Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different poster, but I believe that freedom of speech not just does, but must come with freedom from consequences to be at all meaningful. Of course, there is nowhere that actually has that level of freedom of speech, but seen as a spectrum it makes sense. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences: - of government reprisals - of corporate reprisals - of criminal reprisals - of employment risks - of relationship…
> Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences: … of relationship risks. Wait, seriously? If I choose whether to have a relationship with someone based on the things they say, then you regard that as an infringement on their freedom of speech? You do later say: > … other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.) … but I don't really understand this as a statement of position.…
Re: Mastodon now a non-profit organisation
#101I'm saying freedom of speech should not have unwanted consequences, and in that sense it cuts far beyond what anyone considers reasonable. However, that doesn't make the definition wrong; it just means we better get comfortable with balancing conflicting interests.