On free speech - In essence, I think it must be "consequence free" speech to be meaningful.

[redgreenandblue]

There is a technical argument that gets made occasionally, which says that freedom of speech only means freedom from government issued censorship. While this may be how the constitution is frequently interpreted, I still think this is contrary to the purpose of freedom of speech.

My understanding is that free speech is necessary in a democracy, because corrective mechanisms cannot function without the free flow of ideas and criticism. One only need to look at authoritarian regimes to see why: Typically they end up with a host of problems which cannot be solved, because no one dares to voice them. Stifling free speech means committing oneself to an inflexible dogma which is unable to dynamically respond to a changing world, and in effect, painting oneself into a corner.

Viewed from such a pragmatic perspective then it is almost irrelevant who administers the censorship. If I can lose my job and thus my livelihood for things said in public, then this is just as detrimental to the free flow of ideas than actual laws implementing censorship. That I did not face jail time is almost an academic point. Some would rather spend, say, three months in prison than having their careers destroyed. If a society punishes people for speaking their mind in some severe way then the principle of free speech is not upheld and corrective mechanisms are suppressed.

[Vattel]

1. Interesting discussion. What you are saying is consistent with the ideals of workplace democracy

that so seldom get a hearing at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I 100% disagree.

Speech that is '100% consequence free' is meaningless, not meaningful. Nonsensical drivel, with no purpose other than to make noise.

If your speech is intended to HAVE meaning, to lead to consequences of any kind, changes of any kind, is, therefore, 'meaningful', then you have to risk having consequences other than the ones you intended. Speech that matters will be opposed, because people are resistant to change.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. And pure, unsullied, unedited Truth, because people only want it when

it saves their life, exposes their enemies, and makes the cake bake at the right tempature .

[daleanime]

5. Nice way to put it.

[rock]

6. I agree with Erich Bloodaxe BSN 100%.

Free speech needs consequences. People need to exercise judgment in it's use.

[daleanime]

3. Yes and no....

speech should be free of consequences, but not the intent of the speech. If some one is trying to be deliberately provocative, then that speech should be censored.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Would you be willing to start with the churches and mosques that hurl invective at LGBT

people and at other faith groups? Shut those provocative fuckers down first. How's that?

[daleanime]

23. OK, between both responses I understand that 'censored' is a poorly chosen word.....

my point is that anyone has a right to say what ever shit they want to, but it comes with the consequence of being called out on it.

I'm willing to discuss almost anything, but if the words coming out of your mouth are shit, I'm going to tell you that. Now I will try to smile while doing so, but I make no promises.

[Panich52]

26. 'Hurling invectives,' no, but inciting violence? Yes.

As disgusting as the Sunday Christians' xenophobic hate-mongering is, it may be paet of the noticeable decline in organized rligion's numbers.

But too many of them actually incite violence: 'stone all the gays' is just one example. Not only I this a SCOTUS exception to free speech tenets, I think jail time wouldn't be out of line.

Free speech means having the right to let everyone know you're a racist, bigoted ass, but exounding on endangering the health of your target 'evil ones,' especially for those seen as leaders, is not the intent of codifying free speech.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. So you would have the government censor

Speech because it is provocative. Wow. Martin Luther King was provocative. His speeches provoked violent reactions. Every political dissident in history engaged in provocative speech.

[daleanime]

22. Who said government?

Wow, need a match for that strawman?

What was the intend of MLK speeches? There's a clear difference between speech that is a call to action and a speech that cries out for blood. People have a right to react as a appropriate.

Feel free to misunderstand.

[Exilednight]

8. Here's a conundrum, let's say that

Rush Limbaugh goes on another tirade about unions, as a CONSEQUENCE Union leaders call for a boycott of Rush's advertisers, and as a CONSEQUENCE of a true boycott thousands of people lose their jobs.

Can you really have freedom of speech without consequences?

[redgreenandblue]

10. Glad you asked about Limbaugh.

Even though I think people should be able to say what they want, I do not think that people are necessarily entitled to being paid for their speech. So yeah, there is a catch when people make a living by speaking: It goes beyond free speech and into the question as to which products are purchased and which are not.

Rush Limbaugh is free to stand on the side of the road holding a sign with an offensive message all day, or make a million offensive blog posts. I think that the network he works for should not be able to fire him solely for that. But I also think people are within their right to suggest to other people they should stop helping him fund his offensive messages.

So yeah, in practice the world is complicated...

[Yorktown]

9. 90% agree

Free speech must be free. Start punishing free speech, and it's not free anymore.

The only limitations should be hateful, damaging speech against people.

But (to take a recent example), ideologies (Islam) can't take refuge behind people (muslims).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Hmmmm

The only limitations should be hateful, damaging speech against people

Does that mean I couldn't criticize a Hitler, a Pol Pot, an Idi Amin in the most vituperative of terms for fear of sanctions?

[gollygee]

16. I assume he's talking about slander n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Slander is already actionable.

But I can't be publicly sanctioned for saying I hate specific people.

[gollygee]

18. Yes and what I'm reading is that he thinks slander should continue to be actionable. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. He seems to want to go further than that and ban "hate speech" but I will let him speak for himself.

[gollygee]

21. I didn't read it that way

but hopefully he'll return. It's interesting how different people can read the same sentences and take away something different, but I suppose that's the nature of written speech.

[kentuck]

11. In theory, you have the right to free speech ..

In practice, not so much.

You have the right to march against injustices but, in practice, you may meet a lot of resistance. You may be physically abused or jailed.

There is a price to pay for not going along.

[1939]

13. Jimmy the Greek

He is the one i feel bad about. He was asked a question and tried to honestly explain it to the best of his belief and without malice. Instead of trying to show where his interpretation of human development was wrong and discussing it with him, his career was immediately terminated by an "off with his head" movement

[cali]

14. by your interesting standards, a teacher could say despicable things to students and

be free from any consequence. Excuse me, but fuck that noise.

And that's just ONE example.

[redgreenandblue]

29. A teacher has a specific duty to fulfill.

Saying offensive things in class is detrimental to the goals of that duty, which are to educate children. I think it is reasonable to expect people to do their jobs, and not engage in activities which run contrary to the purpose of those jobs while in the process of doing them.

However, I do not think a teacher should face consequences for things said over a glass of beer while not on duty.

[LanternWaste]

31. Adding post hoc qualifiers to your original premise.

Consistently adding post hoc qualifiers to your original premise is a guaranteed way to prevent valid discussion.

[gollygee]

15. Totally disagree

People have a right to say what they want, and other people have a right to respond to that speech. Life is not free of consequences. If I found out I was employing a racist jerk, I would fire them, and I should have that right. I shouldn't have to have a racist jerk offending my customers and hurting my company's reputation. Other indivuduals have rights too, and to give someone freedom from any consequences for their speech is to limit the rights of other people.

[kcr]

24. There cannot be "consequence free" speech without free flowing ideas.

Because you can't give everyone consequence free speech. You either want free speech or consequence free speech. You can't have both.

[99Forever]

25. Horsepucky.

You are "free" to say any stupid thing you want. You are also "free" to reap the consequences of doing so when they happen. Don't like them? Then don't prove you are a fool by running off at the mouth and you'll remain consequence "free."

[seabeyond]

27. ya? no! at the point insisting your free speech entitles me to not speak, it is an obvious, no!

[kentuck]

28. Free speech vs free speech is not the problem...

Free speech vs the threat of violence, from the authorities or from other citizens is the problem. Have you ever been tear-gassed?

[Oktober]

30. Silly...

... Under that standard you can call your boss an asshole to his face and proclaim your love for NAMBLA during your job as a day care worker.

The system is fine as is and your standard would be completely unenforceable.

[LanternWaste]

32. Are not those same consequences part and parcel of someone else's free speech?

Are not those same consequences part and parcel of someone else's free speech? From boycotts to shunning to ignoring to firing someone, these too are parts of someone's free speech