Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
>If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?
This is getting very Stalin-esque. Sure, you have many rights in the constitution, but if you actually exercise them then you suffer unwritten consequences. The Soviet constitution granted citizens more rights then the US constitution does us, but it was just worthless promises.
I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.
Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.