Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence
Every time I hear someone say something like this I can't help but hear it as being pseudo-fascist. I know you are saying it in a neutral way, but in almost all contexts it is a dog whistle for "the law may allow it, but we are gonna mess you up." And in almost all cases it involves enforcing particular dogmas, not universally agreed upon standards (e.g. yelling fire in a theatre).
And even if every does agree to the fact that there should be a consequence for what was said. There is that whole other matter of "proportionate
and appropriate response." Which would need to be brought into it.
Destroying someone's life because they declare their like for Pilsner Beers, while you favor Ale is not an appropriate, or proportionate, response.
And why you feel the need for pride in either supporting or opposing free speech laws, I have no idea.
I thought this was self-evident, but I guess I'll explain. When people say that free speech is only a restriction on government, this is (lately) usually in context of the issue of trying to cancel or block people from speaking. And in all cases I have seen it is specifically an enthusiastic remark, celebrating the fact that people are 'free' to enforce speech codes on each other. So when we hear "never meant freedom from consequences", although you may have meant it neutrally, it is rarely neutral, but is rather a way of saying that "we are going to wreck people who say things we don't like." Well I also acknowledge that this is a fact, but I am not enthusiastic about it. Obviously being able to socially control conduct is not invariably a bad thing. But it is bad when there is a mob mentality attached, even a glee of being able to smash those who you disagree with through a sort of public power. There is nothing to be enthusiastic about with people wielding social power over each other in the form of bullying. That is why I specified that I'm not sure how to avoid it, but I wouldn't celebrate it. When people cancel other people you bet they are celebrating it. They think it's good because the power seems to be in their hands. I'll refer you to the "until they came for me" quote.
Pretty much. But a LOT of this comes from the weaponization of speech mostly by the political left. That isn't to say that speech wasn't being used as a weapon before, after all we also have the adage about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and the perils of fighting against someone who "buys ink by the barrel."
It's that issues have been turned into life-of-death items of contention. Climate Change? "If you disagree with the consensus, you must want to destroy humanity's future." And in the face of
that, the fate of the human race, any recourse becomes easy to justify.
Likewise with popular portrayals of how words themselves can be just as violent as weapons, and why it is thus important to do things like use a person's favored pronouns are gaining momentum. You used the wrong pronoun? "You're a violent gender-denialist who must be a natural ally of Nazi's," and because your an ally of the Nazi's at best, any means necessary is justified in silencing you.
The list goes on, and on, and on. You hold a view that disagrees with "the consensus" and you are a
danger in some way, shape, or form, and need to be stopped.
It doesn't matter that "the consensus" isn't controlled by a government. The fact that deviating from it can be used to justify your destruction should be alarming to everyone. "The Consensus" is not always right, sometime it is wrong. Creating a society where any challenger to it is immediately destroyed is a society that doesn't want progress. It wants the status quo,
forever.
I favor a world where change can, and does, happen. What's currently being pushed by the self-declared "progressives" in the Western World is anything but progressive, its
regressive. Except they can point to the conservatives as the ones fighting to keep things (kind-of) how they are as cover for what they're really doing.
"Pluck not out the mote in thy brother's eye, whilst ignoring the beam in thine own eye" has never been more relevant. People need to be more self-aware of exactly what they're advocating for when they try to hamper the dissent of people they disagree with.
Let the fool speak, allow the consequence to be that everyone can the fool for what he is. Of course, that requires you to have faith in the marketplace of ideas and be willing to engage in it honestly yourself. Dishonest actors will always be a problem, but pretending they don't exist by
pushing them to the fringes rather than properly defanging them doesn't help.
To put it another way, we don't practice animal control by banishing unwanted animals into the wilderness(the fringes). The more humane among us also try to forgo euthanasia. The favored approach in general is to spay and neuter, but for that, you need to take them to a medical practitioner.
What the "there are consequences" group is doing at present is the banishment option, no spay, no neuter. No other countermeasures against letting mis-information run rampant and breed further. Nope, just paper over the mold and rot in the walls. It won't be a problem going forward, no need to address the root cause.
