On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote: > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
Here is a good reply to this very statement: ~~~ "Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration, but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that [whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words as a veiled threat? The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal. If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies (as many do). ~~~ Taken from the following conversation: https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/friendly-atheist-defends-censorhip/ -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- It's a nonsense assumption that you can get rid of terrorism with war. Terrorism is taking the lives of innocent people to gain your objective. War is basically the same thing on a larger scale. -- Gene Sharp --- Your Facebook friends are wrong about the lockdown. A non-hysterics's guide to COVID-19 by Tom Woods. -- https://wrongaboutlockdown.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
