So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same?
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum to be specific. And that's on top of the difference between the State and its power lawfully backed by lethal force and society which lacks the same.
>So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same?
No. No one is saying that. No one has ever said that, because it doesn't make any sense. Of course all actions have consequences. Of course saying something hurtful will cause others to react negatively. No one is contesting this. What people are contesting is that a very small but highly vocal group of people who seemingly get offended by everything can demand that the rest of us force consequences on people that hurt their feelings.
Right now, there's a small group of netflix employees planning some kind of protest. That is their right to do, that is a consequence for netflix producing this comedy special. The problem with the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is that it always seems to be a very small group demanding that some larger group bow to their demands and force consequences on someone that wouldn't receive them otherwise. In this case, this very small group is demanding that dave chappelle or netflix suffer consequences for producing his special. But according to rotten tomatoes, and most of the comments I read on the internet, is that the overwhelming majority of people thought it was funny.
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" means that if I call your mother a prostitute, I might get punched in the face. It does not mean that if a digital content producer airs a comedy special you don't like, that anyone who doesn't like it can demand that it be taken down and then say "well those are just the consequences!"
The consequence of netflix airing this special is that some people will get offended and may cancel their subscriptions and some of their employees might protest and/or quit. That's it. Caving to the demands of those offended is not "suffering the consequences."
Netflix has agency, no? If Netflix were to take down the Dave Chappelle episode as a result of "caving to the demands of those offended" that is their right, no? I still retain my agency to cancel my Netflix subscription - I could cancel because I was offended by the episode, I could cancel because I was upset that Netflix pulled the episode. I'm really not seeing how anybody's freedoms are being diminished in this case, regardless of the outcome.
If I held a gun to your head and said "give me your phone or face the consequences," would you claim that me shooting you for not giving me your phone is you "being held accountable"? Because that seems analogous to what is happening to netflix here.
The consequences of them producing this special is that some people are mad. But netflix chose to produce it, and I'm sure they knew full well that some people would get mad. A group of offended people demanding that it be taken down is not a "consequence that must be faced", it's a demand, and netflix not doing so isn't "not being held accountable for their actions."
False comparison. Holding a gun to my head and threatening my life is not a social consequence, it’s assault with the use of deadly force. The fact you gloss over that fact and so glibly make this comparison is rather disturbing.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum to be specific. And that's on top of the difference between the State and its power lawfully backed by lethal force and society which lacks the same.