cannot conspire to kill someone and then claim "freedom of speech".
        You cannot lie and slander someone's reputation without being sued for libel.
        You cannot shout fire in a crowded movie theater.
        You are not protected if you insult your boss and get fired.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you have the freedom to say anything
      >but if you say stuff we don't like we will imprison you
      ahah

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It does not.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Freedom of speech in the past had its concern on the government. That is because in the past there was no mass media and people generally worked for themselves. Thus the only entity that could do anything bad was the government. Now things are different. The mass media can run hit pieces omnidirectional for everyone in the country to read. And most people work for an employer and thus can be fired. So if people cared enough which they should, they were amend the constitution to broaden the protection now that massive corporations have tremendous power over people. And if this is not protected, then eventually all speech will be quashed that is not in the interests of the largest corporations.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

      Corporations ARE people though. Based Republicans?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        They are, but they shouldn't be. Corporations are made up of people, but are not people.
        >Based Republicans?
        Bruh.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Corporations are made up of people, but are not people.
          You should read the case.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You should read the case
            The Supreme Court was wrong. Corporations should never have been considered people and their charters should be more strictly governed such that they must serve a public good as was the original intent for such a license. Also money being speach was an equally offensive blunder by the court. But what do you expect? It's been a generation or longer since the high court took seriously the bit of their job being to objectively interpret law in light of constitutionality.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It literally does though
    True.
    It's not a crime to say whatever, generally. But Blacks will commit violent crimes against you for exercising thar right if what you say offends their snowflake feelings.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't. The freedom is from the state taking action on you. The freedom here isn't even absolute, but it is by all intents and purposes free. The potential consequences comes from outside of the state and from society.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If I let you on my lawn and you express something I disagree with. I can ask you to leave. On government land on the other hand? The rules might be different. But ironically you chuds are against nationalizing private industries.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences delivered by the law. Getting banned on reddit isn't legal punishment.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No self respecting person with reputable opinions willing to speak truth to power remains unbanned for long on reddit.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    So if someone says he wants to frick children I still have to hire him as my babysitter?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. Don't be stupid. Now you're crossing over into discrimination. In which case freedom of speech doesn't overlap with that.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        So "descrimination" means you can be fired for saying "I want to frick children", but not shouting in the office "Frick Black folk!"
        ah, I see

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is Freedom of Speech, but there is also Freedom of Association. You can speak, but people don't have to listen to you, nor do they have to associate with you or give you a platform.
    This is not a consequence to your free speach, but rather it is people exercising their natural rights same as you.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    freedom of speech is a fantasy concept for peaceful, post-scarcity societies that even if it were possible in the modern landscape has no place in a world where enemies can influence your children.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Freedom
    Heh

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's fun to apply this to other parts of the first amendment. they get real mad.
    >freedom of press is not freedom from consequences
    >freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences
    etc

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have the freedom to speak the truth but only the complete and to the best of your ability, which should uphold in court. If your intentions are to cause harm or illegal activities you are not free to speak.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't like when people add the "not freedom from consequences" because it implies you should be afraid of saying what needs to be said. As long as you don't defame, cause panic or incite violence, you should be good really. So why do people say it?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      freedom of association. I don't have to work with you if you say something I find abhorrent.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's hardly a consequence.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Other people aren't forced to listen to you, provide you with a platform, engangement, and they are allowed to ostracise you.

    Even if everything is rigged towards chuds and they are artificially boosted like on twitter, they still cry about muh freeze peach and the evil censorship of people voluntarily installing a 3rd party extension to not have to look at them.

    The ideal free speach for chuds is tying the world to a chair and then screaming in it's face through a megaphone.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The less consequences the more free the speech is, of course.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *