We can freely point out the hypocrisy and ignorance of the “free speech absolutists” like Musk. That would be a consequence of us exercising our free speech.

Nobody is saying that Elon and Twitter “can’t” change their terms. Just that it’s funny the guy who literally used this specific example to illustrate his commitment to free speech has changed his principles.

Everyone knew he was a thin skinned hypocrite who only ever meant free speech for things he agrees with. The news here is the proof.

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.

Actually, the freedom is freedom from consequences (other than speech in return or being listened to or not).

That would require others losing their freedoms.

If you're a dick, I need the freedom to say so, to encourage a boycott of your restaurant, to not invite you to parties, to protest your public appearances. All of those are consequences and important freedoms.

Were you forced to invite them before their speech? No, your freedom of association is not affected by someone else's free speech. Burn those RSVPs all you like.

If you want to go down the everything has consequences route then there is no distinction between free speech and anything else in the universe so it's not really worth bothering with.

That's the "speech in return" part.

Then we need to discuss what definition of "consequences" you're using.

I gave the definition but I'll write it slightly differently if it wasn't clear before. Speech is free when the consequences are:

- it is not listened to

- it is listened to

- there is speech in return to the speaker

If you consider boycotts and being shunned by your social circle "speech in return", I suppose we agree. I'd tend to consider those to be consequences of free speech, though.

You can use your free speech to tell others not to do business with X. When enough people are convinced by that, it's a boycott.

The part of free speech that is always in question is the free part. Hence, consequences, in this context, are linked to what affects that freedom, otherwise they're just part of being in a reality where everything is caused and hence has consequences. Thus, calling my dog back and it runs to me is not a consequence of free speech in the way we're discussing it.

Boycotts are based on the freedom to buy what one wants, but when they are mandated then they're not. They can be used to try and stop someone speaking, then they're against free speech. If they're not used in that way then fine.

Being shunned is not being spoken to or listened to which is freedom of speech.

If you put it like that there's freedom of speech everywhere, it just so happens that in some places talking gets you killed...

Of course they can, no one is arguing against that. The point here is the hypocrisy of Elon Musk positioning himself as a defender of free speech, saying that they would not ban this account and then doing exactly what he said that wouldn't happen