Freedom of speech questions

[Beorning]

Guys, I have a question regarding the freedom of speech.

Quite a few times, I've seen the following notion being cited during discussions: "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consquences" It's something that seems to be used to explain why people being fired for saying stupid stuff doesn't violate the concept of free speech.

Now, when I was discussing similar matters with my friend who is on the anarchist libertarian side, he rebuked this notion with: "If there are consequences, then there's no freedom of speech". His reasoning was: if consequences for exercising your free spech are okay, then the state imprisoning people for their opinions is also okay. After all, these are "consequences", too. So, in a totalitarian state, you could still considered to have the freedom of speech - you'd just have to deal with the consquences of exercising it...

When faced with this reasoning, I found myself unable to counter it. It doesn't feel quite right, but..?

So, my question is: in the "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence" reasoning, how does it work, exactly? Where is the line between the acceptable consequences and the free speech being actually infringed upon?

On a related note: have you guys seen this YT debate?

It's quite... mind-boggling, with the people Mehdi Hasan debates having some really... bizarre views. But I have the question regarding the guy named Connor (AKA the "Quite Frankly, I..." guy).

Let it be clear: this guy is a moron with some distubing views, like his Franco apologetics and his unwillingness to condemn the Nazis ("I guess there was some persecution of Jews..."). Of course, his "I guess I'm a fascist, khehehehehe!" moment already became viral. But... I heard he was fired from his job after this video was published.

Once again: I have no sympathy for the guy, but if I understand correctly, he didn't say anything that was illegal. And, even though his views are idiotic, nothing he said suggests he would be a danger to his coworkers or clients. It's not like he's threatening violence etc. - he's just a guy with really stupid political opinions. So, what are the grounds for him being fired?

I don't know how it works in the States, but in Poland (and other European countries, I suppose) you can go to court over wrongful termination. I wonder how such a case would go over here... On the other hand, promoting fascism *is* a crime in Poland. But not in the States, is that correct? So... why is it OK to fire this Connor guy?

[TheGlyphstone]

That argument is ludicrous and absurd. Its equating any effect of anything equally - if being fired for publicly embarrassing your employer and damaging their reputation as a company is the same as the government throwing you in prison for criticizing it, you can also say jaywalking should be punished as harshly as murder.

[TheGlyphstone]

If you want a rational argument other than pointing out slippery slopes and false equivalences, consider this:

We shall assume your friends premise is correct, and there can be no consequences of any kind for free speech or else there is no free speech.

1.You hate armadillos, and say they are ugly.
2. I like armadillos and want to call you an idiot.
BUT WAIT
3. Me insulting you would be a consequence of you exercising your right to free speech, so that cant happen.
4. So the only way to protect you from any consequences of your speech is to...take away my right to free speech.

[RedPhoenix]

An avalanche is the same as a pebble because both involve rocks. The size, movement, and number of them are irrelevant.

Are you able to counter this argument?

If so, you can counter your friend.

If not, I don't think anyone can help you here.

[Krayz]

I think the generous interpretation is that their friend isn't fully familiar with the context of the English expression "freedom from speech isn't freedom from consequences." The example used seems to treat it like an attempt at loophole abuse by a government looking to punish people for protected speech.

Adding in the missing context, the expression could be put as "the freedom of speech from government persecution is not freedom from the consequences of private decisions."

To use another example, arguing that speech cannot be free if there are consequences without exception would mean that you couldn't choose to stop being friends with someone after they threaten to kill you and burn down your house.

Now, extending this discussion to the fascist douchebag from Surrounded, there's a few different things going on. Some of it depends on whether his employer was the government or a private business. To be honest, I don't know if fascists have an explicit right to freedom from political persecution in the US. But I do think that the places that have a no-tolerance policy are correct. Fascism is an existential threat to democratic and pluralist societies. Refusing to give it a space in the public sphere is a matter of self-defence.

[Oniya]

Let's say I tell someone that their spouse is cheating on them.  (Free speech.)

They go home and confront their spouse.  (Free speech.)

Their spouse tells them it's a lie.  (Free speech.)

By your friend's reasoning, none of these three people is allowed to be angry at any of the others, as that would be a consequence to their use of free speech.

Never mind whether the spouse is actually cheating on them (and then the person I told would normally be mad at their spouse and the spouse would be mad at me), or if the spouse was innocent (in which case both of them would normally be mad at me).

[onlywithwords]

Now, when I was discussing similar matters with my friend who is on the anarchist libertarian side, he rebuked this notion with: "If there are consequences, then there's no freedom of speech". His reasoning was: if consequences for exercising your free spech are okay, then the state imprisoning people for their opinions is also okay. After all, these are "consequences", too. So, in a totalitarian state, you could still considered to have the freedom of speech - you'd just have to deal with the consquences of exercising it...

Your friend has it backwards. (Let's call him Zane from here on out.)

"Freedom of speech" actually means "freedom from consequences imposed by state authority (i.e. the government)."

A lot of anarchist-libertarians get this wrong because they fundamentally don't understand their political ideology.

Let's revert to the perfect state of anarchy - a time before civilizations, when man started to walk upright and communication was just beginning. There are no rules, no laws, no government, no civilization. Man is still a species of hunter gatherers. Social groups, such that they are, find themselves limited to small individual units - maybe a father, a mother, children. (This is, of course, complete and total fantasy, but work with me. For Zane's sake.)

Here we have a true state of anarchy.

Let's look at two cavemen: Dane and Carl.

Dane looks at Carl and says, "Your head big and funny looking."

Carl gets angry and swings at Dane with a big rock.

Dane is hit in the head and dies.

That's pure anarchy with pure freedom of speech. But as we can see, freedom of speech is directly tied to the potential for consequence. The only way that Dane can avoid the consequence is through force.

So one way to avoid consequence? Build a stronger force that can stop you from getting killed.

Dane looks at Carl and says, "Your head big and funny looking."

Carl gets angry and swings at Dane with a big rock.

But Dane has got three friends: Shane, Kane, and Blane. And those three take stop Carl from hitting Dane.

We're still in a relative state of anarchy, but now Dane has associated himself with others for protection, and now he has more "freedom of speech" to say whatever he wants. But look what happens next:

Dane looks at Carl and says, "Your head big and funny looking."

Carl gets angry and swings at Dane with a big rock.

But Dane has got three friends: Shane, Kane, and Blane. And those three take stop Carl from hitting Dane.

Dane points at Carl and laughs, "HA! You've still got a big stupid head, and you can't do it as long as I've got these three stupid ugly guys with me."

Carl looks at Shane, Kane, and Blane. "Hey. Dane sucks. Wanna join me and hit him with rocks?"

Shane/Kane/Blane: "Sure."

And so they all hit Dane with rocks and Dane dies.

Once again, speech is tied to consequence.

Now let's look at a third example, which is where the idea of freedom of speech comes from.

Dane looks at Donald and says, "Your head big and funny looking."

Now Donald is a fat, ugly man, but he's king of the village! And he says, "Hey, you can't say that about me, you're the dumb one, Dane, you stupid little ugly dumb man." And then he points at his stooges: Ivan, Chuck, and Ed. "Get him, boys!"

Ivan, Chuck, and Ed grab Dane and throw him out of the village. (You can't prove Dane was born here anyway.)

Afterwards, Donald invites his stooges back to his village hut to eat hambergleders and hang out with his friend Jeff(rey).

In this scenario, we still have complete freedom of speech. Every person is able to say whatever they like. But now the consequences are tied to the state authority, and that authority has all the power, and Dane has none.

But imagine a world where Donald's reign is overthrown.

George: Rejoice, my friends! We have overthrown the petty tyrant Donald, and his three stooges, Ivan, Chuck, and Ed!

Thomas: Excellent!

Alexander: You know, I think it was pretty lousy that nobody could ever say anything to Donald or about Donald without getting thrown out of the village. I think the villagers should be free to say whatever they want about the leadership of our village. After all, that freedom of speech means that we'll get better. We shouldn't throw people out just because they called George dumb looking or said that my ideas for establishing a system of governmental credit is dangerous executive power.

Thomas: Totally agree, but can we fight about the problems of centralized authority later? I'm writing down all these new ideas.

That's what freedom of speech is - the freedom to speak without consequence from the government.

But Carl has a problem with that.

Carl: Okay, so, like, this whole freedom of speech thing is pretty cool, not to mention universal suffrage, protection against self-incrimination... but also, like, Dane still sucks. And he always tells me I have a big dumb face. Can I hit him with a rock?

George: No, we also outlawed murder.

Carl: Okay, but, like, hear me out. What if Dane says all those mean things about me, but I don't want to give him any more fish.

Alexander: That's totally fine. See, how you and Dane interact with each other as citizens is up to you! You can argue, disagree, talk, whatever, so long as it doesn't escalate to violence (and maybe some other things we need to codify). All this freedom of speech thing means is that if, someday, you tell George that you don't like his haircut, that he isn't going to turn around and get Ivan, Chuck, and Ed to throw you out of the village.

Carl: Oh, sweet. So basically: Dane's a jerk. And I don't have to pretend like he's not.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence; freedom of speech is the protection of speech from the central governing authority.