Not as clever as it may sound. It is perfectly possible that someone has nothing to hide in a good way, whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual. So in a way this is comparing apples to bad apples and claiming they are perfectly equal.

> whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual

Huh? You can’t imagine boring people as a “good faith social individual”?

If you have nothing so say for yourself that is more than beeing boring, it is beeing indifferent which is just one step away from amoral.

Or acutely stressed. Some people clam up as a stress response.

I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts. One does not require believing in the other. For example I believe the former, but for the latter I believe everyone should be punished when they break the law.

> I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts.

'Saying' is an example of 'doing', and the moderation to speech happens after the fact, including (yes) in USA. Consider the case of a person yelling fire or 'he's got a gun!' when there is none, or a death threat.

People should have consequences for what they say, but not from the government. You should never be prosecuted for what you say, no matter how vile. But other people are free to exercise their rights in response, including freedom of association.

That was a typo in my post. Fixed.

So if public figures with a sizeable following start calling for you and your family to be chased down and gutted like animals, should they legally be allowed to do that? Do you actually believe that?