Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others.
But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means?
There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected.
Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?
Re:The Kolmogorov option
by zimpenfish on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @09:11AM
(#14968341)
> Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example?
Yes. Can you do it without consequences to yourself? No, because that is almost certainly a protected case in law.
Then I'm not sure what your point is. "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. As such "freedom to X" usually implies the legal framework to support X.
If you are saying "freedom to X doesn't mean no legal consequences" then the phrase would be meaningless.
Re:The Kolmogorov option
by zimpenfish on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @09:30AM
(#14968534)
> "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law.
Then where is the "a right to freedom of speech" enshrined in the law? The USA doesn't have that - only limited protection from the government. The UK certainly doesn't.
> There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech"
...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe.
You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.