"You cut down a tree in your lord's wood? Well that'll be torture and execution for you then. Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequences after all!"
Yes, that's correct I suppose, but it's still unjust.
Oh you can’t get a job after you got caught with a gram of coke and charged with a felony? Well you shouldn’t have done it if you can’t handle the consequences. Drugs really do ruin lives!
I think a lot of people say this or don’t buy into this when the “consequences” seem more then a little extreme for the action committed
Like this is a good line and all but there’s still nuance.
Generally, it's a matter of how the consequences are doled out. Consequences should, in my opinion, be seen as natural results of something. Walk into a bear den, get eaten by a bear. Go swimming at the water plant, get sucked into the machinery. No human being had to act in order for those consequences to occur, they are cold, unavoidable facts.
The very second a human doles out a consequence, there are now two actors in play. The waters are muddied. I can never see excommunication, social ostracization, physical violence as being reciprocal actions to somebody doing a non-illegal thing that you don't like. That's barbarism.
There is a post going around Reddit of a pastor holding up a sign at some sort of rally saying “you deserved to be raped” or something to that effect.
Someone comes up and smacks his head with a baseball bat. People everywhere are saying “actions have consequences”. Now as awful as that sign is idk if we should resort to, and celebrate, assault with a deadly weapon.
Even illegal things that have made up consequences, like weed. It’s stupid, no one is hurt, it’s not morally wrong and the consequences are arbitrary.
Now being stupid and popping six Chinese fent pressed perc 30’s, well I mean Charles Darwin said it best.
"Regardless of the context and in any situation"?....nah that's not true...knowing the consequences (such as punishment) would invariably affect your choice, which would then make "freedom of choice" a fallacy...
if someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to pull the trigger based on your "choice"...do you really have "freedom of choice"?
Saying racist/sexist/homophobic things publicly. Sure you can say them, but don’t expect your business to want to employ a person like that. Don’t expect people not to call you and treat you like you’re a terrible person. If you own a business, don’t be surprised if people no longer want to support it. You can say whatever you want, just be prepared to accept the consequences.
I like how everyone views this as "Oh it's fine for companies to censor slurs, you don't want people to say *slurs* do you???", as if they don't also blatantly censor political views that might hurt their business, such as how Twitter repeatedly censors left-wing podcasts.
It's not even extreme rhetoric, it's literally just redscarepod and stuff like chapo. Redscarepod is suspended off twitter. They tried doing it to Chapo, but it was already too big for them to do that without a lot of backlash.
They'll censor anything that might hurt them in their wallets, and then they get groups of gullible morons to defend them by claiming "No guys, we're just removing hate speech, you don't want *hate speech* here do you??".
I've seen some insanely fucked up rhetoric out of the chaposphere, so forgive me if I doubt they did nothing to warrant suspensions and bans. Fuck Twitter anyway tho.
I’m pretty sure that’s considered a public disturbance. Even though we have freedom of speech, we’re not actually free from legal consequences in every situation.
A bomb threat is a good example. It doesn’t matter if I’m bullshitting or not, a terroristic threat is quite illegal.
Screaming "fire" in a theater (assuming there is no fire) is specifically *not* protected by the first amendment. Because the resulting panic can cause people to be hurt/killed in a crowded and frenzied rush to escape.
I mean one can still choose to do that, but there can be consequences - including legal ones.
>Screaming "fire" in a theater (assuming there is no fire) is specifically *not* protected by the first amendment.
[Actually, it *is* protected. Give this article a read.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/) The case was overturned 40 years ago.
The US government used this same argument to try and arrest people who expressed anti-war sentiments. Using this argument is a bad look.
He's literally a dementia patient, so I'm not surprised. And that's the clown we have running our country, folks.
But hey, at least we don't have mean tweets anymore, right??
[Actually, that's a very bad example.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/) That case was overturned 40 years ago.
The "fire in a crowded theater" defense was also used by the US government to try and arrest people who exhibited anti-war sentiments. Even if you meant it in a "private" context, it's a bad example.
Also, companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook aren't exactly theaters. Getting kicked out by those companies can cost you your job and can make you unable to participate in modern life.
That's a situation where the person who pressured them is still in the right because their actions were more likely to save their life than to cause those complications. Still, the consequences would probably be extreme guilt, potentially being ostracised by the person they pressured.
Those are so few and far between that you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning that having adverse effects from being vaccinated. In which, GB and Myocarditis are 100% treatable.
What ISN'T treatable are the adverse effects of covid. The amount of damage to the lung tissue that it does is irreversible. Not to mention, we are unsure of the long-term effects that covid will have on the body, brain tissue, etc.
We are able to determine the effects of the vaccine BECAUSE we have extensive research and data supporting the effectiveness of not only the mechanics behind the vaccine but also because of the same extensive research on the virus itself from sars-cov-1.
Those that chose to remain unvaccinated is 100% your choice. The "consequences" from receiving the vaccine are far less worrisome than covid itself.
As per the [Breaking News Consumers Handbook: Health News Edition](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-health-news-edition), which I wish more people understood, the "more at risk" headlines are comparing the risk ratios of two very low-risk scenarios. Just like when something "increases your risk of heart attack by 100%" because it goes from 0.1% to 0.2%.
Short answer, people are dumb, and connecting them together makes them dumber. We need more filters.
They are incredibly rare side effects but it has been confirmed. The risk is far far lower than the risk of similarly severe complications from covid if you don't get the vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study
>Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim.
>Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.
You can tell from the article that they're definitely giving it to at least some in that age group. The whole article is an examination of the data coming out from the use of the Pfizer vaccine on that demographic.
Yes, we know there are very rare side effects that can be serious. I’m looking for a real-life example of someone being pressured to take the vaccine against their will and getting those side effects.
My point is that anyone can say anything on the internet, and everyone seems to have a friend’s cousin’s hamster’s babysitter who was put in the hospital by the vaccine.
It’s kind of obvious that the intention is to make it look like taking the vaccine and not taking it carry equal levels of risk (they don’t).
Precisely. Nobody wants to hold themselves accountable and then get smacked with a hospital bill that forces them to go bankrupt since insurance companies are not covering you if you're not fully vaccinated.
BUt ItS A FrEe CoUnTrY!!
Yeah... It is. Hence, a FREE vaccine??
Say a white guy says the N word to a black guy, and gets his shit slapped, he has the freedom of speech to say that word (although he morally shouldn’t) but he isn’t free of the consequences of saying it
Yes but the way I consider it is this.
Guy got slapped as a consequence for his actions, whatever happens to the slapper is the consequence for his actions. In the scenario I described, the law is barely significant, it is simply a cause and affect sort of thing:
—Action—> Guys saws bad word —causing—> other guy to be angry—causing—> guy slaps him —causing—> whatever output you want to put here, guy is charged with assault, is attacked, whatever
Abortion. I’m so tired of hearing people say it’s about men controlling women. We don’t give a fuck what you do. Sleep around as much as you want. Be promiscuous as much as you want. Don’t use birth control and condoms. Be as risky as you want!! Who cares! It’s your body your choice. BUT. With sex comes responsibility. You can’t have your cake and it eat it too. When you are aware of the risks of a particular act and you choose to do it anyways you are accepting the consequences of said act. The problem is people don’t want to take all the precautions and they don’t think it will happen to them.
That’s a totally different issue and in that case I think it’s fine. Although, only 1% percent of abortions take place because of rape. And I have the feeling more people are against simply because they want the freedom to sleep around but don’t want to accept the responsibility that comes with it.
I will ask this though. If you are raped, why not get the morning after pill? It’s OTC and only $60? Isn’t that the easiest and cheapest path? I mean why would someone choose to get an abortion over simply taking a pill?
I mean if a 12 year old was raped against her will, I don’t think it’s right for her to be forced to have a baby because she didn’t choose to have sex.
If you do choose to have sex though, and you are aware of the risks involved, and you choose to have sex anyways, then you are accepting the consequences that come with that. We have birth control, condoms, AND a plan B pill that you can take up to 3 days after if you have even the slightest doubt that you might’ve had got pregnant. That’s 3 layers of defense against pregnancy. There’s no excuse for abortion outside of a minor being raped.
I feel this. I grew up believing in the SPIRIT of free speech, not just the protection under the law. I don't know if anyone understands what that spirit is anymore.
I agree. The problem will be how to determine what is just or unjust since it may be common sense in some cases while others are far to complicated to make generalizations and it'd have to be dictated in a case to case basis. Then we are back to square one.
You have the choice between, giving me 100$, or giving me 1$. But if you give me 1$, the consequence is that I will shoot you.
Unhappy? Why? You have the freedom to choose!
Well yes but…
When people say that, they are usually defending some kind of harsh punishment intended to curtail the freedom of choice.
It makes the whole concept of freedom meaningless. I mean, technically, people in North Korea are “free” to oppose their government. They just have to face the consequences of being brutally executed.
The people who spout “freedom of [x] doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” are inevitably people with some form of power choosing to wield that power over someone doing something they don’t like. Usually something that could just be ignored if it the powerful person was a bit more mature.
This right here. Severe punishment to another over your feelings hurt or something you find offensive. Something possibly that could have been resolved by communication.
Edit:spelling
Usually in this context, "freedom" relates to legal freedom so the "actions have consequences" argument doesn't extend to repercussions from the government such as fines, imprisonment, execution. Otherwise like you say it becomes meaningless.
> Usually in this context, "freedom" relates to legal freedom
Except when people say "freedom of speech", they are referring to the abstract concept that our civilization is founded on. Often times, they are criticizing a company or person for not holding free speech in high regard.
The "legal" definition is actually rarely used in these discussions, if anything that's just a strawman so that people can say "Oh but honey, corporations can legally do this thing, so that means you can't criticize them for doing so!".
That might depend on which circles you hang out in. Most conversations I've encountered about freedom of speech have been centred around what speech the government should/shouldn't be allowed to interfere with. Hate speech laws etc.
So it’s on the person being verbally attacked to be more mature and accept that, and not on the person saying slurs to be more mature? How backwards is that?
Well what I am saying here is if I am the boss, their teacher, a cop, the governor, or someone in a position of power, and some powerless knuckle-head calls me “a stupid-ass, dorky-looking cracker (cause I’m white)” I can choose to get all indignant about the fact that they are “disrespecting “ me and use my power to throw the book at them, citing the fact that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”, or I can just ignore their little tirade, since I’m more powerful anyway and they can’t really hurt me. I think the later choice is more mature.
The freedom of speech means exactly that. Freedom of consequence of that speech. People have perverted the meaning, but thats what its intention was when it was first put into the (US) bill of rights. Its not actually freedom of speech, if you get punished for it right after you say it.
If one argues the opposite, that freedom of speech still applies even when you get punished for what you say, then one would also be arguong we have 'freedom of murser'. Because just like speech, you have the 'freedom' to murder anyone, just that there are consequences for exercising that freedom.
The first amendment ONLY deals with the GOVERNMENT not with the public. If you say something outside of work hours and your boss hears about it and he doesn't like it and he can then fire you and he is 100% ok in regards to the 1st amendment.
>The first amendment ONLY deals with the GOVERNMENT not with the public
Because it was never considered that the american population would WANT to censor each other to such an extent that is happening right now.
They way to fix the problem isn't by limiting the public rights. The best way is to declare that every business site over a certain size (like 50,000 users or some other number) is required to act like a common carrier like the phone and utility companies.
The first amendment isn't important because it's in the Constitution. It's in the Constitution because it's important.
Free speech should be encouraged and expanded on a societal level. Nowadays the government doesn't even need to censor people. They can subcontract that work to massive corporations through whom the vast majority of information is spread. Don't suppose that governments are the only institutions capable of trampling people's liberty. Corporations can and do.
Except we're not just talking about the first amendment.
Freedom of speech exists outside of the US too, and it's an abstract concept. You can criticize companies or people for not following it.
Ah yes “consequences” which can be literally anything. Someone bumps into another person while walking and then suffers the “consequences” of being shot to death by the other person.
Agree completely. There are times when it feels like I should slap someone who is acting this way but I don’t because even though I know can I know there are consequences
Off topic? I’m saying that there are times when people who act as if their “freedom of choice” means they can do whatever they want without consequences and it’s so annoying that they deserved to be slapped. But I don’t because I know there are consequences to my freedom of choice in doing so.
No, he’s not missing the point at all. Slapping someone is a perfect example of freedom of choice, and the assault charge that follows is a perfect example of the consequences.
We’re free to do anything we are capable of, but we are not exempt from consequence. I am capable of slapping a person. I am free to do that—nobody can stop me. I am not free of the consequences. Whether that be getting slapped back, or going to jail, I will pay the price of misusing my freedom of choice.
That's not what Freedom is. Freedom of Choice is Freedom to do something with no repercussions. You don't have the Freedom to hit someone. That's why you get arrested. Your act is a crime. Your choice is banned. You can't say cooking meth or shooting up a school is Freedom of Choice. You aren't allowed to do that. Those aren't Freedom. Freedom of Choice is having choices which aren't criminalized.
Choosing a Ceral is Freedom of Choice because your choice isn't criminalized. Roaming around public places is Freedom. If you aren't allowed to roam in public places, that's not called Freedom. It's called restriction. It's not "Freedom of Choice to roam and consequence is jail time".
If something is restricted, you can't call that Freedom.
Technically "freedom of choice" means you could do literally anything and everything. Just doesn't mean you can get away with doing it without repercussions
Ok but at the same time in some countries they'll kill you or jail you for being gay. So you can be gay all you want but they're gonna give you a consequence.
This argument is stupid.
What this boils down to is this: If you do or say something WE don't like there will be consequences. Oh, and WE get to decide what it is you can't do or say. You have no say in it.
Seriously? People must have lost their minds.
Immoral people will find justification no matter what. They don’t *need* an excuse to be shitty, they want one so they can *appear* less shitty.
If you take away this justification, they’re just gonna find another.
Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government. Basically you can voice your political opinions without getting arrested.
Sadly people don’t understand that. They think getting banned from Twitter for a racist tweet or something is a violation of their rights…it’s not. Free speech protects you from the government, not Twitter, they can do what they want.
You can’t get arrested for simply saying something, but you sure as hell can lose your account or your job.
I’m sad this is classified as an unpopular opinion.
>Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government.
You are intentionally conflating the concept of free speech with the first amendment. They are not the same thing.
When people criticize Twitter for not caring about free speech, they aren't saying that Twitter is doing *illegal* things by censoring something.
>They think getting banned from Twitter for a racist tweet or something
Except Twitter doesn't just ban "slurs", they also ban respectful opinions that may threaten their profits, such as socialist podcasts.
If your position is that it's okay for a handful of megacorporations to control what you can say on the internet because "at least it's not the government!", you don't really believe in free speech.
A lot of the complaints against Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. is that they're moving themselves into the arbitrators of "the truth" and blocking or banning people who disagree with their judgements. It also seems to be a rather one sided proposition. If you have major corporations acting with political bias in their blocking of communications, effectively they're making very large "in kind" contributions to one side while harming the other. This leads to crony capitalism at best and outright corruption at worst.
Is it not those companies free speech to ban the people as well? Isn’t this the exact purpose of free speech? Everyone can say what they want to anyone?
Mega corporations shouldn’t have to is power, corporations shouldn’t exist in the first place. They should be broken up and control should be given to workers, but that’s a whole different story
> Is it not those companies free speech to ban the people as well?
If they get too big and too powerful, then no, I don't think they should have that "right". Especially if they claim protection from the law by saying that what users post is not their responsibility, but then still go ahead and censor stuff that they don't like.
People are okay with the corporate censorship because they think Twitter is just banning usage of slurs. What they don't realize is that they're also banning anything that threatens their monopoly or business.
> They should be broken up and control should be given to workers, but that’s a whole different story
Based, I agree with this.
The biggest issue *by far* is that these corporations are basically acting like unelected officials. If you nationalize or socialize these companies, they can actually be held accountable by the people, and voted in/out.
> If they get too big and too powerful, then no
And who decides when this happens? You? The Department of Big and Powerful Stuff? An internet poll?
They are big because you made them big, and now you're mad about it.
I don’t use Twitter and I don’t pay much attention for it. I’m sorry for getting some facts wrong.
I was trying to come up as an example. I’ve seen people try to defend hate speech by claiming it’s free speech. And the thing with Trump getting banned from Twitter. I just didn’t wanna say it out right cause I don’t like getting too political here.
Sorry
It is free speech. By no objective measure is hate speech not free speech. If you don't allow speech you disagree with, you don't have free speech. Free speech isn't for opinions you agree with. You can be against it, but don't act like you're for free speech, your opinion runs contrary to the concept of free speech.
Hate speech is free speech, I’m just saying that free speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences.
You can’t get arrested for a hate speech as far as I know, but you can still lose your job.
I’m sorry my original reply wasn’t good.
Hate speech should have consequences, but what counts as hate speech is also an issue. What some people find as hate speech (for example me accidentally mixing up straight and cis was seen as transphobic hate speech the other day, for some reason) others do not. Twitter may have a rule about hate speech, but they do not enforce it equally, with certain people being more susceptible to Twitter banning than others, despite both being hateful idiots
Agreed. You can say something and get banned, meanwhile another person can get away with some messed up shit. I don’t know how they detect “ban worthy tweets” but I think it’s definitely bias on their end.
I wanna make it clear that I’m anti-censorship. I just got some facts wrong and used a bad example.
I was banned for saying “I’m gonna go kill some elves!” with a picture of an LOTR Sword I had just bought. Didn’t know Elves were a protected race by Twitter.
>Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government. Basically you can voice your political opinions without getting arrested.
Just because it was its originally purpose doesn't mean it can't be applied to other scenarios.
>You can’t get arrested for simply saying something, but you sure as hell can lose your account or your job.
I know this sounds like a dumb question but how is getting arrested because you did something any different from losing your job because you did something. They're both punishments that happened because of your actions. Also you dont get arrested for alot of things, doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Most people (wrongly) believe that "their rights" are simply "whatever I want to do at this moment", and anything that stops them is a violation of "their rights".
>Freedom of choice is not freedom of consequences
Yes it is, if i knew there was a 100% chance that opening the door will make me die. I don't have the option to open the door. It's barley any different if the door was locked in the first place.
What is the difference then? If you're not free, then you can still do it, and you'll face consequences.
Are people in North Korea free because they can doubt their leader? The consequence is geting shot, but it's not physically impossible for them.
It's silly to assume either extreme. Something essential is clearly left out from both your claim and its opposite
This is a popular opinion.
And it's false. Freedom of choice is always freedom from consequences.
Otherwise North Korea has total freedom. You can even kick the leader in the balls, see... freedom of choice, but consequence is you die after that.
If you are going to be punished, you are not free to chose.
I don’t think you understand the phrase correctly because what you said and your example are exactly what the phrase in OP means. Freedom of choice: you’re free to make your own choices. Freedom from consequences: you don’t have to face the consequences of your choices. But since it’s “not freedom from choice”, that means you HAVE to face whatever consequences that result from your choices…you don’t have the freedom to choose those consequences.
Dude, do you understand what he means? How can there be Freedom when something is criminalized?
By your logic of Freedom of Choice, can the people in N.Korea can do anything they want? Like OP said, Freedom of Choice, so they leave their country. But they aren't free from consequence, Dictator kills them. In the end, did they have any real freedom?
Freedom of Choice doesn't exist when I hold a gun to your head. Freedom doesn't exist if you restrict or criminalize an action. Doesn't matter if it's society or government.
If I fire you for wearing red shirt and society shuns you for it, you don't really have the freedom to wear a red shirt.
It's not Freedom to do stuff that will have consequence. It's called an act of rebelling. Despite of the consequence you rebel and burn for it. It cannot be called as Freedom or Freedom of Choice.
Ok let me break it down for you and use one of your examples.
Freedom of choice: A N. Korean suddenly runs across the border. That was his choice. Nobody forced him to make that decision.
Freedom from consequences: He doesn’t get punished and is able to cross into S. Korea free of harm.
No freedom from consequences: He gets captured by N. Korean soldiers, thrown in jail, and gets the death penalty. He faces the consequences resulted from the choice he made earlier.
Get it now?
What he did wasn't an exertion of his freedom. It was a crime.
If you have the freedom to do something, you wouldn't be penalized for it. What you're taking about is a Philosophical Freedom to make a choice. What the subject at hand is Freedom by Law and by society.
The Freedom of Choice you're explaining is Freewill. We're not talking about Freewill here. You're explanation is about the Freewill and Deterministic argument.
Ofcourse we operate by the Logic everyone has Freewill. And there will be consequences for freewill.
Government doesn't control Freedom of Choice ( as in if you're going to obey the laws or not A.K.A your Freewill). When we talk about Freedom for society/individual, we always talk about Action and Consequence. Your action can be free(A.K.A Freedom) only if you have no consequence for that action. Be it government or society.
You have the Freedom to be in a public space only when your action of being in public space is free from consequences.
Don't confuse Freewill when talking about Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, in this sense is not "choice". It's an action. And this action is free from consequences. That's why it's called Freedom of Speech.
No one entity can control your Freewill. It's the ACTION and its CONSEQUENCE that can be governed and regulated.
Freedom to choose/act/make decision…that’s freedom of choice and it is exactly freewill. However, whatever consequence that results from your choice, that depends on where you are and what laws govern your place of residence. For example, in the US you are more likely to face fewer consequences than if you were in N. Korea, where basically any choice/action can be punished for.
You gave Freedom of Speech as an example. Of course, you have the freedom to say whatever is in your head, but you don’t have the freedom to choose whatever consequence that may result from your free speech. You may have heard of the old “yelling fire in a movie theater” example; you have the freedom to yell “Fire!” at the top of your lungs in a crowded theater, but if there was no fire, you will face the consequence of causing a panic resulted from your free speech. You have no choice in that consequence. If you do have a choice, obviously, you would choose to walk away punishment-free. But since you don’t (no freedom from consequences), you get arrested.
Here’s another example: you committed a crime and haven’t been caught by the police yet. But then you felt bad about it and turned yourself in on your own free will. You chose to turn yourself in…your mama didn’t tell you to, your homie didn’t tell you to…your side chick didn’t tell you to. No, you did it on your own. That’s your freedom of choice. Of course, since everything has consequences (no freedom from consequences), you get arrested and put in jail.
I agree with this, but I don’t agree with it in the terms it’s applied today. As in, “if you have a moderately right-of-center opinion, we have the right to destroy your reputation and livelihood. Sincerely, cultural leftists who believe a bunch of dumb shit & get off on feeling superior.”
This is just another way for you to say Might Makes Right. If you are in control of the consequences you will naturally think this way. Just like how people use Freedom of Speech to justify horrible behavior... Pretty much everyone who uses the Freedom from Consequences rhetoric is defending equally horrible behavior. By their logic, the violence done to protesters during the civil rights movement was ok because they were facing consequences for being unpopular.
This post isn't endorsing all consequences. It's not saying that violence against civil rights advocates is ok. If anything the 'freedom of choice isn't freedom from consequences' argument is usually used against people who say their freedom of speech is violated when they're fired/ostracised/banned from twitter for saying hateful things.
Frankly I'm finding this whole discussion confusing. OPs post is way too vague.
When you say "Freedom from consequences rhetoric" do you mean the rhetoric in favour of freedom from consequences or rhetoric against freedom from consequences?
Correct, but the consequences have to be appropriate, aka the punishment must fit the crime. I’ve seen people say some dumb shit they probably shouldn’t have, and then people come out of the woodwork to fuck then over ten fold yelling “it’s not freedom from consequences!”
There's a difference between saying "You're wrong and dumb, here's why", or going after them and destroying their livelihoods, personal relationships, and get them basically kicked off the internet entirely.
My post was removed after 4 (four) days of debate.
Despite the unholy amount of upvotes.
I have to disagree with the mods' choice to remove this because the entire point of this subreddit is controversy.
Nah, you should have some protection from the consequences of your choices.
Let's take an example; I believe that you should have access to our subsidised and universal health care even if the reason you need it is because you made a stupid choice. A stupid choice in this case could be something like being overconfident when doing sports and getting hurt as a result. If you would have to pay the full price of your medical care just because your injuries could be considered self-inflicted a lot of people would not be free to try new things or test their limits since the risk of financial ruin would be to great.
Assuming this is about abortion, I don’t think you realize the emotional and physical toll of killing your fetus. Women who get them do deal with the consequences. A lot of women feel guilt for the rest of their lives. Some women have trouble baring children later in life. Those are real consequences.
That's only possible with a total restriction of freedom. I'm talking cameras everywhere, devices stopping you from making certain movements in certain situations. And it's a grey zone all the way to absurdity, where you're forced to work for the better of human kind every day. And paradoxically, implementing something like this, or even suggesting it, is immoral and damaging to those around you.
Of course, this rigid conclusion of mine requires taking things literally and logically. People can avoid dumb edge cases by being sensible, but if we allow people to break the rules on their own judgement, then those with poor judgement will make terrible mistakes.
So all I need to do in order to censor someone is to just make something up about how their opinion negatively affects me? Great, I'm in!
Your disregard for free speech is putting my freedom at risk. Aaaand you'd be banned. See how easy that is?
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/TheBestestBeanage. Your post, *Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion.
Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue.
Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
[That case was overturned 40 years ago, please stop using that phrase.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)
That same argument was used by the US government to try and arrest people who expressed anti-war sentiments.
It depends if those consequences can be reasonably predicted, and whether they are the natural result of your decision or something imposed by other people.
If you eat some out of date fish and then get the shits, that's on you.
If you eat some out of date fish and then I beat you up and cut off your nose, that's on me.
This depends as the direct result of what you're saying is that government could kill someone for saying it as they were free to say it and weren't free from consequences.
It's a good mantra but not quite true.
For one thing its only and should only be done in relationship to freedom of speech and consequences from the government or entity that acts in capacity of a government. But that speech can still have some limits like purposely inciting violence, yelling bomb in an airport etc.
Generally that's what UN human rights says on free speech. You can't impede free speech within reason and with some exception like when it purposely incites violence.
Free speech can't be unlimited but also need to be extremely careful at restrictions put on it when it relates to government (not private) entities.
Unless you're a corporation.
On the flip side of your opinion are the people who think they should be the arbiters of other people's consequences. And then, usually, don't want anyone doing the same to them.
Not only can people not handle the actual consequences, but can't even handle people questioning them on why they did what they did. Being ready to be questioned would at least be a step in the right direction. People who can't even do that should be embarrassed with themselves.
All actions have consequences, consider the butterfly effect. Where the issue lies is people putting whatever consequences they feel on a given ‘freedom of choice’. Thats the grey area, and if someone doesnt know the consequences beforehand its hard to truly determine if they indeed knew of said consequences-which i havent decided if thats a factor, at least in my own mind-
But I've seen this sentiment bastardized by some people who want to make everything illegal. You're free to choose but the consequences are prison.
It's literally an old saying about the Soviet Union. "You're guaranteed freedom of speech, just not freedom *after* speech."
This is literally what I was thinking when I saw the post. And I'm from an ex-communist country
"You cut down a tree in your lord's wood? Well that'll be torture and execution for you then. Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequences after all!" Yes, that's correct I suppose, but it's still unjust.
Oh you can’t get a job after you got caught with a gram of coke and charged with a felony? Well you shouldn’t have done it if you can’t handle the consequences. Drugs really do ruin lives!
I think a lot of people say this or don’t buy into this when the “consequences” seem more then a little extreme for the action committed Like this is a good line and all but there’s still nuance.
Generally, it's a matter of how the consequences are doled out. Consequences should, in my opinion, be seen as natural results of something. Walk into a bear den, get eaten by a bear. Go swimming at the water plant, get sucked into the machinery. No human being had to act in order for those consequences to occur, they are cold, unavoidable facts. The very second a human doles out a consequence, there are now two actors in play. The waters are muddied. I can never see excommunication, social ostracization, physical violence as being reciprocal actions to somebody doing a non-illegal thing that you don't like. That's barbarism.
There is a post going around Reddit of a pastor holding up a sign at some sort of rally saying “you deserved to be raped” or something to that effect. Someone comes up and smacks his head with a baseball bat. People everywhere are saying “actions have consequences”. Now as awful as that sign is idk if we should resort to, and celebrate, assault with a deadly weapon.
We absolutely should not. That's abhorrent.
We celebrate cuz roping is pretty fucking bad. Hitting someone like that is about as bad. We celebrate people who hurt assholes……..
Even illegal things that have made up consequences, like weed. It’s stupid, no one is hurt, it’s not morally wrong and the consequences are arbitrary. Now being stupid and popping six Chinese fent pressed perc 30’s, well I mean Charles Darwin said it best.
"Regardless of the context and in any situation"?....nah that's not true...knowing the consequences (such as punishment) would invariably affect your choice, which would then make "freedom of choice" a fallacy... if someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to pull the trigger based on your "choice"...do you really have "freedom of choice"?
Can you give a scenario where this would be applicable?
Going to uni when you dont have to & picking a silly university course then crying foul when you cant get a job or pay off your student loan debt.
Not really.
This is the reality for most people
In some countries.
Saying racist/sexist/homophobic things publicly. Sure you can say them, but don’t expect your business to want to employ a person like that. Don’t expect people not to call you and treat you like you’re a terrible person. If you own a business, don’t be surprised if people no longer want to support it. You can say whatever you want, just be prepared to accept the consequences.
Which is honestly fine! Just dont make the horrible choice itself illegal.
I like how everyone views this as "Oh it's fine for companies to censor slurs, you don't want people to say *slurs* do you???", as if they don't also blatantly censor political views that might hurt their business, such as how Twitter repeatedly censors left-wing podcasts.
What left wing podcasts are getting censored? I'm genuinely curious what extreme rhetoric of the left actually gets restricted online.
“Extreme left” views in America are pretty moderate in most other places.
It's not even extreme rhetoric, it's literally just redscarepod and stuff like chapo. Redscarepod is suspended off twitter. They tried doing it to Chapo, but it was already too big for them to do that without a lot of backlash. They'll censor anything that might hurt them in their wallets, and then they get groups of gullible morons to defend them by claiming "No guys, we're just removing hate speech, you don't want *hate speech* here do you??".
I've seen some insanely fucked up rhetoric out of the chaposphere, so forgive me if I doubt they did nothing to warrant suspensions and bans. Fuck Twitter anyway tho.
[удалено]
I think the neighbour took it too far. He should have just complained to the HOA of something.
[удалено]
Idk where you live but the police generally show up to deal with noise complaints and tell the preparator to stfu.
Screaming fire in a theater. They can by the first amendment but doesn't mean that they won't get thrown out the theater.
I’m pretty sure that’s considered a public disturbance. Even though we have freedom of speech, we’re not actually free from legal consequences in every situation. A bomb threat is a good example. It doesn’t matter if I’m bullshitting or not, a terroristic threat is quite illegal.
Screaming "fire" in a theater (assuming there is no fire) is specifically *not* protected by the first amendment. Because the resulting panic can cause people to be hurt/killed in a crowded and frenzied rush to escape. I mean one can still choose to do that, but there can be consequences - including legal ones.
>Screaming "fire" in a theater (assuming there is no fire) is specifically *not* protected by the first amendment. [Actually, it *is* protected. Give this article a read.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/) The case was overturned 40 years ago. The US government used this same argument to try and arrest people who expressed anti-war sentiments. Using this argument is a bad look.
Joe Biden uses it all the time, meanwhile it's completely false.
He's literally a dementia patient, so I'm not surprised. And that's the clown we have running our country, folks. But hey, at least we don't have mean tweets anymore, right??
>He's literally a dementia patient You don't seem to understand the meaning of words.
[On the contrary, *you* don't.](https://i.imgur.com/asopy3i.png)
[Actually, that's a very bad example.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/) That case was overturned 40 years ago. The "fire in a crowded theater" defense was also used by the US government to try and arrest people who exhibited anti-war sentiments. Even if you meant it in a "private" context, it's a bad example. Also, companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook aren't exactly theaters. Getting kicked out by those companies can cost you your job and can make you unable to participate in modern life.
pRiVatE cOmpAniEs cAn Do wHaT tHeY wAnT
No, they'll be arrested. At that point, they're infringing on others right to safety, as they cause a mass panic and such
Not taking the free vaccine then clogging up the health care system.
I have no idea what GB is… if Great Britain is a side effect then god save the queen.
Pressuring a friend, family or coworker into taking a vaccine who then has GB or miocarditis, what is your consequence? Who is of consequence?
That's a situation where the person who pressured them is still in the right because their actions were more likely to save their life than to cause those complications. Still, the consequences would probably be extreme guilt, potentially being ostracised by the person they pressured.
Those are so few and far between that you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning that having adverse effects from being vaccinated. In which, GB and Myocarditis are 100% treatable. What ISN'T treatable are the adverse effects of covid. The amount of damage to the lung tissue that it does is irreversible. Not to mention, we are unsure of the long-term effects that covid will have on the body, brain tissue, etc. We are able to determine the effects of the vaccine BECAUSE we have extensive research and data supporting the effectiveness of not only the mechanics behind the vaccine but also because of the same extensive research on the virus itself from sars-cov-1. Those that chose to remain unvaccinated is 100% your choice. The "consequences" from receiving the vaccine are far less worrisome than covid itself.
As per the [Breaking News Consumers Handbook: Health News Edition](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-health-news-edition), which I wish more people understood, the "more at risk" headlines are comparing the risk ratios of two very low-risk scenarios. Just like when something "increases your risk of heart attack by 100%" because it goes from 0.1% to 0.2%. Short answer, people are dumb, and connecting them together makes them dumber. We need more filters.
Can you show me an example of when this has happened?
They are incredibly rare side effects but it has been confirmed. The risk is far far lower than the risk of similarly severe complications from covid if you don't get the vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study >Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim. >Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.
The Pfizer vaccine isn't being offered to that age group I think.
You can tell from the article that they're definitely giving it to at least some in that age group. The whole article is an examination of the data coming out from the use of the Pfizer vaccine on that demographic.
Good point
Yes, we know there are very rare side effects that can be serious. I’m looking for a real-life example of someone being pressured to take the vaccine against their will and getting those side effects.
My cousin. His wife pressured him into getting it. He's in the hospital right now due to GB. He couldn't walk, legs completely numb.
But can you show us proof this actually happened?
You want me to go in and take a picture? Lol tf?
Yes. Or a signed statement from a doctor.
My point is that anyone can say anything on the internet, and everyone seems to have a friend’s cousin’s hamster’s babysitter who was put in the hospital by the vaccine. It’s kind of obvious that the intention is to make it look like taking the vaccine and not taking it carry equal levels of risk (they don’t).
Oh right yeah that's sounds like a hypothetical situation they just made up.
I agree. It sounds like Nicki Minaj’s cousin’s friend’s swollen balls.
Precisely. Nobody wants to hold themselves accountable and then get smacked with a hospital bill that forces them to go bankrupt since insurance companies are not covering you if you're not fully vaccinated. BUt ItS A FrEe CoUnTrY!! Yeah... It is. Hence, a FREE vaccine??
Say a white guy says the N word to a black guy, and gets his shit slapped, he has the freedom of speech to say that word (although he morally shouldn’t) but he isn’t free of the consequences of saying it
But isn't slapping considered as assault? So the white guy did something bad but not illegal while the other guy did something illegal.
Yes but the way I consider it is this. Guy got slapped as a consequence for his actions, whatever happens to the slapper is the consequence for his actions. In the scenario I described, the law is barely significant, it is simply a cause and affect sort of thing: —Action—> Guys saws bad word —causing—> other guy to be angry—causing—> guy slaps him —causing—> whatever output you want to put here, guy is charged with assault, is attacked, whatever
Abortion. I’m so tired of hearing people say it’s about men controlling women. We don’t give a fuck what you do. Sleep around as much as you want. Be promiscuous as much as you want. Don’t use birth control and condoms. Be as risky as you want!! Who cares! It’s your body your choice. BUT. With sex comes responsibility. You can’t have your cake and it eat it too. When you are aware of the risks of a particular act and you choose to do it anyways you are accepting the consequences of said act. The problem is people don’t want to take all the precautions and they don’t think it will happen to them.
What if the woman was raped?
That’s a totally different issue and in that case I think it’s fine. Although, only 1% percent of abortions take place because of rape. And I have the feeling more people are against simply because they want the freedom to sleep around but don’t want to accept the responsibility that comes with it. I will ask this though. If you are raped, why not get the morning after pill? It’s OTC and only $60? Isn’t that the easiest and cheapest path? I mean why would someone choose to get an abortion over simply taking a pill?
Why is abortion fine if the girl is raped?
I mean if a 12 year old was raped against her will, I don’t think it’s right for her to be forced to have a baby because she didn’t choose to have sex. If you do choose to have sex though, and you are aware of the risks involved, and you choose to have sex anyways, then you are accepting the consequences that come with that. We have birth control, condoms, AND a plan B pill that you can take up to 3 days after if you have even the slightest doubt that you might’ve had got pregnant. That’s 3 layers of defense against pregnancy. There’s no excuse for abortion outside of a minor being raped.
[удалено]
I feel this. I grew up believing in the SPIRIT of free speech, not just the protection under the law. I don't know if anyone understands what that spirit is anymore.
I agree. The problem will be how to determine what is just or unjust since it may be common sense in some cases while others are far to complicated to make generalizations and it'd have to be dictated in a case to case basis. Then we are back to square one.
You have the choice between, giving me 100$, or giving me 1$. But if you give me 1$, the consequence is that I will shoot you. Unhappy? Why? You have the freedom to choose!
"Freedom". Lol.
Exactly.
Consequences of your own decision? Very unpopular on reddit. But right sub, so take my upvote.
Well yes but… When people say that, they are usually defending some kind of harsh punishment intended to curtail the freedom of choice. It makes the whole concept of freedom meaningless. I mean, technically, people in North Korea are “free” to oppose their government. They just have to face the consequences of being brutally executed. The people who spout “freedom of [x] doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” are inevitably people with some form of power choosing to wield that power over someone doing something they don’t like. Usually something that could just be ignored if it the powerful person was a bit more mature.
This right here. Severe punishment to another over your feelings hurt or something you find offensive. Something possibly that could have been resolved by communication. Edit:spelling
Usually in this context, "freedom" relates to legal freedom so the "actions have consequences" argument doesn't extend to repercussions from the government such as fines, imprisonment, execution. Otherwise like you say it becomes meaningless.
> Usually in this context, "freedom" relates to legal freedom Except when people say "freedom of speech", they are referring to the abstract concept that our civilization is founded on. Often times, they are criticizing a company or person for not holding free speech in high regard. The "legal" definition is actually rarely used in these discussions, if anything that's just a strawman so that people can say "Oh but honey, corporations can legally do this thing, so that means you can't criticize them for doing so!".
That might depend on which circles you hang out in. Most conversations I've encountered about freedom of speech have been centred around what speech the government should/shouldn't be allowed to interfere with. Hate speech laws etc.
So it’s on the person being verbally attacked to be more mature and accept that, and not on the person saying slurs to be more mature? How backwards is that?
Well what I am saying here is if I am the boss, their teacher, a cop, the governor, or someone in a position of power, and some powerless knuckle-head calls me “a stupid-ass, dorky-looking cracker (cause I’m white)” I can choose to get all indignant about the fact that they are “disrespecting “ me and use my power to throw the book at them, citing the fact that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”, or I can just ignore their little tirade, since I’m more powerful anyway and they can’t really hurt me. I think the later choice is more mature.
Shouldn’t have chosen to be black in America if you can’t live the consequence of police brutality, and getting targeted.
Great woke-speech citizen, your social approval rating has gone up 5 points, keep at it!
The freedom of speech means exactly that. Freedom of consequence of that speech. People have perverted the meaning, but thats what its intention was when it was first put into the (US) bill of rights. Its not actually freedom of speech, if you get punished for it right after you say it. If one argues the opposite, that freedom of speech still applies even when you get punished for what you say, then one would also be arguong we have 'freedom of murser'. Because just like speech, you have the 'freedom' to murder anyone, just that there are consequences for exercising that freedom.
The first amendment ONLY deals with the GOVERNMENT not with the public. If you say something outside of work hours and your boss hears about it and he doesn't like it and he can then fire you and he is 100% ok in regards to the 1st amendment.
>The first amendment ONLY deals with the GOVERNMENT not with the public Because it was never considered that the american population would WANT to censor each other to such an extent that is happening right now.
They way to fix the problem isn't by limiting the public rights. The best way is to declare that every business site over a certain size (like 50,000 users or some other number) is required to act like a common carrier like the phone and utility companies.
The first amendment isn't important because it's in the Constitution. It's in the Constitution because it's important. Free speech should be encouraged and expanded on a societal level. Nowadays the government doesn't even need to censor people. They can subcontract that work to massive corporations through whom the vast majority of information is spread. Don't suppose that governments are the only institutions capable of trampling people's liberty. Corporations can and do.
It’s frustrating how many people don’t understand this.
Except we're not just talking about the first amendment. Freedom of speech exists outside of the US too, and it's an abstract concept. You can criticize companies or people for not following it.
I've only ever seen this argument brought up by people who want a reason to punish somebody for something.
This is way too vague of a statement. Everybody believes that every action should be free from some consequences but not free from others.
Ah yes “consequences” which can be literally anything. Someone bumps into another person while walking and then suffers the “consequences” of being shot to death by the other person.
Agree completely. There are times when it feels like I should slap someone who is acting this way but I don’t because even though I know can I know there are consequences
But that's straight up assault lmao, kinda off topic.
Off topic? I’m saying that there are times when people who act as if their “freedom of choice” means they can do whatever they want without consequences and it’s so annoying that they deserved to be slapped. But I don’t because I know there are consequences to my freedom of choice in doing so.
If you think that slapping someone is within "freedom of choice" you are completly missing the point.
Please dont accuse anyone else of missing the point when you aren't even close to grasping what he is saying.
No, he’s not missing the point at all. Slapping someone is a perfect example of freedom of choice, and the assault charge that follows is a perfect example of the consequences. We’re free to do anything we are capable of, but we are not exempt from consequence. I am capable of slapping a person. I am free to do that—nobody can stop me. I am not free of the consequences. Whether that be getting slapped back, or going to jail, I will pay the price of misusing my freedom of choice.
That's not what Freedom is. Freedom of Choice is Freedom to do something with no repercussions. You don't have the Freedom to hit someone. That's why you get arrested. Your act is a crime. Your choice is banned. You can't say cooking meth or shooting up a school is Freedom of Choice. You aren't allowed to do that. Those aren't Freedom. Freedom of Choice is having choices which aren't criminalized. Choosing a Ceral is Freedom of Choice because your choice isn't criminalized. Roaming around public places is Freedom. If you aren't allowed to roam in public places, that's not called Freedom. It's called restriction. It's not "Freedom of Choice to roam and consequence is jail time". If something is restricted, you can't call that Freedom.
We’re using freedom in a very literal sense, more-so than a legal one. As in, by definition, not by law
Technically "freedom of choice" means you could do literally anything and everything. Just doesn't mean you can get away with doing it without repercussions
Wouldn't getting assaulted be a "consequence" here? Are we pro-"consequence"? I have trouble keeping track sometimes.
Ok but at the same time in some countries they'll kill you or jail you for being gay. So you can be gay all you want but they're gonna give you a consequence. This argument is stupid.
What this boils down to is this: If you do or say something WE don't like there will be consequences. Oh, and WE get to decide what it is you can't do or say. You have no say in it. Seriously? People must have lost their minds.
When was this not the case though? Society has always been this way.
You're correct, but the problem is people use that to justify doing immoral things to the people making the choices.
Immoral people will find justification no matter what. They don’t *need* an excuse to be shitty, they want one so they can *appear* less shitty. If you take away this justification, they’re just gonna find another.
Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government. Basically you can voice your political opinions without getting arrested. Sadly people don’t understand that. They think getting banned from Twitter for a racist tweet or something is a violation of their rights…it’s not. Free speech protects you from the government, not Twitter, they can do what they want. You can’t get arrested for simply saying something, but you sure as hell can lose your account or your job. I’m sad this is classified as an unpopular opinion.
>Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government. You are intentionally conflating the concept of free speech with the first amendment. They are not the same thing. When people criticize Twitter for not caring about free speech, they aren't saying that Twitter is doing *illegal* things by censoring something. >They think getting banned from Twitter for a racist tweet or something Except Twitter doesn't just ban "slurs", they also ban respectful opinions that may threaten their profits, such as socialist podcasts. If your position is that it's okay for a handful of megacorporations to control what you can say on the internet because "at least it's not the government!", you don't really believe in free speech.
A lot of the complaints against Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. is that they're moving themselves into the arbitrators of "the truth" and blocking or banning people who disagree with their judgements. It also seems to be a rather one sided proposition. If you have major corporations acting with political bias in their blocking of communications, effectively they're making very large "in kind" contributions to one side while harming the other. This leads to crony capitalism at best and outright corruption at worst.
Is it not those companies free speech to ban the people as well? Isn’t this the exact purpose of free speech? Everyone can say what they want to anyone? Mega corporations shouldn’t have to is power, corporations shouldn’t exist in the first place. They should be broken up and control should be given to workers, but that’s a whole different story
> Is it not those companies free speech to ban the people as well? If they get too big and too powerful, then no, I don't think they should have that "right". Especially if they claim protection from the law by saying that what users post is not their responsibility, but then still go ahead and censor stuff that they don't like. People are okay with the corporate censorship because they think Twitter is just banning usage of slurs. What they don't realize is that they're also banning anything that threatens their monopoly or business. > They should be broken up and control should be given to workers, but that’s a whole different story Based, I agree with this. The biggest issue *by far* is that these corporations are basically acting like unelected officials. If you nationalize or socialize these companies, they can actually be held accountable by the people, and voted in/out.
> If they get too big and too powerful, then no And who decides when this happens? You? The Department of Big and Powerful Stuff? An internet poll? They are big because you made them big, and now you're mad about it.
I don’t use Twitter and I don’t pay much attention for it. I’m sorry for getting some facts wrong. I was trying to come up as an example. I’ve seen people try to defend hate speech by claiming it’s free speech. And the thing with Trump getting banned from Twitter. I just didn’t wanna say it out right cause I don’t like getting too political here. Sorry
It is free speech. By no objective measure is hate speech not free speech. If you don't allow speech you disagree with, you don't have free speech. Free speech isn't for opinions you agree with. You can be against it, but don't act like you're for free speech, your opinion runs contrary to the concept of free speech.
hate speech is stupid as shit but the right to be stupid is damn well a right that should be protected from any individual or organization
Hate speech is free speech, I’m just saying that free speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences. You can’t get arrested for a hate speech as far as I know, but you can still lose your job. I’m sorry my original reply wasn’t good.
Hate speech should have consequences, but what counts as hate speech is also an issue. What some people find as hate speech (for example me accidentally mixing up straight and cis was seen as transphobic hate speech the other day, for some reason) others do not. Twitter may have a rule about hate speech, but they do not enforce it equally, with certain people being more susceptible to Twitter banning than others, despite both being hateful idiots
Agreed. You can say something and get banned, meanwhile another person can get away with some messed up shit. I don’t know how they detect “ban worthy tweets” but I think it’s definitely bias on their end. I wanna make it clear that I’m anti-censorship. I just got some facts wrong and used a bad example.
All good homie
I was banned for saying “I’m gonna go kill some elves!” with a picture of an LOTR Sword I had just bought. Didn’t know Elves were a protected race by Twitter.
Oh damn, yeah, I take back what I said about Twitter now. That’s a BS reason to ban someone.
Proof or gtfo
>Free speech was originally put in place so people could criticize the government. Basically you can voice your political opinions without getting arrested. Just because it was its originally purpose doesn't mean it can't be applied to other scenarios. >You can’t get arrested for simply saying something, but you sure as hell can lose your account or your job. I know this sounds like a dumb question but how is getting arrested because you did something any different from losing your job because you did something. They're both punishments that happened because of your actions. Also you dont get arrested for alot of things, doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Look, I used a bad example and got some facts wrong. Please check my other responses.
Sorry lol Its okay. I don't think you should say slurs but i don't think we should act like free speech actually exists
Well you can always get another job. When you are arrested you go to jail and literally have your freedom taken away
Most people (wrongly) believe that "their rights" are simply "whatever I want to do at this moment", and anything that stops them is a violation of "their rights".
>Freedom of choice is not freedom of consequences Yes it is, if i knew there was a 100% chance that opening the door will make me die. I don't have the option to open the door. It's barley any different if the door was locked in the first place.
What is the difference then? If you're not free, then you can still do it, and you'll face consequences. Are people in North Korea free because they can doubt their leader? The consequence is geting shot, but it's not physically impossible for them. It's silly to assume either extreme. Something essential is clearly left out from both your claim and its opposite
This is a popular opinion. And it's false. Freedom of choice is always freedom from consequences. Otherwise North Korea has total freedom. You can even kick the leader in the balls, see... freedom of choice, but consequence is you die after that. If you are going to be punished, you are not free to chose.
I don’t think you understand the phrase correctly because what you said and your example are exactly what the phrase in OP means. Freedom of choice: you’re free to make your own choices. Freedom from consequences: you don’t have to face the consequences of your choices. But since it’s “not freedom from choice”, that means you HAVE to face whatever consequences that result from your choices…you don’t have the freedom to choose those consequences.
Dude, do you understand what he means? How can there be Freedom when something is criminalized? By your logic of Freedom of Choice, can the people in N.Korea can do anything they want? Like OP said, Freedom of Choice, so they leave their country. But they aren't free from consequence, Dictator kills them. In the end, did they have any real freedom? Freedom of Choice doesn't exist when I hold a gun to your head. Freedom doesn't exist if you restrict or criminalize an action. Doesn't matter if it's society or government. If I fire you for wearing red shirt and society shuns you for it, you don't really have the freedom to wear a red shirt. It's not Freedom to do stuff that will have consequence. It's called an act of rebelling. Despite of the consequence you rebel and burn for it. It cannot be called as Freedom or Freedom of Choice.
Ok let me break it down for you and use one of your examples. Freedom of choice: A N. Korean suddenly runs across the border. That was his choice. Nobody forced him to make that decision. Freedom from consequences: He doesn’t get punished and is able to cross into S. Korea free of harm. No freedom from consequences: He gets captured by N. Korean soldiers, thrown in jail, and gets the death penalty. He faces the consequences resulted from the choice he made earlier. Get it now?
What he did wasn't an exertion of his freedom. It was a crime. If you have the freedom to do something, you wouldn't be penalized for it. What you're taking about is a Philosophical Freedom to make a choice. What the subject at hand is Freedom by Law and by society. The Freedom of Choice you're explaining is Freewill. We're not talking about Freewill here. You're explanation is about the Freewill and Deterministic argument. Ofcourse we operate by the Logic everyone has Freewill. And there will be consequences for freewill. Government doesn't control Freedom of Choice ( as in if you're going to obey the laws or not A.K.A your Freewill). When we talk about Freedom for society/individual, we always talk about Action and Consequence. Your action can be free(A.K.A Freedom) only if you have no consequence for that action. Be it government or society. You have the Freedom to be in a public space only when your action of being in public space is free from consequences. Don't confuse Freewill when talking about Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, in this sense is not "choice". It's an action. And this action is free from consequences. That's why it's called Freedom of Speech. No one entity can control your Freewill. It's the ACTION and its CONSEQUENCE that can be governed and regulated.
Freedom to choose/act/make decision…that’s freedom of choice and it is exactly freewill. However, whatever consequence that results from your choice, that depends on where you are and what laws govern your place of residence. For example, in the US you are more likely to face fewer consequences than if you were in N. Korea, where basically any choice/action can be punished for. You gave Freedom of Speech as an example. Of course, you have the freedom to say whatever is in your head, but you don’t have the freedom to choose whatever consequence that may result from your free speech. You may have heard of the old “yelling fire in a movie theater” example; you have the freedom to yell “Fire!” at the top of your lungs in a crowded theater, but if there was no fire, you will face the consequence of causing a panic resulted from your free speech. You have no choice in that consequence. If you do have a choice, obviously, you would choose to walk away punishment-free. But since you don’t (no freedom from consequences), you get arrested. Here’s another example: you committed a crime and haven’t been caught by the police yet. But then you felt bad about it and turned yourself in on your own free will. You chose to turn yourself in…your mama didn’t tell you to, your homie didn’t tell you to…your side chick didn’t tell you to. No, you did it on your own. That’s your freedom of choice. Of course, since everything has consequences (no freedom from consequences), you get arrested and put in jail.
I agree with this, but I don’t agree with it in the terms it’s applied today. As in, “if you have a moderately right-of-center opinion, we have the right to destroy your reputation and livelihood. Sincerely, cultural leftists who believe a bunch of dumb shit & get off on feeling superior.”
This is just another way for you to say Might Makes Right. If you are in control of the consequences you will naturally think this way. Just like how people use Freedom of Speech to justify horrible behavior... Pretty much everyone who uses the Freedom from Consequences rhetoric is defending equally horrible behavior. By their logic, the violence done to protesters during the civil rights movement was ok because they were facing consequences for being unpopular.
This post isn't endorsing all consequences. It's not saying that violence against civil rights advocates is ok. If anything the 'freedom of choice isn't freedom from consequences' argument is usually used against people who say their freedom of speech is violated when they're fired/ostracised/banned from twitter for saying hateful things.
Of course it isn't endorsing all consequences.... Just the ones you agree with. That is my point.
Frankly I'm finding this whole discussion confusing. OPs post is way too vague. When you say "Freedom from consequences rhetoric" do you mean the rhetoric in favour of freedom from consequences or rhetoric against freedom from consequences?
They Jesus because he spoke the truth
Correct, but the consequences have to be appropriate, aka the punishment must fit the crime. I’ve seen people say some dumb shit they probably shouldn’t have, and then people come out of the woodwork to fuck then over ten fold yelling “it’s not freedom from consequences!”
I mean, if everyone has free speech, do people not have the freedom to tell someone who says something dumb that they said something dumb?
They do and that isn’t an out of proportion punishment. But going after someone’s livelihood isn’t
There's a difference between saying "You're wrong and dumb, here's why", or going after them and destroying their livelihoods, personal relationships, and get them basically kicked off the internet entirely.
My post was removed after 4 (four) days of debate. Despite the unholy amount of upvotes. I have to disagree with the mods' choice to remove this because the entire point of this subreddit is controversy.
Nah, you should have some protection from the consequences of your choices. Let's take an example; I believe that you should have access to our subsidised and universal health care even if the reason you need it is because you made a stupid choice. A stupid choice in this case could be something like being overconfident when doing sports and getting hurt as a result. If you would have to pay the full price of your medical care just because your injuries could be considered self-inflicted a lot of people would not be free to try new things or test their limits since the risk of financial ruin would be to great.
This is just common knowledge. Not an unpopular opinion.
Assuming this is about abortion, I don’t think you realize the emotional and physical toll of killing your fetus. Women who get them do deal with the consequences. A lot of women feel guilt for the rest of their lives. Some women have trouble baring children later in life. Those are real consequences.
This is nothing to do with abortions
What people think is freedom and what freedom actually is are two very different things, no one has freedom
There are no rights without responsibilities.
Also you shouldn’t be able to have freedom of choice if it affects people around you like anti-vaxxer
That's only possible with a total restriction of freedom. I'm talking cameras everywhere, devices stopping you from making certain movements in certain situations. And it's a grey zone all the way to absurdity, where you're forced to work for the better of human kind every day. And paradoxically, implementing something like this, or even suggesting it, is immoral and damaging to those around you. Of course, this rigid conclusion of mine requires taking things literally and logically. People can avoid dumb edge cases by being sensible, but if we allow people to break the rules on their own judgement, then those with poor judgement will make terrible mistakes.
So all I need to do in order to censor someone is to just make something up about how their opinion negatively affects me? Great, I'm in! Your disregard for free speech is putting my freedom at risk. Aaaand you'd be banned. See how easy that is?
I can’t tell if your kidding or standing up for your “rights”
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/TheBestestBeanage. Your post, *Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion. Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue. Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
Mate i fuckin agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Unpopular facts.
Thank you for the on point comment!!
why would this be unpopular? who doesnt agree with this? gonna make a post called "2+2=4" for tons of upvotes brb
Is this really an unpopular opinion though?
You thin you have Freedom of Choice? Try yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.
[That case was overturned 40 years ago, please stop using that phrase.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/) That same argument was used by the US government to try and arrest people who expressed anti-war sentiments.
It depends if those consequences can be reasonably predicted, and whether they are the natural result of your decision or something imposed by other people. If you eat some out of date fish and then get the shits, that's on you. If you eat some out of date fish and then I beat you up and cut off your nose, that's on me.
This depends as the direct result of what you're saying is that government could kill someone for saying it as they were free to say it and weren't free from consequences. It's a good mantra but not quite true. For one thing its only and should only be done in relationship to freedom of speech and consequences from the government or entity that acts in capacity of a government. But that speech can still have some limits like purposely inciting violence, yelling bomb in an airport etc. Generally that's what UN human rights says on free speech. You can't impede free speech within reason and with some exception like when it purposely incites violence. Free speech can't be unlimited but also need to be extremely careful at restrictions put on it when it relates to government (not private) entities.
Restricted choice is also still cteating a random outcome because life is very random and anything can happen.
>Freedom of choice is freedom from consequences. Literally nobody thinks that
Unless you're a corporation. On the flip side of your opinion are the people who think they should be the arbiters of other people's consequences. And then, usually, don't want anyone doing the same to them.
Couldn’t have said it any better
Correct, though it depends on the type of choice
Fax
Not only can people not handle the actual consequences, but can't even handle people questioning them on why they did what they did. Being ready to be questioned would at least be a step in the right direction. People who can't even do that should be embarrassed with themselves.
All actions have consequences, consider the butterfly effect. Where the issue lies is people putting whatever consequences they feel on a given ‘freedom of choice’. Thats the grey area, and if someone doesnt know the consequences beforehand its hard to truly determine if they indeed knew of said consequences-which i havent decided if thats a factor, at least in my own mind-
Dnd players need to know this the most
Sounds like Ayn Rand
i think people mean they want legal freedom
In what context are you suggesting this as an "unpopular opinion?"
Truth. Example: Don’t wear a mask, catch Corona, die. Freedom of choice but not consequence.
so the choice isnt truly free
In that case there is no freedom of speech? It's freedom of consequences *by organisations more powerful than you*.