How do i argue against "Freedom of speech =/= freedom from

>>131156349
have you tried not being a fucking kike?

>>131156586
Fpbp

>>131156349
Freedom of speech means that the government's ability to limit speech is curtailed. Of course it doesn't mean that everybody has to invite you to their birthday party after you go on raving like a lunatic about "da j00s."

>>131156349
There needs to be a list of all things that cannot be said and should it be voted on by state or county (i.e cant say fire in movie theatre when there isnt one right? or call a bomb threat into school and say it was just freedom of speech an art performance expression?)

so it is admitted there are times and places certain things cannot be said (also that recent situation with the girl text guy suicide)

so there is agreed to not be absolute free speech, then there is the slope and its slipperyness, and the assurance it is known and agreed to what when and where cannot be said

then there is private property and the owners of that private place (cyber or otherwise) to make their own rules of what can be said or not?

by extension, can someone open a movie theatre in which they accept people saying fire and falsely threatened bomb?

>>131156349
By telling people to stop conflating law with a philosophical belief?

>>131157863
In America we will always be allowed to call gays faggots and blacks niggers. SJWs will cry and bitch but they won't ever get any laws passed limiting freedom of speech.

>>131156349
Fuck off.

>>131157338

You're thinking of the first amendment. Free Speech is an abstract principle that extends beyond that.

>>131156349
Learn to fight. If your enemy cant kick your ass then there are no consequences

>>131158998
ok so what the op is bout seems to be the next step of this, freedom from consequence, being things like, calling a person a name and them punshing you,

arent there hate speech laws?

these things need to be clearly written and shown to all the public,

to degrees like, you can say any words to anyone in public, and get away with it? you cant threat a person though?

now the law should include something about proximity and volume? Can you call people names waiting for the train while standing 1 foot away, 8 nches, 6 inches, 4 inches, at 1 db, 2 db, 5, 7, 9?

does the law include these types of clarifications

I suppose also fredom from consequence, may have to do with the social media stirs, firings and such?

if a person says things, and enough people dont like it, that person can be fired, for fear of brand damage? a company can tell their employees to limit their freedom of speech? even in their private? at least incases where that private can be made public?

>>131156349
1 - establish materialism/debunk dualism

2 - establish that "speech can cause emotional trauma"

3 - establish that there is no "discernible difference between body and mind

4 - establish that "emotions are brain chemistry"

5 - establish that bodily harm is not legal.


RESULT - SPEECH THAT HARM EMOTION,
HENCE BRAIN,
HENCE WELL-BEING,
HENCE PERSON


IS ILEGAL SO LONG AS

CAUSING BODILY HARM IS ~~~ILLEGAL~~~

>>131156349
Well we have freedom to murder, but not freedom to murder without consequences ( legal).

But usually, when we are talking about a right, it means a legal right which means freedom to do the thing, does equal freedom to do the thing without legal consequences.

>>131160392
>RESULT - SPEECH THAT HARM EMOTION
how clarified is this, so that someone cannot claim everything harms their emotion? like reading your post caused me emotional harm, and how difficult are these things to prove when not recorded?

>>131156349
There is no "freedom of speech", just as there is no "freedom of consequence" Its a fulty phrase designed to sow semantic dispute.

Rather ask if "freedom from speech == freedom from consequence".