Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great thread topic.

I largely agree that we should be free to speak what we wish to speak with regard to America's first amendment.

However, there are indeed caveats and consequences, largely regarding intent.

For example, a person continuously threatens another verbally, over text, over social media. What do you do? Turn a blind eye? In many cases, a restraining order can be placed. A direct consequence of the person excersizing their freedom of speech with malicious intent.

Another example involves psychological conditioning, using repetitive speech directed at a target to cause stress, anxiety, sometimes with the intent of getting the person to go as far as to kill themself.

Is that ok? Is that a right that should be protected? I am a big proponent of free speech, but i also recognize intent, and speech itself, even thoughts, are far more effectual than many want to admit or believe.

Its a sensitive, slippery slope that can lead to thought police...and guess what, those police are here. You know who they are? Look in the mirror.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I want people to be kind and considerate with their speech and their actions. But I don't want a law to enforce it at least when it comes to speech. I think the attitude "I will say whatever I want and if someone is offended by it then tough for them" is the wrong attitude. And if that speech leads to physical violence then I think someone deserves a punch in the nose for being disrespectful.

I think the more interesting question is why are people so offended by people reacting to what is perceived by the audience as hate speech. I can't walk into an evangelical church in the middle of service, walk up to the pulpit and yell out, "Jesus is false idol. There is only one true God and that God is God!" I would expect some form of physical violence would ensue.

Or, I can't go into bar near Quantico with a bunch of Marines drinking and yell out, "Thank you for your service? Hell no. It's the tax payers than make this military great! Marines are bunch of leeches living off the socialist tit!" I think I should expect to get the Shiite beat out of me!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.


You don't have to like it.
I don't like what many say.

"One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

"It's one thing to say, 'I don't like what you said to me and I find it rude and offensive,' but the moment you threaten violence in return, you've taken it to another level, where you lose whatever credibility you had.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."


- Salman Rushdie

a reply to: Zimnydran

That is the most ridicules thing anyone has ever tried to say.....Don't you agree? The whole purpose of Freedom of Speech...... is for there to be no consequences from it.... or else you are not free to speak..... but afraid to speak. Anyone caught repeating "but not free from the consequences"...should be made to go sit in the corner with a Dunce Hat on

Really? maybe I am missing something somewhere. Do you mean in certain circumstances or any thing any time? Like if somebody called your wife a whore and states they want to rape your daughters thats OK? Or just if people say things that don't apply to you personally?

Walk into work and see how many times you can call your boss an ass before there are consequences.

If you tell you children to put their dinner plates in the sink and they tell you to take a hike would there be circumstances or would you praise them for their free speech???

I feel blessed that we have the freedom of speech but believe you better be ready to take any flak from that speech. Otherwise you are just a snowflake waiting to melt away into the mud of a new spring and trumbled over by the work boot of a man.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.

Suppose one with classified information shares said information in public.

Would it be free speech?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Many people are justified in being offended, but being offended is never a justification for violence.

I think you are missing the point. From your point of view the violence was not justified. If you've ever dealt with any bully it's not the first or second time that gets you to act violently.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights have conditions.

You have the right to bear arms, but your right becomes conditional, for example, if a private property owner does not want to allow people to bear arms on their property.

You can enter the private property, but only if you give up your right to bear arms.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.

Suppose one with classified information shares said information in public.

Would it be free speech?

Now you're being deliberately idiotic.

If you have classified information, then you have already signed away your right to express it.

But if a reporter got it, it would be free speech, because they are under no obligation.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights have conditions.

You have the right to bear arms, but your right becomes conditional, for example, if a private property owner does not want to allow people to bear arms on their property.

You can enter the private property, but only if you give up your right to bear arms.

Then stop calling them, "rights".

They're called privileges.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Freedom is not free. If you shout out hate speech you should expect violence against you at some point.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.


You don't have to like it.
I don't like what many say.

"One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

"It's one thing to say, 'I don't like what you said to me and I find it rude and offensive,' but the moment you threaten violence in return, you've taken it to another level, where you lose whatever credibility you had.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."


- Salman Rushdie

Yes and no, legally speaking.

It's not a bad thing, though, DB. Child pornography, for example, has been labeled illegal speech and is not protected under the 1st Amendment, thank God (and that is certainly one of the most offensive things I can think of -- or rather, don't want to think of...). Neither is fraudulent commercial speech or commercial speech that promotes an illegal activity. Slander and libel are not covered under free speech.

We may not have absolute freedom in our speech - "speech anarchy" free of all laws and structures, but freedom within the boundaries of our Constitution and our laws? Not such a bad thing. We are still free to be offensive jerks. We are still free to write uplifting poetry. We are still free to criticize our government.

Absolute freedom is overrated.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.

Suppose one with classified information shares said information in public.

Would it be free speech?

Now you're being deliberately idiotic.

If you have classified information, then you have already signed away your right to express it.

But if a reporter got it, it would be free speech, because they are under no obligation.

So the right is "conditional".

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.

Suppose one with classified information shares said information in public.

Would it be free speech?

Now you're being deliberately idiotic.

If you have classified information, then you have already signed away your right to express it.

But if a reporter got it, it would be free speech, because they are under no obligation.

Ah, but that means free speech has a condition then - that you haven't signed away your right to express it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights have conditions.

You have the right to bear arms, but your right becomes conditional, for example, if a private property owner does not want to allow people to bear arms on their property.

You can enter the private property, but only if you give up your right to bear arms.

Then stop calling them, "rights".

They're called privileges.

No. They are rights.

The problem is that most people do not understand the simple constitutional concept that one's rights end where another individual's rights begin.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.

That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

It's either free speech or it isn't.

Any "free" speech that has conditions, isn't free.

Suppose one with classified information shares said information in public.

Would it be free speech?

Now you're being deliberately idiotic.

I thought you were responding to my post.

a reply to: tinner07

I feel blessed that we have the freedom of speech but believe you better be ready to take any flak from that speech. Otherwise you are just a snowflake waiting to melt away into the mud of a new spring and trumbled over by the work boot of a man.

This right here




We sure have come a long way since the day our forefathers would sometimes have angry debates that would lead to a duel with pistols.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All rights and freedoms come with consequences when they are abused. Freedom of Speech is no different.

That is why we have laws on slander/defamation/libel.

The freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely. It does not protect people from the consequences of what they say.

That's not the case. Freedom of speech does not apply to only the government.

Laws regarding information is one thing, but freedom expression has to do with expression.

The "government" has no right to freedom of speech. That right is for individual citizens and even then they are not protected from the consequences of exercising that right.

I guess, whatever happened to "Sticks and stones..."?

Or is that a thing of the past now that we're adults?

Are we maturing or becoming more sensitive and irrational?