Hacker News Reader

Comment by ecshafer | Hacker News Reader

Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may protect.

Take that phrase to its logical extent. Should certain speech mean imprisonment? Should it mean execution by the government? Alienation and banishment from society? Attacked and lynched by a mob? What about political affiliation? Philosphical or religious beliefs? Those are all consequences that have, and are used against people who exercise their natural rights. Those are the natural outcomes of limiting free speech. Limiting free speech is the end of a free, liberal society.

View on HN

Are you saying that I can't make any sort of negative decision about you no matter what you say, or I'm violating the principle of free speech?

> Alienation and banishment from society?

I literally have to still be friends with you, or I'm oppressing you? What are we using language for anyway, if we have to ignore it?

You don't have to associate with anyone as a private individual if you don't want to. In the present case, the school district is an arm of the state and cannot punish a student for constitutionally protected speech.

> I can't make any sort of negative decision

Are you saying that you believe that any negative consequence at all, against someone, should be allowed for their speech?

Because if the answer is "No, there are some consequences that I do not think should be allowed, against speech", then you believe that freedom of speech does mean freedom from some consequences.

In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.

In this case, it's precisely a government institution suppressing speech.

Yes the constitution, but that still goes against the principle. In the Scarlet Letter, the main character is made a pariah for having sex. I think we can all agree that is morally wrong, on the part of the town that ostracize them. To banish someone for being against your ideas, or principles, is inherently to try and be an authoritarian. To say that "if you do not follow this ideal, I will do what I can to destroy you". It is an illiberal idea. liberalism is comfortable with competing ideas because ideas stand on their own.

> This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will

But that's a _public_ school, right?

This may be a reason why we've been served the private "charter" school Kool-Aid for a decade now... after all, nearly all discourse has been moved to private online platforms.

I'm going to cherry pick your slippery slope argument:

> Should certain speech mean imprisonment?

Yes. Credible death or terroristic threats in 1st world countries can mean you can go to jail. Society has decided that people don't have the "natural rights" to threaten to murder other people.

>Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral.

I take it, then, you are against existing laws against slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence?

And that if I were to try convince your family and coworkers that you were a pedophile, or of some other scandalous rumor, you wouldn't do anything because it would be illiberal and immoral of you to demand that my speech has consequences?

> slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence?

They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. They're saying that you can't do a end run around the entire concept of free speech by laundering your enforcement under the vague heading of "consequences", when those consequences are a result of your enforcement.

0: It should have as few exceptions as possible, of course, but if nothing else you shouldn't be able to get away with murder by claiming that the nerve impulses to your trigger finger are free speech, and that shouldn't be a property of nerve impulses versus other ways of transmitting information.

>They're not saying that free speech has no exceptions whatsoever.

That is literally what they're saying - "Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences" precisely means free speech has no exceptions whatsoever, because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech.

Had they said free speech should have as few exceptions as possible, they would have.

> because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech.

Sorry, should have been more explicit - edited to clarify that I was talking about exceptions to what qualifies as free speech in the first place, not exceptions to what consequences constitute restriction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com