Comment by lightgreen
5 years ago
They will quickly lose their jobs.
It is somewhat similar (but to lesser degree of course) to China: there’s no law prohibiting talking about Tiananmen Square, but you better not do it.
5 years ago
They will quickly lose their jobs.
It is somewhat similar (but to lesser degree of course) to China: there’s no law prohibiting talking about Tiananmen Square, but you better not do it.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. I'm as free to call you an idiot and boycott you as you are to say idiotic things. It actually is illegal to talk about tianamen square in china. You'll be arrested.
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Yes it is; that's (most of) what "freedom" means. By your logic, if I would shoot you if you leave your house, then you would still be free to leave your house, 'just' not from the consequences.
Edit, a more proximate example: if the ministry of love will kindnap and torture you for criticising the government, your logic would hold that this does not violate freedom of speech, so long as they do not preemptivly prevent such criticism.
Retaliation by government.
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
This phrase should be an example of Emperors New Clothes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Of course it is trivially correct for the most part because people have opinions, but the concept of freedom of speech directly addresses this.
> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation
You don't even need to read more than 200 words and people using this phrase seem overly interested in the retaliation part through social excommunication. Bigotry in its original form.
This catchy phrase is catch 22. Negative consequences of freedom mean there is no freedom.
> This catchy phrase is catch 22. Negative consequences of freedom mean there is no freedom.
That's something of a misnomer. In the case where the government (as in China) will visit consequences upon you for your speech limits freedom.
But others using their speech to express their displeasure with your speech does not.
Do you see how that works? If your peers disagree with you and express that, it's not limiting freedom, it's giving the same freedom to everyone.
I do believe that it's inappropriate (note the word I use here, as it has a specific meaning and implication) to target someone's professional status for a real or perceived disagreement (assuming that those disagreements are not relevant to the target's professional duties).
That doesn't make it illegal, just petty, vindictive and in bad faith. None of which limits anyone's freedom to express themselves.
There's a big difference between legality and social norms. Just because it's legal to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Freedom became an empty word once US turned it to plastic. People always lose some freedom in any social interaction. If you treat any such compromise as "no freedom" than you'll be left with no "freedom".
This whole dichotomy is just stupid and abused because of historic American politics, the word has lost all meaning.
You aren't free unless you can say and do things without consequence? What?
2 replies →
Can you find me the law that says it is illegal to talk about Tiananmen Square in China? I'd love to read it.
What actually happens is that when you talk about it, you lose your job, etc. Rarely does the government step in. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like what you're advocating as "free speech".
> Rarely does the government step in.
The Great Firewall and Social Credit system are both run by the government and definitely penalize this behavior.
Of course there's no law explicitly saying "you can't talk about Tiananmen Square" because that law would be talking about Tiananmen Square which is the opposite of what they want.
1 reply →