Law - Free Speech - Conundrum - Quandary

[Biggy Stardust]

nickfrog said:

You're not going to reason with Biggy. It's mostly emotions with a bit of posturing.

I respect your free speech & will not be bothered by your ad hominem. Bless you, brother.

[Biggy Stardust]

monthou said:

If you're free to say it...

One more time - why should your rights trump someone else's?

Free speech gives me the right to insult you. I won't bother but have the right.

You do not have the right to go through life with a guarantee of not being upset by what's said. Sorry but tough titty.

Your question is therefore meaningless.

[smn159]

Biggy Stardust said:

I won't bother with you.

Is that a consequence of my right to free speech by any chance?

[monthou]

Biggy Stardust said:

monthou said:

If you're free to say it...

One more time - why should your rights trump someone else's?

Free speech gives me the right to insult you. I won't bother but have the right.

You do not have the right to go through life with a guarantee of not being upset by what's said. Sorry but tough titty.

Your question is therefore meaningless.

Nobody said anything about being upset.
You think the 'free' means free from consequences. I can't help that you're wrong, enough people have explained it to you.

[nickfrog]

Biggy Stardust said:

nickfrog said:

You're not going to reason with Biggy. It's mostly emotions with a bit of posturing.

I respect your free speech & will not be bothered by your ad hominem. Bless you, brother.

QED

[Sporky]

Biggy Stardust said:

I just don't consider it compatible with the concept of genuine free speech.

"Free speech" is a term with meaning beyond the literal.

Otherwise, as I said before, you're suggesting that an employer has no right to dismiss an employee who publicly expresses an opinion that is completely at odds with the employer's values.

So your definition of free speech impinges on the rights of every employer, and that's just for starters.

There's another side to that too; if there were no consequence to stating an idea (let's include opinions as ideas in this context), it would be pointless to state that idea. I'd suggest that, in general, ideas are stated in order to provoke thought and/or action by those who hear them. Total lack of consequence precludes that - it effectively removes the audience, as they are unable to react positively or negatively.