[throw-qqqqq]

I usually just quote Snowden instead:

    “Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

[charcircuit]

I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts. One does not require believing in the other. For example I believe the former, but for the latter I believe everyone should be punished when they break the law.

[JoshTriplett]

People should have consequences for what they say, but not from the government. You should never be prosecuted for what you say, no matter how vile. But other people are free to exercise their rights in response, including freedom of association.

[Fnoord]

> I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts.

'Saying' is an example of 'doing', and the moderation to speech happens after the fact, including (yes) in USA. Consider the case of a person yelling fire or 'he's got a gun!' when there is none, or a death threat.

[HellDunkel]

Not as clever as it may sound. It is perfectly possible that someone has nothing to hide in a good way, whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual. So in a way this is comparing apples to bad apples and claiming they are perfectly equal.

[ambicapter]

> whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual

Huh? You can’t imagine boring people as a “good faith social individual”?