(September 16, 2025 at 12:35 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 12:29 pm)Paraselene Wrote: Just because you were fired doesn't mean you weren't free to run your mouth in a way that led to that firing. Don't conflate breaking a social and written contract at your place of employment with lack of freedom.

If I can't do something without consequences

No action is without consequences. The severity of the consequences may be minimal or they may be beneficial but there are always consequences of any action. 

Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences.

(September 16, 2025 at 12:37 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 12:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: And you're still wrong.  Calling me sweet cheeks doesn't change that.

You saying bullshit with I presume confidence will not change the fact that I'm right. It's not particularly surprising that you don't want to recognize heavy limits on something so stereotypically valuable to American.

Where did I refuse to recognize that freedom of speech is limited? I didn't. So this is you simply repeating and doubling down on shit that has already been answered.

All freedoms are relative. That a particular freedom is not absolute is no argument that there is no such freedom. That's just playing word games.

(September 16, 2025 at 1:02 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 12:35 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: If I can't do something without consequences

No action is without consequences. The severity of the consequences may be minimal or they may be beneficial but there are always consequences of any action. 

Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences.

And if someone with loaded gun will say "give me your wallet or I kill you" you are absolutely free to refuse.

Absolutely, lets conflate this further.

(September 16, 2025 at 1:06 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 12:37 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: You saying bullshit with I presume confidence will not change the fact that I'm right. It's not particularly surprising that you don't want to recognize heavy limits on something so stereotypically valuable to American.

Where did I refuse to recognize that freedom of speech is limited?  I didn't.  So this is you simply repeating and doubling down on shit that has already been answered.

All freedoms are relative.  That a particular freedom is not absolute is no argument that there is no such freedom.  That's just playing word games.

If you don't refuse to recognize it then perhaps you should stop insisting on existence of "free speech". Repeating bullshit does not make it true.

In civilized countries speech is regulated and that's all that there is to it.

(September 16, 2025 at 1:07 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 1:02 pm)Nanny Wrote: No action is without consequences. The severity of the consequences may be minimal or they may be beneficial but there are always consequences of any action. 

Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences.

And if someone with loaded gun will say "give me your wallet or I kill you" you are absolutely free to refuse.

This is true.

Self-regulation is expected within western culture. When we say something that crosses the social contract others are free to help us understand the consequences. It's part adopting others' viewpoints and part FAFO. We are free to choose which experience we seek.

There was a time not long ago when one's online behavior was different from one's polite behavior. That veil has fallen.

(September 16, 2025 at 1:25 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 1:07 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: And if someone with loaded gun will say "give me your wallet or I kill you" you are absolutely free to refuse.

This is true.

It isn't. If "choice" results in your death then it is no choice. If you can be fined or jailed for saying something then it means that you aren't free to do so.

I'll quote you here: "Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences." It would mean that USSR had free speech as people certainly were saying things they liked and even more certainly ended in jail or camp for it. Was it really freedom?

(September 16, 2025 at 1:25 pm)Nanny Wrote: Self-regulation is expected within western culture. When we say something that crosses the social contract others are free to help us understand the consequences. It's part adopting others' viewpoints and part FAFO. We are free to choose which experience we seek.

There was a time not long ago when one's online behavior was different from one's polite behavior. That veil has fallen.

It's not about self regulation but law. I will quote Wiki again:

Quote:Under Title 18 Section 871 of the United States Code it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States."

You aren't free to threaten a president. It's fucking illegal. Your alleged freedom is regulated and regulated by law. Freedom of speech means shit when you can't say all what you want (though I agree that speech should be regulated, make no mistake).

(September 16, 2025 at 1:34 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 1:25 pm)Nanny Wrote: This is true.

It isn't. If "choice" results in your death then it is no choice. If you can be fined or jailed for saying something then it means that you aren't free to do so.

I'll quote you here: "Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences." It would mean that USSR had free speech as people certainly were saying things they liked and even more certainly ended in jail or camp for it. Was it really freedom?

Of course it’s a choice. People often make the choice to die.

Boru

(September 16, 2025 at 1:38 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 16, 2025 at 1:34 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: It isn't. If "choice" results in your death then it is no choice. If you can be fined or jailed for saying something then it means that you aren't free to do so.

I'll quote you here: "Same with speech. You can say whatever you want but somebody may not like it and you could face consequences." It would mean that USSR had free speech as people certainly were saying things they liked and even more certainly ended in jail or camp for it. Was it really freedom?

Of course it’s a choice. People often make the choice to die.

Boru

Sure, sure. Everyone is free to do whatever one wants, law is but a suggestion and firearms in hands of the attacker don't invalidate your "choice".

Socrates would like a word, as would any Marine who threw themself on a grenade to spare comrades.

I'm surprised at Ivan's tenacity on this subject. Perhaps its's one rough day in the life of Ivan Denisovich

What if I'm an actor reading lines about John Hinkley Junior or Lee Harvey Oswald? What makes that speech legal in your absolute world?

As for The Law, I break laws every day. I drive too fast. I also hold a competition license and race cars, so I am confident in my driving skills. I still break the law. If I get caught I face consequences. Speech is on a similar scale, and context always matters.