They're not making the distinction because there isn't one.
Speech can have all sorts of consequences, from losing a friendship to being imprisoned or executed. "Consequences" are a spectrum, and you're simply drawing the line in a different place to other people.
> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech.
This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill.
I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me, not the narrow, American legal definition.
> The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it.
I fully agree, and I'm not interested in emulating their hypocrisy.
Speech can have all sorts of consequences, from losing a friendship to being imprisoned or executed. "Consequences" are a spectrum, and you're simply drawing the line in a different place to other people.
> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech.
This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill.
I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me, not the narrow, American legal definition.
> The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it.
I fully agree, and I'm not interested in emulating their hypocrisy.