Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How is that a consequence of the words? It isn't.

How isn't it a consequence? For example: If you hear someone admit to murdering someone and you do nothing you can go to jail for not telling the police.

You said I was the employer. I never said a business couldn't fire him. You like to pretend you're a smart guy but with the way you forget your own arguments and misrepresent mine makes you come off as a dogmatic fluff.

More like you need to answer questions honestly... You always give all these tricky answers with vague wording then when someone tries to hammer you down on a point, you weasel out by saying you didn't REALLY mean that. It's super obnoxious. So answer the damn question already:
Does the business have the right to fire someone for being racist? Is that a violation of freedom of speech?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How isn't it a consequence? For example: If you hear someone admit to murdering someone and you do nothing you can go to jail for not telling the police.

If that law wasn't in place would that still be the consequence? No, because that is a consequence of the law.

More like you need to answer questions honestly... You always give all these tricky answers with vague wording then when someone tries to hammer you down on a point, you weasel out by saying you didn't REALLY mean that. It's super obnoxious. So answer the damn question already:
Does the business have the right to fire someone for being racist? Is that a violation of freedom of speech?

And you always misrepresent another's argument, widen the goal posts, and commit every fallacy under the sun.

Yes, the business can do what it wants, as I've already stated. Yes, it is a violation of free speech.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does the business have the right to fire someone for being racist? Is that a violation of freedom of speech?

I would say that technically those can be and sometimes are two separate things.

I thought being racist required an actual action to create clear signalling of intent, but in some worlds all it requires is that someone feels that certain set of words create a feeling of racism.

Consider the case of the man who shot the reporter live on air. He felt that nearly everything his white coworkers said or did was racist. Were they or was it the impact of their words and actions that was interpreted by him as racist. Or ... could it be said that man himself was racist and projecting his inward condition onto his coworkers?

How do you determine racism? Who is the racist - the person who said something or the person who hears racism?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If that law wasn't in place would that still be the consequence? No, because that is a consequence of the law.

Well it is in place so pretending like it isn't is an exercise in fantasy. There are also examples I can name outside of the law though. You and a friend are walking down the street and a guy who bullies your friend on the regular shows up. He proceeds to start bullying your friend relentlessly. You do nothing. After the event is over do you think your friend will think highly of you not standing up for him? Again, this is a consequence.

And you always misrepresent another's argument, widen the goal posts, and commit every fallacy under the sun.

Ironic considering this is an ad hominem at the minimum as well as a strawman.

Yes, the business can do what it wants, as I've already stated. Yes, it is a violation of free speech.

So can you admit now that there is no such thing as true freedom of speech or do we still have to have this pointless conversation where third parties other than the government aren't allowed to criticize or punish you for context inappropriate speech?

originally posted by: ketsuko
I would say that technically those can be and sometimes are two separate things.

I thought being racist required an actual action to create clear signalling of intent, but in some worlds all it requires is that someone feels that certain set of words create a feeling of racism.

I'm going to stop you right here and suggest you go read this post and this post where I describe the scenarios that I'm talking about with this quote. As you can see in the original scenarios I am specifically talking about someone using racial slurs.

a reply to: ketsuko

All that is irrelevant to the point.

The choice after the assertion is what is being discussed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well it is in place so pretending like it isn't is an exercise in fantasy. There are also examples I can name outside of the law though. You and a friend are walking down the street and a guy who bullies your friend on the regular shows up. He proceeds to start bullying your friend relentlessly. You do nothing. After the event is over do you think your friend will think highly of you not standing up for him? Again, this is a consequence.

Again, misrepresenting my point and begging the question. You're assuming the initial point that there is a consequence to speech, and further that I would do nothing because I believe there is no consequence of speech beyond the expelling of breath and the articulation of sounds. I always have and I always will bully a bully right back. Free speech begets more free speech.

Ironic considering this is an ad hominem at the minimum as well as a strawman.

But it's true.

So can you admit now that there is no such thing as true freedom of speech or do we still have to have this pointless conversation where third parties other than the government aren't allowed to criticize or punish you for context inappropriate speech?

How have you leapt from your silly example to saying there is no free speech? Here's another word you like to employ mistakenly: non sequitur.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If speech wasn't consequential, what's the point of saying anything at all? Just to hear yourself talk?

A consequence can be good or bad or indifferent. If you share a point of view about a political issue that's near and dear to your heart, inspiring others to pick up the phone and call their congresscritter to advocate for your position, that would be considered a good consequence (to you).

If you share the same point of view to a group who doesn't share your beliefs, they may decide to refute what you're saying in a letter to the editor or by telling their friends about how much they disagree with you. If you're famous enough, they may be able to make some cheddar selling a book with a counterpoint to whatever you were saying.

If you share a milquetoast opinion about something no one cares about, then you'll get a meh response. I guess that would be inconsequential speech, so what's the point?

a reply to: icanteven

If speech wasn't consequential, what's the point of saying anything at all? Just to hear yourself talk?

To express and communicate our thoughts.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: icanteven

If speech wasn't consequential, what's the point of saying anything at all? Just to hear yourself talk?

To express and communicate our thoughts.

If the thoughts don't create a reaction, even if it's just a silent nod of agreement or a conversation, I posit they would best be expressed in a private journal.

I interpreted your original post as advocating a definition of free speech that is nothing but mindless, self-indulgent chatter. What fun is that?

If the speaker takes what's he's saying into the realm of the obscene or bigoted (going into a high school and giving a talk comparing and contrasting S&M techniques from 50 Shades of Gray with the slinky-dressed women in the Fountainhead, and wrapping it up with how the texts offends Aryan sensibilities or some other nonsense), then there will be the consequence of people thinking you belong in the republic of crazy and/or never getting invited back to speak again.

Your post has reminded me of just how much I value the consequences of speech. It's a beautiful thing. Consequences aren't always positive, but that comes with the territory of free speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That one's reaction to another's speech can have an impact on free speech as a right and that this impact is a factor worthy of consideration when calculating the advisability of any given reaction to the speech of another, are points I can comfortably concede, accept and so on and so forth.

However; I can rather easily imagine situations where I would judge a violent physical reaction to another's speech appropriate, even admirable

I think the some of the differences in thinking in this thread are about a difference in the weight/importance one assigns to freedom of speech relative to other factors, rather than a disagreement over the core premises of your argument.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We can say what we want and others can do what they want about it.

That is the reality.

All else is an illusion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
To express and communicate our thoughts.

When someone expresses their thoughts and those thoughts pose a threat to another then the consequence is fully justified.

In some cases it will and in some cases it will not pose a threat.

It isn't just the sound waves they are reacting to. You made this post hoc ergo propter hoc argument in all the threads on the topic.

a reply to: daskakik

I agree but just because another animal wants to violate your right to life, or any of the other natural rights I listed, does not negate that you still have those rights, you are just in a situation where something or someone is trying to violate them. That is one of the main reasons societies first started forming (for mutual protection and resource sharing) and of course when humans started forming societies they found out the need to curb mans baser instincts an order to have a "peaceful" society.

I wasn't trying to make a case of the natural man living a carefree and non-violent life, far from it, that state of pure freedom is potentially very dangerous and harsh state of living. I was just trying to explain my thoughts on what are mans "inherent" rights and attempting to make a case for them.

a reply to: LockNLoad

If anything, you seem to have proven that "rights" is just a word that humans love to throw around which really doesn't mean anything.

a reply to: icanteven

If the thoughts don't create a reaction, even if it's just a silent nod of agreement or a conversation, I posit they would best be expressed in a private journal.

I interpreted your original post as advocating a definition of free speech that is nothing but mindless, self-indulgent chatter. What fun is that?

If the speaker takes what's he's saying into the realm of the obscene or bigoted (going into a high school and giving a talk comparing and contrasting S&M techniques from 50 Shades of Gray with the slinky-dressed women in the Fountainhead, and wrapping it up with how the texts offends Aryan sensibilities or some other nonsense), then there will be the consequence of people thinking you belong in the republic of crazy and/or never getting invited back to speak again.

Your post has reminded me of just how much I value the consequences of speech. It's a beautiful thing. Consequences aren't always positive, but that comes with the territory of free speech.

You may have misunderstood. The OP is not advocating mindless chatter, but defending it. It doesn't advocate hate speech. but defends it. If you do not defend all speech you do not believe in free speech.

Speech is speech, and all of it has varying degrees of the same insignificant consequences. The expelling of breath and the articulation of guttural sounds, making marks or scratches on paper, the clicking of keys—all are the relatively inconsequential consequences of speech not deserving of violence or punishment.

What isn't a consequence of speech is someone else's actions, the effect of which is their own cause and consequence.

a reply to: daskakik

When someone expresses their thoughts and those thoughts pose a threat to another then the consequence is fully justified.

In some cases it will and in some cases it will not pose a threat.

It isn't just the sound waves they are reacting to. You made this post hoc ergo propter hoc argument in all the threads on the topic.

The fallacy has your name all over it, the very instances of which are in this very post.

What if you talked to a person that you know that has a history of violence and you purposefully tried to rile him up? Is that not a consequence? It's like stirring up a hornet's nest.

a reply to: imwilliam

That's fair. The physics of speech could hardly move a feather, but I can understand the comfort of the superstitious thinking required to blame words. I think people might not want to let that comfort go just yet.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sorry but no, I posted a possible scenario, not an argument.

You on the other hand are always saying that people react only to words without taking into account the information being communicated.