4 ms·

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideolo

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. When it comes to the selective protection of free speech, accusing any particular side of hypocrisy only reveals the bias of your particular political perspective.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
>If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right to say it/do it but it shows their "true character."? You can both support free speech and also want a person to accept the consequences of what they do or say. I mean, I wouldn't personally fire anyone for those social transgressions but I can see how if I had certain world views I would see each person as less trustworthy or less desirable as an employee or coworker.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it). It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Oh give me a break. It's free speech to be rude to other people. Being rude to customers and coworkers will get you fired. Censorship! Being in the news for being a huge dick outside of work, like the ESPN reporter was (she was caught on camera berating a clerk) will get you fired. You cannot have some sort of meaningful distinction. You MUST own up and take responsibility for your actions. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility and accountability. It doesn't mean freedom from any and all consequences. This entitlement BS really annoys me.
    - vectorpush 10y ago
      > Being rude to customers and coworkers will get you fired. Being fired because you're rude to customers or coworkers is obviously not a free-speech issue, that is a "disruption to the work environment" issue. > Being in the news for being a huge dick outside of work, like the ESPN reporter was (she was caught on camera berating a clerk) will get you fired. Once again, not a free-speech issue. If your job is to represent an organization as a professional public figure and you tarnish your public image by acting like a dick in public, that is clearly a situation where you cannot do your job effectively and so it makes sense that you might be fired. > You MUST own up and take responsibility for your actions. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility and accountability. That's an oft repeated platitude that doesn't really add much to the discussion because just about everyone agrees with that statement. If one's actions are causing a disruption at work or bad publicity for one's employer, it's natural that those actions might jeopardize one's job. What I'm talking about is calling for someone to be fired after they say things you disagree with as punishment for saying those things; the distinction between that and the former is that the employer's actions can be justified without taking into account whether or not the employer agrees with the employees speech, at the end of the day if you're bad for business the employer is not obligated to endure the burden of your choices, however, when individuals seek to get others fired because they dislike their speech or ideas, that is antithetical to the notion of free speech.

nommm-nommm 10y ago

>If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right to say it/do it but it shows their "true character."? You can both support free speech and also want a person to accept the consequences of what they do or say. I mean, I wouldn't personally fire anyone for those social transgressions but I can see how if I had certain world views I would see each person as less trustworthy or less desirable as an employee or coworker.

vectorpush 10y ago
Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it). It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Oh give me a break. It's free speech to be rude to other people. Being rude to customers and coworkers will get you fired. Censorship! Being in the news for being a huge dick outside of work, like the ESPN reporter was (she was caught on camera berating a clerk) will get you fired. You cannot have some sort of meaningful distinction. You MUST own up and take responsibility for your actions. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility and accountability. It doesn't mean freedom from any and all consequences. This entitlement BS really annoys me.
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    > Being rude to customers and coworkers will get you fired. Being fired because you're rude to customers or coworkers is obviously not a free-speech issue, that is a "disruption to the work environment" issue. > Being in the news for being a huge dick outside of work, like the ESPN reporter was (she was caught on camera berating a clerk) will get you fired. Once again, not a free-speech issue. If your job is to represent an organization as a professional public figure and you tarnish your public image by acting like a dick in public, that is clearly a situation where you cannot do your job effectively and so it makes sense that you might be fired. > You MUST own up and take responsibility for your actions. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility and accountability. That's an oft repeated platitude that doesn't really add much to the discussion because just about everyone agrees with that statement. If one's actions are causing a disruption at work or bad publicity for one's employer, it's natural that those actions might jeopardize one's job. What I'm talking about is calling for someone to be fired after they say things you disagree with as punishment for saying those things; the distinction between that and the former is that the employer's actions can be justified without taking into account whether or not the employer agrees with the employees speech, at the end of the day if you're bad for business the employer is not obligated to endure the burden of your choices, however, when individuals seek to get others fired because they dislike their speech or ideas, that is antithetical to the notion of free speech.