Parallel to freedom of speech is freedom of association. The consequence to exercising your right to free speech is that other people might decide you're too horrible a person to work with.
Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
well for example there is no law against standing in a public square, be it physical or virtual, and screaming racial epithets. The government cannot forbid it, and within certain limitations (eg "disruption of the peace") they cannot stop someone from doing it with law or force. It is free and protected speech, albeit abhorrent.
However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone.
Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
Depends on what you are saying. If you make a credible threat against someone, you can be held criminally liable for that. If you libel someone, they can sue you. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you want and the government can't block you from doing so. There's a very high legal bar for prior restraint. After the fact there are circumstances in which you could be in legal trouble.
This, too, seems more free than every before. Not all that long ago you could be fined and imprisoned for things like blasphemy and obscenity, never mind the whole anti-communist "red scare" that lasted for a few decades. There are loads of examples from just a few decades ago that would be unthinkable today.
I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
>but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?
commandlinefan|4 years ago
UncleMeat|4 years ago
debacle|4 years ago
"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
But I can't find an official source.
mc32|4 years ago
jcranmer|4 years ago
Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
neurobashing|4 years ago
However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone.
Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
ohgodplsno|4 years ago
[deleted]
hellcow|4 years ago
Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
JumpCrisscross|4 years ago
None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
Finnucane|4 years ago
arp242|4 years ago
I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
gruez|4 years ago
How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?