4 ms·

> "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean the power to not be moderated by an Internet forum, it means that you can speak your mind and your government can't arrest or

by wtbob 11y ago

> "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean the power to not be moderated by an Internet forum, it means that you can speak your mind and your government can't arrest or censor you for it. No, it's the First Amendment which means that the government may not arrest your for what you say or censor your speech. 'Freedom of speech' means exactly what it says on the tin: that you may speak freely. In the United States, the government must respect your freedom of speech, and private entities have no such restriction. > If someone invites you into their home and you start calling their family names and pissing all over the carpet, the homeowner is well within her rights to throw you out and shut the door on you. Note that this is the same argument used by a monarch to justify restrictions on speech: it's his home, and you're welcome to leave. I think that it's fine and proper that private entities are free to regulate speech on their properties, but I also think that it's often inadvisable and unfortunate that they do so.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Agreed. Freedom of speech doesn't begin and end in the Constitution. Its an American ideal, embodied in the Constitution to show we mean business. But at every level, we mean that everyone is born with the right to speak their mind. Opposing that is un-American at core. To say "I suppressed their speech but it wasn't unconstitutional" is a very poor defense - that what you did can't be punished by the supreme court. I'm supposed to respect you for that? Its not just inadvisable and unfortunate; its wrong. At least here in America.
- kps 11y ago
  Agreed. In America, people don't self-censor out of rational fear that the government will take them away in a black van in the middle of the night. People self-censor out of rational fear that they'll lose their jobs.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I'd argue that institutional opposition to free speech is a critical threat to freedom of speech. What you say outside work hours should be especially protected.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Sure, but you can also understand how your speech and other actions outside of work, while not prohibited by law, could also create a conflict with your employer (whether it's because you pissed off a bunch of customers or shareholders or went around posting things online that could harm your employer's reputation or business). In such a case, would it not be your employer's right to terminate your employment? I'll give a hamfisted example: Let's say I work for "E Corp". I also have very strong opinions on interracial marriage. In my opinion, people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't mix because it pollutes the gene pool of "superior" races. Now let's say I start a blog where I regularly post essays and editorials which describe my opinions and I critique various media and public figures based on their adherence to my worldview. One day, after a particularly impassioned post, my blog is noticed by a columnist at the New York Times who writes an opinion piece on modern day race relations. The public debate quickly spreads and soon my blog and opinions are being condemned by millions (and praised by several as well). Now, E Corp knows I'm one of their employees and despite what you may have heard, the executive board is actually a pretty level-headed bunch. They typically seek to maximize profits but draw the line when it comes to things that make the company look bad or could hurt their public image. In fact, the CEO is currently the spokesman for a well-known minority rights group. Now, while the state cannot force me to take down my blog, no matter how unpopular the opinions posted there may be, they also cannot force E Corp to keep me (a non-contracted employee) on the payroll. In fact, many public figures have stated their opinion that in keeping me on staff, they're essentially saying that they're OK with my opinions. Can the state compel E Corp to keep me as an employee since I make my blog posts outside of work? Would that not be compelling E Corp to make the statement that my publicly broadcast opinions are OK? They may not be illegal but I'd wager that just as The Man can't shut down my blog for being unpopular or "offensive" to many, they also can't force my employer to make a statement by standing with me.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Sometimes you have to do morally questionable things. I'd sure want E Corp to agonize over the firing, and not just make it 'policy'.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > Freedom of speech doesn't begin and end in the Constitution. And I never said it did. I was refuting the illogical leap from "First Amendment" to "I can say or do whatever I want and not suffer any consequences, period". Everyone is indeed born with the right of free speech, and I will staunchly defend that right. However, that doesn't mean I or anyone else can walk into someone else's demesnes and start verbally abusing them without at least being told to leave, which is their right. Or if they like the abuse, they equally have the right to let me stay and continue abusing them. To put it another way, your right to swing your fist stops at my face.
  - current_call 11y ago
    And I never said it did. I was refuting the illogical leap from "First Amendment" to "I can say or do whatever I want and not suffer any consequences, period". You were the first person to mention the "First Amendment".
    - morganvachon 11y ago
      No, that would be wtbob two comments above mine.
      - current_call 11y ago
        Darn, I can't read.

by wtbob 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Agreed. Freedom of speech doesn't begin and end in the Constitution. Its an American ideal, embodied in the Constitution to show we mean business. But at every level, we mean that everyone is born with the right to speak their mind. Opposing that is un-American at core. To say "I suppressed their speech but it wasn't unconstitutional" is a very poor defense - that what you did can't be punished by the supreme court. I'm supposed to respect you for that? Its not just inadvisable and unfortunate; its wrong. At least here in America.

kps 11y ago
Agreed. In America, people don't self-censor out of rational fear that the government will take them away in a black van in the middle of the night. People self-censor out of rational fear that they'll lose their jobs.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I'd argue that institutional opposition to free speech is a critical threat to freedom of speech. What you say outside work hours should be especially protected.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Sure, but you can also understand how your speech and other actions outside of work, while not prohibited by law, could also create a conflict with your employer (whether it's because you pissed off a bunch of customers or shareholders or went around posting things online that could harm your employer's reputation or business). In such a case, would it not be your employer's right to terminate your employment? I'll give a hamfisted example: Let's say I work for "E Corp". I also have very strong opinions on interracial marriage. In my opinion, people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't mix because it pollutes the gene pool of "superior" races. Now let's say I start a blog where I regularly post essays and editorials which describe my opinions and I critique various media and public figures based on their adherence to my worldview. One day, after a particularly impassioned post, my blog is noticed by a columnist at the New York Times who writes an opinion piece on modern day race relations. The public debate quickly spreads and soon my blog and opinions are being condemned by millions (and praised by several as well). Now, E Corp knows I'm one of their employees and despite what you may have heard, the executive board is actually a pretty level-headed bunch. They typically seek to maximize profits but draw the line when it comes to things that make the company look bad or could hurt their public image. In fact, the CEO is currently the spokesman for a well-known minority rights group. Now, while the state cannot force me to take down my blog, no matter how unpopular the opinions posted there may be, they also cannot force E Corp to keep me (a non-contracted employee) on the payroll. In fact, many public figures have stated their opinion that in keeping me on staff, they're essentially saying that they're OK with my opinions. Can the state compel E Corp to keep me as an employee since I make my blog posts outside of work? Would that not be compelling E Corp to make the statement that my publicly broadcast opinions are OK? They may not be illegal but I'd wager that just as The Man can't shut down my blog for being unpopular or "offensive" to many, they also can't force my employer to make a statement by standing with me.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Sometimes you have to do morally questionable things. I'd sure want E Corp to agonize over the firing, and not just make it 'policy'.
morganvachon 11y ago
> Freedom of speech doesn't begin and end in the Constitution. And I never said it did. I was refuting the illogical leap from "First Amendment" to "I can say or do whatever I want and not suffer any consequences, period". Everyone is indeed born with the right of free speech, and I will staunchly defend that right. However, that doesn't mean I or anyone else can walk into someone else's demesnes and start verbally abusing them without at least being told to leave, which is their right. Or if they like the abuse, they equally have the right to let me stay and continue abusing them. To put it another way, your right to swing your fist stops at my face.
- current_call 11y ago
  And I never said it did. I was refuting the illogical leap from "First Amendment" to "I can say or do whatever I want and not suffer any consequences, period". You were the first person to mention the "First Amendment".
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    No, that would be wtbob two comments above mine.
    - current_call 11y ago
      Darn, I can't read.