The occasional jottings of a husband and father of six who can see Detroit from his house.
If you say you believe in free speech but are routinely demanding "consequences" for speech you disagree with...you really don't believe in free speech.
What if you believe that all speech, including that with which you agree, has consequences?
Clearly, all speech does have consequences. But the meme I'm reading indicates that "consequences" means the term in its purely negative connotation."You have the right to freedom of speech, but you have to live with the consequences!" all said in a tone which cheers the bad things happening to the speaker.
I understand. Words have a way of gaining negative consequences sometimes. There was a time apparently when 'retaliation' was a neutral thing- you could retaliate over both a favour and an insult. But people's capacity to remember slights far outstrips their capacity to remember a favour. For similar reasons, dealing with the consequences has gone the same route. What those who wish to make people pay the consequences for their free speech need to remember is that forcing people to pay for ungood speech carries consequences of its own, as they will rediscover to their regret.
One is struck by the title of yourblog, Dyspeptic Mutterings. Are we to expect as you advance in age that you'll change the name to Incontinent Mutterings. :-)