It is more of "free to criticize' vs 'free to destroy livelihood' thing. Some would say both are same or second is just an implementation detail of first.
Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).
> Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).
No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to speech is probably a good starting point for the definition of unfree speech.
This is spot on. In addition the first amendment is theoretically protection against punching you in the face not being prohibited because of something you said. The government could make face punching legal in general, but not legal only if the victim first makes an idiot out of themselves.
Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in the philosophical sense (there are obviously other reasons too, such as that it hurts).
This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).
