• Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t really make sense.

    Bomb threats are not protected free speech, and your own admission that the government would be the one providing consequences makes that quite clear.

    A better example of fair consequences of free speech is someone saying some hateful stuff, their employer hears it and dislikes it, and the employer fires the employee. Consequences, no government involvement.

    • Big Miku
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Free speech does protect you from the bomb threats. But it doesn’t protect from any other laws that you might have broken in the process. In this case making illegal threats.

      The laws don’t effect the available words in your speech, but the actions of those words. Like in this case making people fear for their life because of a bomb threat. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be words. It could be a letter, but it still holds the same consequences.

        • Big Miku
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough.

          I just misread the original as "Free speech’ and not “Protected speech”.