So, should we introduce freedom from consequences then?
Even in the most repressive state you can definitely say anything, it's the consequences for saying it that make the difference. The first amendment of the US protects citizens from consequences from the state.
There is a related discussion to be had about social media and reach, but it pales in comparison to how easily people tend to dismiss freedom of speech. It's rather fitting that the expression "Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" is so Orwellian.
I upvoted you because you make a good point with that question.
However, my point is that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is a meaningful expression used primarily by people who want to police the thoughts of everyone.
My point is not that everyone should be forced to associate with everyone else.
IOW, that expression is useful as an indicator that an individual is in a mob.
(Unless the speech is completely illegal such as a credible threat or encouragement of violence).
If it has to be all the way to illegal then I can't refuse business to KKK members? Or even KKK leadership?
Whenever you think of something, ask yourself this "Would I be in favor of the KKK being able to do this to black people?" If the answer is no, then you shouldn't be in favor of doing it to the KKK.
Replace either of those groups with whichever groups are relevant and emotionally impactful to you.
People aren't born KKK. This is tolerance 101.
Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. You are supposed to trust that worthwhile ideas prevail while the rest don't. That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
"discrimination" in the literal sense isn't bad, it's just making choices. The amusement stems from the very different things people mean when they say "discrimination". And being clear about what people mean with these terms is part of the 101.
But more relevantly, I didn't use that word, which is a very easy way to avoid any possible doublethink related to it!
> That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
I didn't say I want them to hide their ideas. I don't.
> Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent.
Respect what, specifically? I respect their ability to speak. Do I need to go beyond that?
Anyway in this scenario do I have to allow customers to personally insult me too if I want to maintain free speech, or is that different from saying that groups deserve nothing and stole everything they have?
Ideally, yes.
Imagine a world in which anyone saying bad things about Amazon or Jeff Bezos was unable to use any of their services.
And it would go beyond free speech. Companies can ban people on a whim and I don't think that's appropriate either for very big entities.
As the old Soviet joke goes: people in the USSR had freedom of speech too, but they could only use it once.