Freedom of speec does not mean freedom of consequences

A Soviet joke:

>What is the difference between the Constitutions of the US and USSR? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech.
Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.

Freedom of speech literally means your speech will not have consequences, otherwise it's just an acknowledgement that it is not literally possible to physically stop someone from saying something.

freedom of speech is worth dying for. fuck your consequences. they are nothing compared to what Socrates did for Athens.

Attached: socrates.jpg (966x1600, 223K)

>Freedom of speec does not mean freedom of consequences

And yet you have the nerve to say such a stupid thing, because you are counting on there being no consequences to saying it.

Two way street.

They have little to do with each other. Freedom of speech simply limits government control on speech

That's exactly what it means. If "free speech" just means "the ability to say on a street corner what no newspaper, website or TV channel will allow," then it might as well not even be in the Constitution.

Free speech isn't a rule, it's a value. It's the idea that honest discussion leads to the truth, and thus that the more honest we are, the more truth we can uncover, and the better we can orient our society thereby.

If you really believe in that value, how do you justify standing by and letting other viewpoints get de facto censored by companies unwilling to associate with them? And if you're okay with that censorship, how can you say that you have that value?

>What's the counter argument?
Freedom to shut the fuck up.

>Harassment

Lol
It does tho

In the context of social consequences it's not a problem with the statement itself but its interpretation by idealogue shitheads. these faggots try to argue that mean words are a form of violence so therefore if you object to abortion you are fair game for assault with a deadly weapon.

That it's okay to beat faggots and communists because they've decided political violence is acceptable?

Attached: 1560875995306.png (1906x1410, 264K)

freedom of religion does not mean freedom from consequences, Islam and atheism are harmful to the west and must be expunged

Freedom of thought does not mean freedom from consequences, liberalism is a cancer destroying the west and liberals must be purged

that's not how it works

consequences will never be the same

It's a non sequitur user, what they are saying is just a passive aggressive way of saying: "we're gonna get you". The answer is to speak your mind, and if they escalate, double down.There is no "counter argument".

>consequences
What consequences? Having your rights taken away from you? That's not how the 1A works. You don't take away someone's 2A and 4A because they wanted to express their 1A.

It's a meaningless phrase that applies to anything because it isn't bounded by any actual principle.

>Freedom of [X] exists under the law, but we'll still attack you for doing [X]

That's all it is. Insert anything in there for X. That's the form of the "argument" here.

Backtracked you

youtu.be/XPAt2mLP_KE

Rule 303
If you have the means you may do it.

Rights are irrelevant to this matter as rights are negotiated state between your being, God, and the natural and unnatural authorities.

This. It's not freedom of speech if you get threatened, intimidated, or punished. That's literally the whole point.

Freedom of The Press but not freedom from the consequences.

Attached: india-journalists.jpg (1200x875, 440K)

North kora has free speech didn’t you know? It’s just the consequences are death XD

Freedom of speech is a myth, prove me wrong, burgers.

FPBP

That's exactly what it means. A consequence is a cost. If there is a cost, then it is not free. You have a choice; free or with cost. If you want a cost, then you do not want freedom.

It is freedom of consequences from the government. A private entity can do whatever they want based on your words and/or actions.

This. I will die for freedom of speech.

"Freedom of speech" is a cultural concept. It's not reliant on any particular government or law.

The only consequence free speech should have is a rebuttal. Any other 'consequence' is anti-American and domestic terrorism.

Attached: 1F4303D1-937B-403D-8704-88F910806B9D.png (500x605, 90K)

The cost is freedom for all. Free speech for you, but also free speech for me. You say something I dont like, I say something you dont like. You pay by having to listen to and deal with other peoples freedom.

these retards don't even believe in freedom of speech, they want to control what you can say. they think "hate speech" should be illegal, but anything could fall under their definition of hate.

Correct free speech is freedom to speak without fear of aggression and of course a counter argument is always interesting.
The left have failed miserably on this front. Intimidation and decommissioning free speech online is a form of narrative control. Bad form.

Attached: 1FFEE361-5370-4004-BA3A-C4075113E62E.jpg (125x125, 3K)

"Hate speech" is very dynamic. What is hate speech for some, may not be for others. Race, gender, age, income, etc. all play into what is and isn't called "hate speech" by those who use that phrase.

>gadsen flag
>corporate cocksucking
Ancap-land is that way, friend.

chimping out on people over word is illegal though you stupid braindead faggot

Freedom requires the ability to do choose to do evil or good. The ability to do evil is a requirement, otherwise you're not free. Accept that you either don't want freedom or you want to micromanage your kind of 'good'.

Freedom of speech != state enforced newspeak.
Consequences != having a right to not be offended

You don't have free speech. Talk about the holohoax IRL and stuff might happen

libel/slander aren't allowed despite "free" speech?

i feel like the only real people in this thread are you and me.

There's a lot of bots on Jow Forums, but I hope not that many.

If you assault someone for free speech or threaten them you go to jail.
So no. You are wrong.

Shouldn't that say freedom FROM consequences?

It means the left is allowed to be violent over your speech, but when you do it over theirs it's racist and anti-semitic.

>Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences

Everyone says this now. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. The terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the foul ideological heart of their act of terror. "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like, but you might suffer for it." Which is another way of saying, "You can say what you like, but I wouldn't if I were you." Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it at all."

Banal uncontroversial speech hasn't ever needed protecting. Freedom of speech and the idea behind it has always been for the controversial shit that might rustle some jimmies.

Attached: 1562465554041.gif (600x431, 1.12M)

>What's the counter argument?

The people who say that don't even believe in free speech. They are arguing in bad faith.

Attached: 1435706762121.png (500x330, 17K)

I agree. The consequences of spreading degeneracy is holocaust

The counter argument is that Freedom of speech DOES mean it's freedom from consequences. That is the whole point. You can't be treated like shit, killed etc. for your opinion, religious beliefs and so on. That's exactly what the 1st amendment means. Freedom from consequences.

The government is supposed to be there to protect your rights.

>What's the counter argument?

Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Attached: gallows.jpg (1004x795, 146K)

Your (((consequences))) have consequences. WAR BITCH

The first amendment doesn't protect your from consequences because that's what the 2nd is for.

Attached: 1568250158446.jpg (944x593, 74K)

It's exactly what it mean and you need to be an absolute retard to think otherwise.

Old America :1 Do what you want aslong as you don't hurt anybody else

New America Nigger : KIll KIll

These two think directed speech at someone is protected and is the same as just openly speaking publicly

Someone steps up to you and says
>Say that again to my face
That means shut up or they will do violence against you.
>Therefore you are in a fight
The correct response is to fuck them up.

IM GONNA KILL ALL BLACK PEOPLE WITH MACHINE GUNS!
bitchute.com/video/pIPrYt4luluu/

Based

The counter argument is "ok i agree, let's round up all the journalists and media pundits who have been lying and make sure they face the conseqeunces"

If we can just impose consequences for any action then who is free at all?

Based

Attached: freedom of the press.jpg (894x894, 365K)

At the base of everything: might makes right. No one is truly free unless they have the power to eliminate people who would restrict their freedom. You may be de facto free if whoever has power is gracious enough to leave you alone.

>What's the counter argument?

Pic related

Attached: 1568516225224.gif (400x223, 1.62M)

Yes and the consequences of your statement shall be judged as you are treading on our constitution. Free speech means exactly that, I can say whatever I want and if you don't like it don't listen. Otherwise the statement you made can be construed by someone to be offensive and hence you should be punished. Do you get it now.. If not your IQ must be about 45

Unless you're a democrat.

Attached: manshow.png (195x195, 47K)

I thought that was meant for governments and their protégés, not between citizens. If you act like an idiot, I am free to take my business elsewhere.

>New captcha: Shadowban or selling gold accounts?

>Freedom of the press does not mean freedom of consequences.

Propagandists get the rope.

...and what would those be? Not talking to me asserts preexisting freedom of association. Gonna commit battery or libel, tough guy?

>freedom
We restrict freedom in basically all civilization. You losing the ability to do evil without consequence is restricted too. That we let you talk about it at all is about as unrestricted as you can get in functioning iterated trust games.

Unfettered freedom as you see it always results in warlords for the very reason you describe, which is why libertarianism is stupid. Now get to licking my boot before I detonate a McNuke in your butthole.

the consequences have to be lawful too. you can't just violently attack someone because you don't like what they say

it literally means that tho.
Otherwise gubmint could punish you for your opinions "hey you are free to criticise our glorious dictator, if you are willing to face the consequence of being fire squadded".

No. It means freedom from government based consequences. We need to bring back dueling.

>freedom of religion does not mean freedom from hell

No free speech for commies. They should suffer consequences for attempting to speak.

Attached: image.jpg (618x597, 138K)

The constitution applies to all American citizens, not just the government. If a private company is allowed to take away your freedom of speech, are they allowed to take away your freedom of religion? How about owning slaves? Slavery after all is outlawed explicitly in the 13th amendment and if the constitution only applies to the government then well...

>What's the counter argument?

Consequences also mean only speech.
So it's saying "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of speech". But wait you say, that's redundant and stupid.

Well yes, because what they meant to say was "your freedom of speech ends at my fist". But wait you say, that doesn't sound very free, it sounds like a threat.
Yes.

This whole free exchange of ideas and speech thing doesn't work if it's not followed in spirit. If you talk about consequences then any fringe ideas are fine to persecute, which is exactly what happens in countries without free speech. Fuck you and your extremism. Fuck you and your hate. Fuck you and your ideas that women should get education. All depending on the country you're in.

The left itself has done a 180 on this. They don't support free speech because now they're not fighting The Man, they are The Man.

Attached: Free Speech.png (500x599, 169K)

>freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from* speech

They have to be natural consequences, and not synthetic ones (ie, some 'hate speech' legislation cooked up by the government)

Wtf is natural/synthetic consequences

>1 post by this ID

Then freedom is a spook and only power exists

fixed

Attached: fixed.png (910x415, 369K)

Accurate

For the longest time it has applied to civil law too. People sued over receiving nasty, hurtful letters and emails, and lost every time. Of course, (((the usual suspects hate free speech and are working day and night to abolish it.)))

"Freedom of speech" has always been a meme. It's never existed. Some governments have protections that prevent prosecution or other governmental consequences befalling someone based on their speech. These protections always have caveats though. Additionally, it doesn't really apply outside of a governmental realm, so one can face consequences from businesses or individuals based on their speech.

It's basically means "Freedom from certain government retaliation for a certain range of speech".

see first post
leftism = treason
you will have a traitor's death

Reminds me of an old Soviet joke:
> Does Soviet Union have freedom of speech?
> Yes, but no freedom after speech

It's a brainlet argument that's actually easy to counter.

Freedom is being able to do whatever the fuck you want as long as you're not screwing someone else over.
If your actions aren't endangering anyone and you are prosecuted for them, your freedom is being denied. If your government isn't protecting you from said oppression, you're not living in a free country.

It's that simple.

Attached: 1290539127823.jpg (290x266, 27K)