I’m free to call schools and government offices with bomb threats. However, they are free to call the FBI and tell them “hey, some dipshit made a bomb threat, here’s their number”. So I suffer the consequences my bomb threats have, which is most likely suicide by two bullets to the back of the head jail.
You are correct, I’m just tired of explaining to some people that speech that gets you fined, arrested, thrown in prison, legally liable for damages due to fraud or defamation, etc isn’t really protected free speech and transcends the mere social punishment of people not liking or wanting to do business with you.
Bomb threats are not protected free speech, and your own admission that the government would be the one providing consequences makes that quite clear.
A better example of fair consequences of free speech is someone saying some hateful stuff, their employer hears it and dislikes it, and the employer fires the employee. Consequences, no government involvement.
Free speech does protect you from the bomb threats. But it doesn’t protect from any other laws that you might have broken in the process. In this case making illegal threats.
The laws don’t effect the available words in your speech, but the actions of those words. Like in this case making people fear for their life because of a bomb threat. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be words. It could be a letter, but it still holds the same consequences.
Which… proves my point?
I’m free to call schools and government offices with bomb threats. However, they are free to call the FBI and tell them “hey, some dipshit made a bomb threat, here’s their number”. So I suffer the consequences my bomb threats have, which is most likely
suicide by two bullets to the back of the headjail.You’re definitely pushing the semantics on what constitutes free speech, I’ll give you that much.
More so conflating the fundamental capacity of decision making versus the spirit of the law protecting free speech.
You are correct, I’m just tired of explaining to some people that speech that gets you fined, arrested, thrown in prison, legally liable for damages due to fraud or defamation, etc isn’t really protected free speech and transcends the mere social punishment of people not liking or wanting to do business with you.
This doesn’t really make sense.
Bomb threats are not protected free speech, and your own admission that the government would be the one providing consequences makes that quite clear.
A better example of fair consequences of free speech is someone saying some hateful stuff, their employer hears it and dislikes it, and the employer fires the employee. Consequences, no government involvement.
Free speech does protect you from the bomb threats. But it doesn’t protect from any other laws that you might have broken in the process. In this case making illegal threats.
The laws don’t effect the available words in your speech, but the actions of those words. Like in this case making people fear for their life because of a bomb threat. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be words. It could be a letter, but it still holds the same consequences.
If you get in trouble for the speech, aka the speech being an illegal threat, it’s not protected speech.
Fair enough.
I just misread the original as "Free speech’ and not “Protected speech”.