Blocking or muting abusive people might be a wise choice for your own peace of mind
Perhaps avoid letting people gaslight you into thinking you're encroaching on their freedom of speech by doing so
I've told you this once and I will tell you this again, stick man, the concept of freedom of speech and the the right guaranteed in the American Constitution, are, in fact, not identical concepts.
You make a valid point and I get you.
American Constitutional protections on free speech define what free speech is protected under US law, not what the concept of free speech IS or means or should be. Here it gets tricky. What is freedom? By definition it can mean several things. One definition is absence of subjection or domination by government. This is the interpretation held long standing by the government, but of course we can also take it to mean other things- chiefly being able to act without restraint or hindrance. If we take that interpretation.. we run into a problem. Is a consequence a hindrance or restraint? Tough one. If you will die if you eat a poison pill, there is nothing stopping you from eating it, as a consequence you will die, and that consequence might act as a hindrance or restraint because due to the consequence or potential consequence you might close not to eat it whereas if there were no negative consequence you would have chosen to eat it.
Reality tends to knock the wind out of the sail of this one though unless one holds the only definition of freedom as total anarchy.
I mean- I’d go buy a mansion on the beach right now if the consequences weren’t that I’d go broke, someone might walk out of their job right now and go to the arcade if it wasn’t for the consequence they may get fired. So are our freedoms impinged because the consequences hinder or prevent us from exercising them?
Even in total anarchy we lose freedom on this principle. Ultimately in anarchy whoever has the power to take what they want gets what they want even if another wants it, thusly taking their freedom because they are hindered or prevented. If we have a powerful entity that can stop people from taking what they want like this, we now have the freedom to take what you want hindered and we don’t have anarchy anymore.
So I don’t see an interpretation of “freedom of speech” that doesn’t end up in a place where if a person speaks, others can speak against them or act against them unless we bridge over freedom of speech and take away peoples freedoms of choice to make it so that you can force people to not act differently in response to another person. If Jim Carey does a show I don’t like and I decide I won’t go to his shows what are we gonna do? Force me by law to buy tickets? Force a law that if we have nothing nice to say we can’t speak, because if someone asks my opinion or I have a review site etc. I will likely say: “I don’t like Jim Carey and won’t watch him anymore…”
I suppose we can somewhat reasonably have a law which says that people can not like something and not support it and criticize but cannot incite or entreat others to boycott. That does raise questions though because civil protest would basically be illegal unless everyone happened to show up at the same place the same day and..
.. we might say that labor strikes would be possibly illegal too?
I’m curious if there is an opinion on what a freedom of speech where people can’t decide how to handle speech they don’t like or to speak out against it might work, genuinely so and not rhetorically.
Perhaps avoid letting people gaslight you into thinking you're encroaching on their freedom of speech by doing so
American Constitutional protections on free speech define what free speech is protected under US law, not what the concept of free speech IS or means or should be. Here it gets tricky. What is freedom? By definition it can mean several things. One definition is absence of subjection or domination by government. This is the interpretation held long standing by the government, but of course we can also take it to mean other things- chiefly being able to act without restraint or hindrance. If we take that interpretation.. we run into a problem. Is a consequence a hindrance or restraint? Tough one. If you will die if you eat a poison pill, there is nothing stopping you from eating it, as a consequence you will die, and that consequence might act as a hindrance or restraint because due to the consequence or potential consequence you might close not to eat it whereas if there were no negative consequence you would have chosen to eat it.
I mean- I’d go buy a mansion on the beach right now if the consequences weren’t that I’d go broke, someone might walk out of their job right now and go to the arcade if it wasn’t for the consequence they may get fired. So are our freedoms impinged because the consequences hinder or prevent us from exercising them?
Even in total anarchy we lose freedom on this principle. Ultimately in anarchy whoever has the power to take what they want gets what they want even if another wants it, thusly taking their freedom because they are hindered or prevented. If we have a powerful entity that can stop people from taking what they want like this, we now have the freedom to take what you want hindered and we don’t have anarchy anymore.
I suppose we can somewhat reasonably have a law which says that people can not like something and not support it and criticize but cannot incite or entreat others to boycott. That does raise questions though because civil protest would basically be illegal unless everyone happened to show up at the same place the same day and..
I’m curious if there is an opinion on what a freedom of speech where people can’t decide how to handle speech they don’t like or to speak out against it might work, genuinely so and not rhetorically.