>freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence

off topic /pol/tranny thread

>>17867640 (OP)
trvthnvke. this is why muslim countries actually do have freedom of speech

Rights are protectuons against the government, not being arrested for what you say is critical for a free country but not being welcome one someone's property isn't.

>>17867640 (OP)
Correct. You are legally allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, but you're still going to be charged for disrupting the peace and potential loss in property and human life as a result of the needless human stampede. The same logic can be applied elsewhere. I don't really know why this has to be controversial. If you want to write a book about a movie theater on fire instead nobody is going to stop you

>>17867640 (OP)
North Korea has free speech under this definition.

>>17867640 (OP)
People who say this are actually retarded because that's literally what freedom of speech means, freedom from (legal) consequence and also judicial protection against "consequences" that would be a crime committed by non-government entities/people.

>>17867651
>You are legally allowed
>but you're still going to be charged
You're not "legally allowed" to do something if you're going to be charged for it retard

>>17867657
The context changes the act, you are free to swing your dick from front to back in your living room but hit a lady on the train and it's sexual harassment. You should understand this to be capable of living in a high trust society

>>17867651
it sounds like freedom of speech doesn't really exist when you have a lot of cases where people get punished by the state for something they said. whether it be your example, or "hate speech" or "discrimination"

>>17867672
>where people get punished by the state for something they said.
Not for what they said, for the consequences of what they said
Yes there is a difference
Nobody was ever punished for writing racist papers or novels anon, people WERE punished for calling for violence against minorities, should said violence happen as a result of said calling for violence

I understand you might be mentally disabled however, and that you may struggle with nuance.

>>17867674
yes reddit likes to make that distinction. you functionally don't have that right if you get punished by the state for something that came out of your mouth. it's like saying that you absolutely have a right to self defense... except for when you defend yourself against someone that the state has a preference towards

>>17867683
>yes reddit likes to make that distinction.
yes, the mentally disabled such as yourself do often resort to reductionism as a mental shortcut because thinking is very difficult for you.
In the real world, crimes are also investigated by courts of law which involves a discovery process and lawyers operating on both parties behalf because the real world also understand nuance quite a bit better than you do apparently.

>>17867674
>>17867672
It's the question of at which point saying something turns into political activism.

>>17867692
do you think a society has freedom of speech if only certain opinions are illegal to voice, but the majority of them will not get you arrested?

>>17867703
>do you think a society has freedom of speech if only certain opinions are illegal to voice
No I don't, but that's not what's happening is it?
I think I'm done, you're not mature or intelligent enough to handle this topic

>>17867658
Right, so you're not legally allowed to yell "Fire" in a movie theater. Glad we settled that.

>>17867707
that's fine, you can scurry to reddit where people will agree with you. i will still reply so someone else can step forward. or you might reply again despite claiming your departure
>but that's not what's happening is it?
it is. businesses get punished by the state for discriminating against groups of people. whether it is refusing to serve gays, boycotting israel, or denying enrollment to schools for who you are

>>17867654
Freedom of speech as codified in American law just states that it protects citizens from government retaliation. That's it.
You don't have specific judicial protection against someone irritated by your view. And why would you? You're already protected against assault through state and federal penal code.

>>17867640 (OP)
People who say shit like this can't handle banter

>>17867731
If they do get punished it should be a uniform thing then. If businesses get punished for refusing to bake a gay cake I should be able to sue a black owned bakery for refusing to bake a cake with klan imagery.

>>17867731
The baker who refusedto bake the gay cake got judged in his favour by the supreme court, you have no clue what you're talking about
>b-but the media backlash
Those are free individuals expressing their opinion about his bakery, not the government prosecuting a citizen.

>>17867761
>(Reuters) - A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

>>17867640 (OP)
freedom of butthole doesn’t mean freedom from rape

>>17867651
>>17867715
You actually are allowed to yell fire in a theater, provided there's an actual fire. People forget that for some reason

>>17867748
>You're already protected against assault through state and federal penal code.
That's why I said "that would be a crime", as in "freedom of speech" means that you can't lose your judicial protection against crimes as a result of your speech. A loss of judicial protection is "government retaliation", losing judicial protection is literally a legal consequence that was practised in northern europe historically, it's called "outlawry". When people say "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" they're insinuating that speech can negate judicial protection but legal "freedom of speech" means your judicial protection can't be withheld as a result of your speech.

>>17867784
>you can make a living by ragebaiting business owners into a lawsuit for refusing to drawing your dick on a cake
I love the US lmfao. The whole economy is thieves robbing thieves.

>>17867784
>>17867815
>a cake to celebrate a gender transition.
iirc the cake they requested had satanic imagery on it too

>>17867817
The first amendment covers free speech AND seperation of Church and State, people are allowed to be Satanists

>>17867819
Religious freedom covers your right to refuse to bake a cake with satanic imagery.

>>17867821
No it doesn't, a Bakery is a public institution and must follow local laws and regulations, including ones regarding discrimination, like any other public institution. If it bothers you so much then maybe find a new line of work

>>17867824
A bakery is a private institution providing service to the public, it's not a publicly-owned service like public schools etc.
Religious discretion is in fact not liable to civil rights laws.

>>17867831
Here's where I think it gets more nuanced because for the bakery in question it wasn't made clear if they were a Christian bakery, as that would've given them the right to refuse to bake that cake on religious grounds, as the person requesting the cake would have reasonable assumption that said cake would not be made, and was thus not there in good faith. Like a Muslim bakery refusing to bake a cake that says "Merry Christmas" on it, it would be extremely petty, but given the context also completely expected.

>>17867839
>the secular path inevitably leads to a point where if you aren't explicitly religious in every aspect of life, you must cater to satanic crossdressers
It won't end the way you want it to.

>>17867847
Yes, because if you're secular it generally means you don't have retarded hills to die on. I don't think a Deist is going to give a shit whether or not you want a cake to be Satanic, it has no bearing on his God

>>17867640 (OP)
It's actually illegal/immoral to punish me for something that falls under the category of free speech.

Free speech is already set withing a frame of rules such as hate speech or defamation. It thus doesn't need an arbitrary frame (based on personal opinion) around the already existing legal frame of what constitute free speech.
To punish me (or endorse such actions) for my use of free speech based on your own subjective interpretations and opinions makes you the malicious one.

>>17867851
No morality without a Theist God, I'm glad we agree.

>>17867824
A bakery is someone's private property, try again nigger

>>17867856
You don't have morality with a Theist God either anon. Our entire body of morality is rooted in secular bodies of law. Christianity selectively chooses what God did and didn't do in the Old Testament because they know it wouldn't fly in the modern world but still have to hold onto some of them for their religion to have some level of continuity. The truth is that with God all things are permitted, since God is the ultimate judge of your morals after you die anyways. Not a single nation in all of human history, has ever thrown out their body of law in favor of a Bible. Think about that

>>17867814
Their implications with the statement don't really matter and it's just indicative of their own illiteracy with legal texts. I can't think of a single instance of government retaliation for freedom of speech.
I will say this though, if you were to be assaulted, and your assaulter was arrested but not charged for the crime, the district attorney's refusal to charge them is not government retaliation.
>>17867817
They better make Satan look extra sexy on the cake unless they want to lose millions and go homeless lmfao
>>17867824
>Bakery is a public institution
You are not 1000% not American.

>>17867865
You just expanded the range of secularism to encompass every human civilization in history, congrats.

>>17867869
I didn't, but I can see where you would think this. Even religious societies generally do not treat the Bible as their sole book of law

>>17867871
Splendid, I would like to return to a religious society which does not tolerate satanists and crossdressers.

>>17867867
>They better make Satan look extra sexy on the cake unless they want to lose millions and go homeless lmfao
You're acting like they were forced to open a bakery. If these retards were so petty they would rather go homeless than make a sexy satan cake then that's their prerogative

>>17867875
Let those who can accept this, accept it.

>>17867878
>actually jesus says trans rights
You belong to your father the devil.

>>17867877
I'm not acting like anything. I support the free market. They better make that BDC sparkle.

5 years later and Christians are still upset about the cake... Truly, you are the most oppressed

Trump won, you guys should be ecstatic

>>17867936
>millions of people take their oppression in the ass so you must too!
Die in a hole, commie.

>>17867824
>a Bakery is a public institution

>>17867984
Keep crying

>>17868217
I'm gonna inject your mother with aids

Free speach is the cornerstone of all freedom. How else can power be challenged? How else can the evil be identified? Suppressing speach is evil, free speach is sacred.

Hard to believe this even needs to be explained.

>>17868228
>most loving Christian

>>17867647
Is access to White people a protected right?

>>17867819
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, we have a right to be free of satanists and a right to use government power to suppress them.

>>17868300
What the bill of rights says is that the government shall make no law infringing upon the exercise of any religion. Important distinction.