Exposing the broken argument: “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”
I generally avoid making posts about public figures, especially those in the political sphere. However, this particular issue has been troubling me for years, and the prevailing narrative around it has not shifted in a desirable direction. The consequences of this issue have been near-irreparable across various aspects of our lives in developed countries over the past couple of decades, so it needs to just be plainly repeated:
The human right to “freedom of speech” DOES IN FACT generally mean “freedom from consequences”.
The now-common, tainted refrain that “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” is obviously misleading and false when examined practically instead of hiding behind mental gymnastics to make some “intellectually profound” statement in favor of oppressing your political “opposition” while pretending you do not.
If the government and our larger society (corporations, other people, etc.) performs, or refuses to protect people from “consequences” that deprive an individual of their basic rights based on the content of what they say, such as but not limited to:
Kidnapping you and putting you into a cage (imprisonment)
Depriving you of the ability to make an honest living (job) because of your political conviction rather than your ability to perform the work (discrimination)
Killing you (murder)
Then it is inherently obvious that, that person does not truly have “freedom of speech”, isn’t it? That their “freedom of speech” isn’t actually being protected. What exactly else would one believe that “freedom of speech” actually frees us as human beings from?
Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to die today. His assassination is not some “natural consequence” of his speech, but an act of terrorism. It is a blatant violation of the right to free speech, which should be safeguarded regardless of one’s political views. Just because it “wasn’t the government” or “it was a private entity” doesn’t absolve the perpetrator of the responsibility protecting people’s rights, nor does it give the perpetrator the moral right to freely oppress others.
This consistent pattern of our current social climate of placidly just laying down, and justifying terrible treatment to certain groups of people because they don’t 100% agree with what they have to say, clearly isn’t going so well. Our global society, particularly in the “Western world”, needs to pivot back and course correct: as soon as possible.
I’d like to add to this sentiment. When I refer to the statement in the topic, it’s to impress upon people that your statement must be rooted in something. Such that any consequence of your statement can be defended, with your life if necessary. This is the true nature of “freedom of speech.” It’s just as much a right to be ignorant and stupid, as it is to observe and reflect on the ignorant and stupid.
The objective of speech among people is to defeat ignorance. This is why a mob can never accomplish this. It is always a group of ignorant and gullible people being manipulated by someone less ignorant and gullible with means. It must always use violence to achieve it’s ends so the ignorant and stupid ideas can continue to propagate. Because if it was to attempt to compete in the Marketplace of Ideas in a one on one setting, the ignorant ideas will always lose.
The information apparatuses have spent trillions of dollars of our money to keep us ignorant, and manipulate us to such an emotional state as to justify violence against those that disagree as a normal course of societal interaction. Every single individual on this planet needs to look deep within and ask yourself how you are being used, and to what ends.
While I agree with the sentiment, I’m not to sure what the hordes of deranged leftists would do if they actually figured out that their whole identity, all of their views, are lies, but I suspect it wouldn’t be pretty.
I cut the cord long ago, get my news from a few indie journalist, bloggers, vloggers and vtubers.
I live like a hermit for a good reason, it seems.
The good news is that I am now just as cynical as the world seems to be.
The bad news is that I am now just as cynical as the world seems to be.
The murder of Charlie Kirk is a clear-cut case of textbook terrorism.
Even with those, I see many hints of what many term as “controlled opposition”, but I think much of it can be attributed to the ubiquitous brainwashing that occurs in modern western society.
It bother me no end to know that I too am a product of western society, and I often question myself as a result of that fact; what insidious influences may have helped form my world view?
I live in Canada, where after over a decade of wanton woke destruction of our economy, our institutions, etc, my fellow countrymen voted for more of the same.
We had the closest thing to a Donald Trump (who is doing OK, but remember, its still the feds) in a guy called Max Bernier, he threw us a lifeline, but was soundly rejected by the electorate; he can’t even get even one single seat in Parliament. I voted for his party in two federal elections.
That whole “boiling frog” analogy is suspect; I think the frog died in 2020-2021 here in Canada.
In Canada, we have a truly batshit crazy leftist party (the Green Party) headed by a truly insane woman by the name of Elizabeth May.
I’ve decided to go full-on accelerationist and vote for her.
Perhaps when cities start to burn or starve and freeze in the dark, Canadians will wake up.
Im not Canadian im Polish, yet I understood you clearly. Same shit is happening here. This process is on so advance stage that it is probably too late to stop it . In Poland frog died decade ago, nobody even notice this. To be frankly honest, whole Europe is a dead frog. So if Canada and USA is turned in to sht holes, Europe is a sh*t hole inside a dumpster fire. It must all be orchestrated by people nobody votes for, and probably nobody knows by name
“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.” is just one of the many slogans the left uses to justify their vile behaviour.
If you pay attention to them, its not to hard to see that they are literally chomping at the bit to kill millions, again.
Freedom of speech means exactly that, freedom from punishment or violence as a response to your speech. There are social consequences, but murder is not a social consequence.
Many people try to equate the potential social consequences to ones reputation with violent acts.
Freedom of speech should absolutely have consequences! Like trial in court but not consequences materialized as a bullet in a head.
Let say we have John Doe In a town and I, talking to everybody in the town that John is a PDF file and the ra*pist. I should be sued in to oblivion and homelessness if its not true. Thats clear defamation. But no one should try to shot me for that. Same goes with people like mister Kirk. If one do not like him fine. Debate him or sue him. Fine! But straight up shoot the guy dead. Thats nuts crazy, bat shit crazy
So thats another thing that leftist twisted around.
Exactly.. with one exception if one accused someone else of g-rape. But the g-rape never had happened, that individual should go to jajl for exact same period of time, that alleged g-rapist would go if the accusations were true.
Period
I believe there are some legal constraints, such as what are referred to as “fighting words”, or the classic case of yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre.
Those two cases are well outside of the realm of merely stating an opinion, reciting facts, debating positions, etc, which is what Charlie was doing.
On a more philosophical note, I think that the urge to try to hard-code some of these concepts into law is fraught with dangers, as no law can replace common sense. A non-trivial part of the population appears to have no common sense, and heaping law after law, regulation after regulation, to try to keep these wierdos in line is an exercise in futility, worse, it has some very deleterious effects on what few of us still have some degree of common sense.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the erosion of common sense is being done by design, to be used as a pretext to further erode the freedom of We The People.
Freedom of speech should absolutely have consequences! Like trial in court but not consequences materialized as a bullet in a head.
A trial in court does have materialistic consequences. It costs tons of money, time, health, etc. on all parties involved. Court is not exactly a frivolous, fast, or easy matter.
Let’s say we have [a person named] John Doe… [both] in a town… [as well as I]. I… [start telling] everybody in the town that John is a “pedophile” and [a] “rapist”. I should be sued into oblivion, and [be rendered] homelessness if… [that is] not true. That’s clear defamation.
This is exactly the type of “consequence” that certain types of people justify that worries me, and what the attitude of “freedom of speech != freedom from consequences” breeds. Making an atmosphere where people are “punished” for what they say by having their basic needs (food, shelter, i.e. base things that people absolutely need in order to survive) forcefully deprived does not breed open dialogue. This would constitute a violation of “free speech” rights. My argument here is to address the supposed justification of exactly this kind of force.
The insidious part is this: who exactly gets to be the arbiter of what’s “true” or “false”? Do you really trust your government to do that in a way that 100% aligns with reality, that doesn’t result innocent people being deprived of their natural born rights?
This is the logic behind “freedom of speech” and why introducing “consequences” that target people isn’t part of what a truly “free as in freedom” society looks like. Speech should be “fought” with more speech. That would be the appropriate measure as to which to defend from cases like “defamation”.
But no one should try to shoot me for that. Same goes with people like Mister Kirk. If one does not like him… fine! But straight up shoot the guy dead. That is nuts… batshit crazy.
I would think this would be obvious. Unfortunately, I’ve seen the people say the contrary, using the “consequence” rhetoric.
Sorry for sarcasm but you right… bullet is much faster and way chipper.
So according to you - if someone paint somebody as a pedophile should face no consequences at all because that may deprave him /her
Yet you do not see the problem that the person who is falsely accused of being a pedo most likely will loose job. Therefore, all access to basic needs (food, shelter, i.e. base things that people absolutely need in order to survive).
Yet should not even try to defend his name legally?? Because if he does so, then the accuser may lose their basic needs (food, shelter, i.e. base things that people absolutely need in order to survive) forcefully deprived does not breed open dialogue.
[/quote]
Fascinating
I love circular logic.
BTW my English is kinda weird, I didn’t hold a candle next to a native speaker.
So according to you - if someone paint somebody as a pedophile should face no consequences at all because that may deprave him/her.
Not what I said. The natural consequence is that people can and will note that they are a liar, and not take them as seriously next time a la the boy who cried wolf. The question that would practically be asked is “okay, what is the evidence to support your claim?”. People can freely choose what the believe and what to not believe. People can freely choose to engage in conversations. People can freely choose if they like someone or not regardless of whether their sexual preferences are, anyway.
However, in the situation that you, as the supposed slanderer, would be “sued into oblivion and made homeless” by the state. The problem with that particular “consequence” is that it is one set of people using force/coercion to violate someone’s innate human right to speak freely. You don’t have a free choice in that matter. The state would use whatever force to ensure that their power is held through whatever means possible: economically, with guns, etc. to make sure that they got your money.
Yet you do not see the problem that the person who is falsely accused of being a pedo most likely will loose job. Therefore, all access to basic needs (food, shelter, i.e. base things that people absolutely need in order to survive).
I do see that as a problem. As I said before, that is exactly the type of thing I am addressing here. There should be “benefit of the doubt” protections in place for employees. I think having an employer being able to drop anyone at will for any reason at any time, in practice, has reduced most people’s ability, practically speaking, to be able to speak freely. The problem is that people conflate use of coercion as a “normal consequence” versus people’s ability to make free choices themselves, which does result eventually into a “natural consequence” at some point. “Consequences” as a word has been used to twist what “freedom of speech” actually means. When “freedom of speech” isn’t actually being protected and the phrase “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” is used to justify not doing it, with the guise of protecting it, it negatively impacts the vast majority of people’s ability to effectively govern their democracies: because the will of the party in power who is oppressing people’s actual right to speak freely in practice can, has, and will impose selectively what a “natural consequence” is acceptable and what isn’t an acceptable “natural consequence”.
Fascinating
I love circular logic
The strawman you made in your head, maybe.
BTW my English is kinda weird, I didn’t hold a candle next to a native speaker.
I’ve tried to add things to your statements in order to make it clear in native English what you were actually attempting to say for clarity’s sake. Please let me know if at any point I am misrepresenting what you’ve said, and I’ll make the appropriate changes.
I know it would be a complete and total disaster in the big cities such as NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, and so on. Those current numbers on https://heyjackass.com would appear quite small in comparison once they find out and get going with destroying their leaders and Fake News.
But don’t hold your breath. The indoctrinated are not easily deprogrammed. We have seen this before after WWII in Germany and in the Soviet Union after it fell apart when its own failed economy collapsed inward.
Yesterday I watched a video made by a former Soviet who was 20 at the time. He told his mother to convert all her Soviet kopeks to American dollars on the black market. She didn’t do that because she refused to believe the Soviet government would fail. Before the collapse, she had the equivalent of $200. After the collapse and mega-inflation, her kopeks were not even enough to purchase two loaves of bread. To this day, his mother still maintains that the Soviet Union will come back, and she will be rich.
You can’t fix the indoctrinated.
Good for you for chopping the cord, so to speak. However, please don’t live like a total hermit. Canada is too big for that. Leave the insanity where you are at for your own mental health now and then. Travel to civilized places such as the north shore of Superior, Jasper in the off season, or Banff when it isn’t full of the usual tourists. If found that I feel much better if I spend two weeks going out west once a year and ten days to places such as West Virginia. Rural places that terrify most city dwellers. Especially if the cell phone fails to work because of no cellular and Wi-Fi. I am looking at you, Cass, West Virginia. Beautiful small lumber town frozen in time.
100% agreed. This was organized terrorism, helped out by the Fake News, the Socialist Democrat Party, aging Hippie Boomers, and fully indoctrinated Millennials and Gen-Z. Knowing what Donald Trump has done to the Mexican border and DC crime, he has already ordered the hugest equivalent to the Big Muskie shovel from Ohio, so to speak, and he is going to have his team start digging large, deep holes until everyone responsible is found.
Canada is the perfect example of a democracy, without an electoral college. A few months ago, there was a meme going around, showing how many votes each province gets. 100% based on population because “democracy!” Unlike the Electoral College which automatically guarantees a minimum of three votes per state before any population adjustments kick in. The prairie provinces and rural places are always getting screwed over by Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and company. An electoral college would go a long way to preventing that.
While I would advise against that, I understand where you are going, as Rush Limbaugh would say.
The left is the very thing that they accuse everyone else of. According to them, I am a Nazi, a fascist, and a racist, because I fail to comply with their agenda, unlike most people of my generation. And they will kill millions. They did it under their “Uncle Adolph,” “Uncle Joe,” “Uncle Mao,” and “Uncle Pol Pot.” Did I miss anyone? If so, feel free to add to the list.
I don’t know how things work in Canada, but our Constitution does protect yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater if it is part of the stage performance. But I see where you are going. There are several examples of this in Chicago’s history, where someone was afraid to yell fire because of being accused of breaking a law that does not exist when the actual fire did start. By the time someone else did figure out what was happening, it was far too late.
What Charlie Kirk was doing was far outside of any of this. This is squarely on the shoulders of the Fake News, who kept on stoking the fires of “Destroy Trump!” and “Destroy Everything Around Him!” as well as on the shoulders of the shooter and any help the shooter had.
That was a problem the Founding Fathers had when they wrote the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were clearly not working, as they gave the federal government essentially zero power. They didn’t want to go and turn the country into some sort of kingdom, per European standards of the time. They had seen that democracies devolve into mob rule, where a sheep and two wolves decide on tonight’s dinner menu. Something that I believe western Canada is suffering from right now.
So they created a democratically elected constitutional republic, split into three branches, with checks on each branch. The idea was to give the federal government some necessary powers, but restrict those powers. When that wasn’t good enough for most states, the Bill of Rights was added, telling the federal government what it can’t do to people, not what people are allowed to do.
They knew that hard-coding every little law would only lead to totalitarianism. A place where the left wants to take the country, but most Americans, once they wake up, don’t want to be.
That’s wail weked evil. I’m leaning right, but in not on the right, yet I really would not celebrate a death of anybody left nor right. There is a huge chunk of people I hate politicly with a passion. But… I want them defeated rendered in to irrelevance, not dead for fuck’s sake. For your Canadian backyard, I hate Justin Trudeau. Guy should be in prison, preferably for life but not dead.
That being said, my knowledge of Canada and USA is limited.
Those vide is not put here at random or by mistake. Not many people know of this guy. Yet he has some good points.
It is worth to view the full interview
Here you have what matters the most. I believe English term is meat and potatoes
While much of it is dead, there is still the First and Second Amendments. All states respect the First Amendment because they fear a government mandated religion. Some states still respect the Second Amendment, as they don’t regulate who has a gun, other than convicted felons. The Tenth Amendment is hanging on. The latest Supreme Court ruling on abortions proves this. The federal government has no right to do anything regarding abortions. It is clearly up to the individual states.
Yes, I know this becomes very confusing for people who never had a civics class on the US Constitution. When I was in school, it was mandatory. Today, I believe nobody is teaching it.
Well, I spent about 17 years looking for the “spider” at the center of the web, seeking and listening to all kinds of opinions on who it might be, and why they might be causing all of the problems I noticed in the world. There were some people I always ignored, however, because I couldn’t overcome my emotional response to their “anti-semitism.” I had been programmed not to listen to anything a Nazi would ever say by deep-seated emotional conditioning since early childhood.
It certainly is “orchestrated by people nobody votes for.” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a well-known dramatization of Russian origin which is meant to demonstrate to the reader from a first- and second-person perspective how such persons would plot to do the things history has observed them doing over and over again. God bless.
