Freedom of Speech DOES mean Freedom from Consequences.

Forums: Freedom Of Speech
Email this Topic • Print this Page

You have likely seen the slogan "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It is a popular slogan on the left today. It usually is a call to punish people for expressing the wrong opinion.

It is a stupid slogan.

Under this argument any North Korean is "free" get up on a crowded street of Pyongyang and shout that "Kim Jong Un is a fraud and a tyrant.". The fact that he has the ability to shout and be heard doesn't make him free. What suppresses speech in North Korea are the consequences that people face (work camp, torture).

In American History, Jo McCarthy had his Un-American Affairs Committee. People were blacklisted for having the wrong opinion. Their names were published. They were blacklisted, and unable to work or do business. What suppressed speech in the time of McCarthyism were the consequences that people faced (shame, inability to work in their fields). People suffered for the opinions they expressed. That was the goal of McCarthyism, to suppress speech.

This is the time of American liberalism. There are public calls for people with the wrong opinions to be publicly shamed and fired for holding the wrong opinions.
When people are blacklisted, shamed, or punished for expressing unpopular opinions, it suppresses speech.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,071 • Replies: 9

No top replies

I will make you more popular and express my agreement. Now this thread can get thumbed down even further...

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I believe that the Dixie Chicks would wholeheartedly agree with you.

0 Replies

If freedom of speech means consequence-free freedom of speech,
then extending freedom of speech to all is impossible.

Consider the following exchange between our friends Alice and Bob:

Alice: "Men suck at Math".
Bob: "Alice is a sexist pig for saying that."

Now would you stop Bob from calling a her sexist pig? If you do, then you're limiting his freedom of speech. But if you don't, then you're not allowing Alice to speak her mind without suffering adverse consequences.

***

I think the best we can do is stop government from punishing Alice for speaking her mind. We can't stop Bob from punishing her with speech of his own. There will be consequences for saying controversial things, in the form of verbal reprimands from other people.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

I suppose... if you consider a spoken response to be a consequence, than sure.

The problem is when people are punished in substantial ways, by losing their jobs or being shamed publicly, for expressing an opinion. If Alice and Bob are not co-workers there is no reason that Alice should be fired, or kicked out of school for expressing this opinion. Nor should she be blacklisted to prevent her from getting another job.

That is what is happening; people are getting hunted down by online vigilantes for expressing their opinions, who then pressure their employers to fire them.

If you punish people for expressing an opinion... whether that punishment means blacklisting them from practicing in their field, publicly shaming them, or jailing... you are restricting their freedom of expression.

Of course when you have a liberal lynch mob, there is also the risk of hurting innocent people.

Quote:

After a day of work at the Engineering Research Center at the University of Arkansas, Kyle Quinn had a pleasant Friday night in Bentonville with his wife and a colleague. They explored an art exhibition at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and dined at an upscale restaurant.

Then on Saturday, he discovered that social media sleuths had incorrectly identified him as a participant in a white nationalist rally some 1,100 miles away in Charlottesville, Va. Overnight, thousands of strangers across the country had been working together to share photographs of the men bearing Tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus. They wanted to name and shame them to their employers, friends and neighbors. In a few cases, they succeeded.

But Mr. Quinn’s experience showed the risks.

A man at the rally had been photographed wearing an “Arkansas Engineering” shirt, and the amateur investigators found a photo of Mr. Quinn that looked somewhat similar. They were both bearded and had similar builds.

By internet frenzy standards, that was proof enough.

Mr. Quinn, who runs a laboratory dedicated to wound-healing research, was quickly flooded with vulgar messages on Twitter and Instagram, he said in an interview on Monday. Countless people he had never met demanded he lose his job, accused him of racism and posted his home address on social networks.

Fearing for their safety, he and his wife stayed with a colleague this weekend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html?mcubz=0

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Right now, Trump is being shamed, clearly shamed, for his statements regarding the situation that occurred in Charlottsville. And it's coming not just from liberal sources, but really from all sides, including the public, the political spectrum, the military, business leaders, the arts, charitable groups, etc., and the shaming is accompanied by significant individuals and groups actively distancing thefrmselves from association with Trump.

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't people be expressing their outrage--which naturally results in consequences to the offending person, in this case the President, including people resigning from Presidential committees, and major charities cancelling events which were to be held at the Trump owned Mar-a-Lago site.

Even you, in another thread, have said that Trump's Charlottsville comments, including both what he has said, and what he has failed to say, constitute the worse thing he has ever done. So, don't you think he should experience some consequences for these things?

Shaming is not in the same category as blacklisting, or firing someone, even though its aim might be to get someone to stop publicly expressing certain opinions---and I think a great many people, quite rightly, would be very relieved if the President did cave in to pressure and stopped expressing these offensive opinions. You might even be among them.

Freedom of speech does not, and should not, mean freedom from consequences.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Shaming is not in the same category as blacklisting, or firing someone, even though its aim might be to get someone to stop publicly expressing certain opinions---and I think a great many people, quite rightly, would be very relieved if the President did cave in to pressure and stopped expressing these offensive opinions. You might even be among them.

I agree with you Firefly.

Criticism of clearly shameful public comments made by an elected official is absolutely appropriate. I have no problem with shaming Trump.

The liberal "activists" who are hunting down line cooks from grainy photos to get them fired is not OK. I sometimes go to pro-immigrant rallies. I would be pretty upset if some conservative goon snapped pictures to give to my employer.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Do you think any of the white supremacists,/Nazis/KKK members who were openly marching in Charlottsville, and chanting racial and anti-Semitic statements, should really expect to have their jobs protected from the consequences of these actions?

Suppose one of them was a teacher in your child's elementary school, would you really want him to be able to continue that employment?

It's one thing to defend the right to voice such repugnant views, people should have the right to express them--that is freedom of speech. But it is quite another matter to advocate freedom from consequences for such expressions, since that does afford them some degree of acceptability and a status at odds with other moral values. I think it's unrealistic not to expect that people might be fired for such views, for legitimate reasons, and very unwise to advocate "freedom from consequences".as a blanket position or philosophy.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Criticism of clearly shameful public comments made by an elected official is absolutely appropriate. I have no problem with shaming Trump.

Yep. Trump and family members who have chosen to become public figures by accepting positions as advisors. I continue to believe the first lady is exempt by virtue of being dragged in my the heels, so to speak.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

It is not only a stupid slogan, it's pernicious because those who use it have every intent to visit whatever harm they can on people with whom they disagree (See Cyclo for example)

Having said this, the First Amendment protects free speech from the State, not ideological miscreants.

If people want to degrade public discourse, unfortunately, they can.

Violence, however, is, thankfully, a criminal response to speech.

0 Replies

Freedom of Speech DOES mean Freedom from Consequences.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know