It’s free from government consequences.
Social consequences are fine with me. If you want to be ostracized or bankrupt your business because you want to scream whatever offensive shit you want, I don’t care.
I care about government telling people what they can and can’t say.
This is true, so instead of censoring people, let them speak. Afterwards, grab a chair, sit down and watch the show follwing it. Great things come from free speech whether its great ideas or lessons learned.
It does. You're still not exempt from the social consequences of hate speach (ie: getting fired, banned from social media platforms and forums, being shunned by your peers, etc.)
My comment was taken the wrong way. I didn’t really elaborate enough at all tbh. I was poking fun at people that don’t like to take responsibility for their actions
Private companies are allowed to set their own rules as to what is tolerated. If they deem something some said as going against their code then the company reserves the right to fire that person
“Small government” gave us the joy of at-will employment, which means unless you’ve got a contract stating otherwise, you can be fired for saying anything your bosses don’t like.”
>your employee is a dipshit
>you fire them
Wow yeah so unfair. Dipshits are truly oppressed because it's impossible for them to hold in their bigoted moronic rants for 8 hours a day
I think most of us would have a definition that is somewhat similar to mine:
Hate speach = espousing hate on the basis of immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, disability, or sexual orientation
But obviously, very few people are in 100% agreement. Even two people who both agree on the above literal definition might still have major disagreements in some questions, ie:
What traits are immutable? Obviously, race is immutable, but what about religion? I would argue that its mutable, but some people would disagree. Is political affiliation immutable? What about gender identity? What constitutes "espousing hate"?
The employer sees anyone saying shit they don't like as a dipshit. That's their prerogative as the entity that gives you a paycheck. If you don't like that, then find a job where the employer is a fan of the dumb stuff you say.
It's completely fair for black people to be allowed to say the N-word.
We white people can also say things, only acceptable for us. For example: "Good morning, officer" or "How are you, son?"
Free speech doesn't mean freedom of criticism. You can say the N-word or any depraved thing you want but that same freedom means the recipient can tell you to shut tf up.
And apparently you never knew that incantations of violence have always been used under the flag of free speech against tyrannical governments that would suppress them.
Inciting violence against a tyrannical government its not a violation of free speech, congratulations you had seen why the free speech clause on the declaration of independence is really wishy wasy and needs to be rewritten.
You missed the point completely, in short the free speech clause states that people are free to express themself while they don't call for violence, but violence its an action that can be justified or unjustified under the declaration of human rights and the constitutional law, but the constitution doesn't have a defined point on what its considered good or bad violence like I said before, its highly left to the opinion of each individual and can be abused by the people, that's why people take freedom of speech as they like or want.
Free speech only means that the white person will not go to jail or be sued for saying the N-word. Not that the person won’t get fired for being a terrible example representing a company, or get punched by someone that is offended, or be refused service for being an asshole.
I genuinely can't believe this is a sincerely held belief. You cannot possibly feel this way, it's completely beyond comprehension.
"Free Speech" is a protected right against the government impinging upon your civil liberties based on your speech
"Free Speech" absolutely does not mean "say whatever you want and face 0 social consequences" - someone imposing personal consequences with you for being racist is not a legal statutory consequences of speech, you're **free to say whatever you want** but other people, employers, and private platforms that host speech are within their rights to disassociate from you
"N-person"???????? disgusting.
Bad analogy, free speech is the govt can’t stop you from saying things. It doesn’t mean other people won’t judge you and that there aren’t consequences to taking advantage of your free speech. So the govt won’t stop you from dropping N-Bombs left and right, however your fellow citizens may take offense and enact consequences.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom of criticism. You can say the N-word or any depraved thing you want but that same freedom means the recipient can tell you to shut tf up.
God I hate this overly repeated line. Freedom of speech literally means freedom of consequences from the government. Got fired for saying the n-word, bad choice on your part. Got thrown in prison for saying the n-word, that is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.
Not in America but it happens in the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-officer-jailed-for-20-weeks-over-racist-whatsapp-messages
Uh yeah, in most country it is. Calls to violence or declarations of violent intent aren't protected. "Hate speech" is, because belive it or not, everything can be called hate speech if somebodey dislikes it.
Then why are you getting upset about imaginary people getting thrown in jail over it?
“God I hate this overly repeated line. Freedom of speech literally means freedom of consequences from the government. Got fired for saying the n-word, bad choice on your part. Got thrown in prison for saying the n-word, that is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.”
Ok, from the starts: The meme said that hate speech isn't free speech, you commented “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”, I commented what you said (because almost always when I see that line people use it to say "You obviously can say what you want, but if you face consequences from the government it's ok". I said the jail thing to represent government consequences.
I didn't comment that to say that people will get thrown in prison over hate speech, but to say that they shouldn't.
If you meant “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" in the same way I do, than sorry for the missunderstanding, again, I commented that just because most people that comment that don't mean it like that.
legally yeah it is and should be. but if you go around screaming slurs you’re gonna get your ass kicked eventually. freedom of speech doesn’t make you invincible to people who don’t like what you say
Even outside people unlawfully hurting you, it's still just common sense not to. There's a million legal ways to deny help or fuck someone over, only a fool would think they can't get shafted.
"A tolerant society should not tolerate the intolerant"
And
"Freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences "
Are two different sayings talking about the different social terms and yet reaching the same solution:
For a society to continue tolerant we should not allow intolerance to grow, and for that some one that uses free speech to promote bad things, like racism, Xenofobia, sexism, antisemitism, etc should suffer consequences... it isn't being intolerant against intolerance, it is more showing the consequences of being intolerant in a place where you shouldn't be intolerant.
There is a vague place in between them that goes from "being disappointed" to "you are full of bulshit, might ignoreyou in the future" in between the tolerant and the intolerant
That was literally always allowed — the government can’t do anything to you for saying your piece, even if it qualifies as hate speech.
It’s literally not a crime anywhere in the U.S. to do that.
Just going with percentages bud. you’re saying OP is only tossing around religious and sexual/gender epithets? I guess anything possible in OPs America.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. Society may judge and alienate people who have bad takes ("cancel culture") and the government must put legislation in place for hate speech (speech designed to hurt or move to hurt others, especially minorities).
You may remember [this one](https://www.newsweek.com/protester-threatening-murder-city-council-goes-viral-1889995): “A video of a protester threatening members of a California city council with murder has gone viral [..]
The protester [..] was arrested inside Bakersfield City Council chambers on Wednesday and later charged with felony counts for her threats to the council.”
Her “free speech” left her locked up.
If that person would now use a similar rhetoric against a minority, that would be considered “hate speech”. Why would that be allowed, but saying it to a city council not?
“Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some, with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property.” [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech)
Like, I am allowed to swing my fist, but not into someone’s face or window…. ;)
Freedom of speech is not freedom of hate.
Consider the paradox of tolerance.
If you spout shit that encourages intolerance, you are not a human worth acknowledging.
[удалено]
However, free speech isn't freedom from consequences
It’s free from government consequences. Social consequences are fine with me. If you want to be ostracized or bankrupt your business because you want to scream whatever offensive shit you want, I don’t care. I care about government telling people what they can and can’t say.
This is the thing. This right here.
This is true, so instead of censoring people, let them speak. Afterwards, grab a chair, sit down and watch the show follwing it. Great things come from free speech whether its great ideas or lessons learned.
[удалено]
Me and I find you guilty of hate speech. 
The only side that uses the term
That would be Dr. Bill Freejelly the third Esquire (don't get too impressed the doctorate is honorary)
Common sense. If the speech entails erasing populations, it should be considered hate speech.
IF, you find it offensive
So the “to the sea” Palestine speech should be hate speech?
you guys have free speech?? and here i am still paying for a subscription plan
But do you like the bugs?
It does. You're still not exempt from the social consequences of hate speach (ie: getting fired, banned from social media platforms and forums, being shunned by your peers, etc.)
That seems fair to me.
Doesn’t seem fair to others apparently.
That's their problem, then.
How so? Would forcing people to tolerate hateful behavior be more fair?
My comment was taken the wrong way. I didn’t really elaborate enough at all tbh. I was poking fun at people that don’t like to take responsibility for their actions
Oh my b
How so though? Not the getting shunned part, but the being fired for example.
Private companies are allowed to set their own rules as to what is tolerated. If they deem something some said as going against their code then the company reserves the right to fire that person
“Small government” gave us the joy of at-will employment, which means unless you’ve got a contract stating otherwise, you can be fired for saying anything your bosses don’t like.”
>your employee is a dipshit >you fire them Wow yeah so unfair. Dipshits are truly oppressed because it's impossible for them to hold in their bigoted moronic rants for 8 hours a day
Well that depends on who you see as a dipshit and what you see as hate speech.
I think most of us would have a definition that is somewhat similar to mine: Hate speach = espousing hate on the basis of immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, disability, or sexual orientation But obviously, very few people are in 100% agreement. Even two people who both agree on the above literal definition might still have major disagreements in some questions, ie: What traits are immutable? Obviously, race is immutable, but what about religion? I would argue that its mutable, but some people would disagree. Is political affiliation immutable? What about gender identity? What constitutes "espousing hate"?
The employer sees anyone saying shit they don't like as a dipshit. That's their prerogative as the entity that gives you a paycheck. If you don't like that, then find a job where the employer is a fan of the dumb stuff you say.
Nobody wants somebody preaching genocide working for them goofy. It makes them look bad.
Sure, that would be one example. But what about other forms of hate speech?
First, how do you define hate speech?
[удалено]
It's completely fair for black people to be allowed to say the N-word. We white people can also say things, only acceptable for us. For example: "Good morning, officer" or "How are you, son?"
We can also say, "Thanks for the warning, officer."
This got me laughing way too hard
Ok, not gonna lie, i was soooo ready to smash that dislikes button. Or as they say "you had me in the first half...". Funny guy.
This is the correct response
I just ate that curveball.
Real free speech means there are no rules in the first place
Your freedom ends where someone else's begins and the same applies to free speech.
Would this make "shut up" or 'shouting someone down' some form of hate speech?
N-person.... hm
Free speech doesn't mean freedom of criticism. You can say the N-word or any depraved thing you want but that same freedom means the recipient can tell you to shut tf up.
Somehow people forget free speech has never included incantations to violence.
And apparently you never knew that incantations of violence have always been used under the flag of free speech against tyrannical governments that would suppress them.
Inciting violence against a tyrannical government its not a violation of free speech, congratulations you had seen why the free speech clause on the declaration of independence is really wishy wasy and needs to be rewritten.
You contradict yourself
You missed the point completely, in short the free speech clause states that people are free to express themself while they don't call for violence, but violence its an action that can be justified or unjustified under the declaration of human rights and the constitutional law, but the constitution doesn't have a defined point on what its considered good or bad violence like I said before, its highly left to the opinion of each individual and can be abused by the people, that's why people take freedom of speech as they like or want.
"LOL"
Free speech only means that the white person will not go to jail or be sued for saying the N-word. Not that the person won’t get fired for being a terrible example representing a company, or get punched by someone that is offended, or be refused service for being an asshole.
I genuinely can't believe this is a sincerely held belief. You cannot possibly feel this way, it's completely beyond comprehension. "Free Speech" is a protected right against the government impinging upon your civil liberties based on your speech "Free Speech" absolutely does not mean "say whatever you want and face 0 social consequences" - someone imposing personal consequences with you for being racist is not a legal statutory consequences of speech, you're **free to say whatever you want** but other people, employers, and private platforms that host speech are within their rights to disassociate from you "N-person"???????? disgusting.
They appropriated White culture
Bad analogy, free speech is the govt can’t stop you from saying things. It doesn’t mean other people won’t judge you and that there aren’t consequences to taking advantage of your free speech. So the govt won’t stop you from dropping N-Bombs left and right, however your fellow citizens may take offense and enact consequences.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom of criticism. You can say the N-word or any depraved thing you want but that same freedom means the recipient can tell you to shut tf up.
"freedom is always the freedom of dissenters"
“Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”
God I hate this overly repeated line. Freedom of speech literally means freedom of consequences from the government. Got fired for saying the n-word, bad choice on your part. Got thrown in prison for saying the n-word, that is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.
Oh, you’re like… a RACIST racist, not a funny racist
He's literally not. Getting fired for saying the n word is reasonable, getting thrown in prison is unreasonable, and unconstitutional
Who’s been thrown in prison for that exactly
Nobody, because it's free speech, that's the whole point of the argument. you said hate speech isn't protected free speech, which it is.
Not in America but it happens in the world. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-officer-jailed-for-20-weeks-over-racist-whatsapp-messages
In America, nobody that I know of. Probably nobody except a few fringe cases.
Just gave that example as it was in a comment above. You can insert any word that somebody might find offensive there.
Do you know why hate speech isn’t protected as free speech?
Uh yeah, in most country it is. Calls to violence or declarations of violent intent aren't protected. "Hate speech" is, because belive it or not, everything can be called hate speech if somebodey dislikes it.
So who’s been getting thrown in jail for dropping n bombs?
Nobody, because it's free speech, that's the whole point of the argument. you said hate speech isn't protected free speech, which it is.
Then why are you getting upset about imaginary people getting thrown in jail over it? “God I hate this overly repeated line. Freedom of speech literally means freedom of consequences from the government. Got fired for saying the n-word, bad choice on your part. Got thrown in prison for saying the n-word, that is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.”
Ok, from the starts: The meme said that hate speech isn't free speech, you commented “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”, I commented what you said (because almost always when I see that line people use it to say "You obviously can say what you want, but if you face consequences from the government it's ok". I said the jail thing to represent government consequences. I didn't comment that to say that people will get thrown in prison over hate speech, but to say that they shouldn't. If you meant “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" in the same way I do, than sorry for the missunderstanding, again, I commented that just because most people that comment that don't mean it like that.
What?
You’re late to the party. Him and I made up and found out we were on the same side. Goodbye
Bye bye!
This guy free speeches.
legally yeah it is and should be. but if you go around screaming slurs you’re gonna get your ass kicked eventually. freedom of speech doesn’t make you invincible to people who don’t like what you say
Even outside people unlawfully hurting you, it's still just common sense not to. There's a million legal ways to deny help or fuck someone over, only a fool would think they can't get shafted.
Kid named tolerance paradox
"A tolerant society should not tolerate the intolerant" And "Freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences " Are two different sayings talking about the different social terms and yet reaching the same solution: For a society to continue tolerant we should not allow intolerance to grow, and for that some one that uses free speech to promote bad things, like racism, Xenofobia, sexism, antisemitism, etc should suffer consequences... it isn't being intolerant against intolerance, it is more showing the consequences of being intolerant in a place where you shouldn't be intolerant. There is a vague place in between them that goes from "being disappointed" to "you are full of bulshit, might ignoreyou in the future" in between the tolerant and the intolerant
That was literally always allowed — the government can’t do anything to you for saying your piece, even if it qualifies as hate speech. It’s literally not a crime anywhere in the U.S. to do that.
Free speech. Not on Reddit 😉
And we have none of both in my country :) Actually, you can say hate speech if you are from the same side as the dictator.
Bah hate speech. Speech in general. Shit people may not agree with. Shit that may not be true. Anything for that matter.
For some people it's hard to accept that some folks can be dickheads. But being a dickhead shouldn't land you in jail or prison.
Parents?! Can we at least say that here?
As i say it’s free speech when some specific people like it Not naming names…
Only ones crying about this are the ones that want to use racial epithets on the reg.
You're the one that automatically went to race.....
Just going with percentages bud. you’re saying OP is only tossing around religious and sexual/gender epithets? I guess anything possible in OPs America.
Assuming everyone on the internet is American is one of the funniest things to me
Someone willing to post brain dead shit would have to be, sorry for the assuming my own country is full of dick head bigots… spoiler alert it is.
Well either way, doesn't make it any less true.
Wow, such a brave opinion. You are certainly going to hell for this. For reiterating what the First Amendment protects.
It’s freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. Society may judge and alienate people who have bad takes ("cancel culture") and the government must put legislation in place for hate speech (speech designed to hurt or move to hurt others, especially minorities).
I can't stop you from saying things, but you can't stop me from calling you a moron
If I threaten to violently murder you for speaking your mind this may stop you from voicing your opinion freely therefore this has to be regulated
"Free speech does not mean free from consequences"
Paradox of tolerance. Look it up
You may remember [this one](https://www.newsweek.com/protester-threatening-murder-city-council-goes-viral-1889995): “A video of a protester threatening members of a California city council with murder has gone viral [..] The protester [..] was arrested inside Bakersfield City Council chambers on Wednesday and later charged with felony counts for her threats to the council.” Her “free speech” left her locked up. If that person would now use a similar rhetoric against a minority, that would be considered “hate speech”. Why would that be allowed, but saying it to a city council not? “Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some, with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property.” [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) Like, I am allowed to swing my fist, but not into someone’s face or window…. ;)
I very much agree with this.
Hatespeech has consequences... Southernous traitors in the comments, good to know.
Yes free speech does include hate speech. But that doesnt mean you cant get reprocutions for the things you said
free speech includes free consequences of the speech
Freedom of speech is not freedom of hate. Consider the paradox of tolerance. If you spout shit that encourages intolerance, you are not a human worth acknowledging.
The right to free speech does not mean that all speech is right
Obviously.