Freedom of speech dies not mean freedom of consequences. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[Still-alive]

It does usually mean freedom from legal consequences but aside from that though you may say whatever you like but the consequences of what you say are still allowed.

I strongly agree. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

I agree

I disagree

I strongly disagree. Freedom of speech should also mean freedom from any consequences not just legal ones.

Im undecided

[Aerissa_Jade]

Lots of people say stuff with no consequences, only some have consequences.

I'm not for selective consequences.

Either it applies to everyone, no matter what they say or no one.

Currently, one person can say something and get fired, lose their house and become homeless and die as a consequence/punishment but someone else can say the same thing or something similar and be cheered on for it, no consequences whatsoever.

The problem is, who gets to decide who should be punished or have consequences and who shouldn't?

I'm not referring to government punishment but consequences from society in general.

Often some video goes viral, person suffers consequences but if it doesn't go viral, they do not suffer any consequences. Should consequences be based on if a video of them saying or doing something unpopular goes viral or not?

I get some scenario's when someone is on the job and saying stuff, that they can get fired for that, or they are acting in a official capacity for their job and make the company look bad.

However if they are on their OWN time, off the clock and not wearing any company logos as if to represent the company, then it is nobodies business where they work.

What they say should have no bearing on how well they are performing their job or not and they should not be able to be fired for exercising a right.

Otherwise, any company anywhere could fire someone, simply for them joining a protest. Join BLM demonstration, your fired... join MAGA demonstration, your fired.

That really puts a damper on freedom of speech if people are afraid to protest or say anything for fear of losing their job. A way to limit freedom of speech and say you still have it, but reality says otherwise.

I'd rather have everyone be more vocal than any one group being silenced. As those who feel they are being silenced are far more likely to resort to crime or violence.

This includes the main ways people communicate these days, no just talking in person.

[purplepoppy]

The whole point of speech is it has consequences. There is no logic in speaking unless you believe what you say will lead to a consequence. If for example you make a hate speech against gays then your intention is to encourage a negative consequence for gay people. If you direct your speech towards an individual and thus influence their harm then you bare a lot of responsibility.

[SnowedIn]

Speech has consequences. One may be free to say what one wants but one also may face consequences. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example where there are severe consequences (although you may not be free to say that but the point is there's consequences).

[RolandCuthbert]

We haven't done this in a long, long time.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

[CrazyGirl2]

Im with Jade! These “consequences” only seem to be happening to people with conservative political views, the president of America says dumb stupid shit… Banned for life from everywhere (he’s allowed on twitter, but he’s made it clear “he not going back”) meanwhile, the Ayatollah of Iran can wish death to Israel, death to America and say the most repugnant shit ever and impose horrible human rights abuses on the citizens of Iran, especially trans, gays and women and he gets to stay on Twitter? A conservative media group (project veritas), film outside somebody’s house and is band for life from Twitter because they “doxed someone because the NUMBER of their house was visible. New York Times, CNN, and pretty much everyone else does that nothing happens, and when Taylor, Lorenz of the New York Times literally published the home address of the woman who founded “Libs of TikTok”, Drum roll please… Nothing happened! She still on Twitter and was never even suspended. I actually happen to BE a liberal, however, that doesn’t mean I have to walk lockstep with the far left and ignore the fact that conservatives are OBVIOUSLY being targeted for “consequences“ while we liberals, somehow get an undeserved, free pass! Being a liberal means you believe IN justice, not injustice.

[llorando]

1000% support freedom of speech, even speech I disagree with, as to what speech warrants consequences, that is complex and can get into grey areas, since you have to decide who exactly decides what speech should require consequences and what those consequences should be. 99% of the time, if you don't like how someones expresses their right to free speech, you have the right not to listen and just ignore them.

[MendaciousMarxist]

I agree, and this is why I don't think we should have freedom of speech. The rights or minorities need to be protected. People can be very horrible.

[inhua]

free speech is an action/choice and all actions/choices have consequences whether they like it or not but it's not up to them to decide.

[Pete671]

UK here, people should be free to express whatever opinion they like,,,

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

I'm undecided

[Dinosaursandanime65]

The humans have taken it

[SmokinAces2000]

Agree