Oh? So what will you claim exactly when the situation is reversed and you are not free from consequences of your actions? Societal norms are fickle. Are you sure you want rely on those?
No one is free from any and all consequences for their actions. Is this a real question?
You may as well accept that your actions have consequences since it is reality. Usually this is a lesson taught to young children while they are still learning to talk.
It absolutely is a real question. I routinely see different standards applied when consequence are on the line and selective enforcement is made based on criteria that make one question the very foundations of the country that is not willing to live up to their espoused ideals.
Since you mention little children, I would be remiss not to point out that kids do pick up on that particular, shall we say, inconsistency rather quick usually to the embarrassment of the adults, who are, after all, in a polite company.
By the way, I reject the consequences framing. Everything has a consequence. I breathe. Oxygen enters my bloodstream. The only question tends to be whether a busybody has too much free time on their hands to undermine basic foundations of this country. And there seem to be so many of those lately.
Related. What government thinks freedom of speech is and is not based on various rulings:
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
It is mildly amusing isn't it. Not that long ago schools were kinda for trying to uphold freedoms of their students.
I do not want to presume too much, but I am assuming you are trying to make some sort of subtle point. If so, do not hesitate to do it and just play your cards. It is not like I can report you for anti-semitism or something.
I'm not trying to be subtle at all, I'm trying to tell you explicitly that "freedom of speech" has to do with the government and has nothing to do with you getting banned from websites or people blocking you. From your own link it doesn't cover being able to print whatever you want in college newspaper.
People not wanting to hear what you have to say, broadcast what you say or host what you say has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Is it one of those weird moments where we push this conversation to it its logical conclusion with a response of blocking protected parties and immediate chorus of 'but you can't block like that!' You can only block the right people that we tell you can block. Blocking wrong people can be bad mojo.
FWIW, this was my last response. I am removing myself from this conversation.
