4 ms·

There is a strong difference between supporting their right to speak their opinions and supporting their opinions. By voting for those candidates and if you hav

There is a strong difference between supporting their right to speak their opinions and supporting their opinions. By voting for those candidates and if you have supported the party, you have supported their opinions, not just their right to share them. This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? Right now, I think most progressives say no, conservatives obviously say yes. That is the actual gray area this comes down to. This is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the argument of the left: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc.jpg http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc... It should also be noted that the US constitution is being used very out of context here. The US constitution guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not protect you from the repercussions of your speech, which is what is harming the livelihoods you cite. Whether that is moral is a valid debate, but misusing the constitution here is a broken crutch for the argument. The right has made common use of misusing the constitution, most recently in their abandonment of "states rights" during the current administration.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? The debate and argument of ideas is non-negotiable if we desire a free society. EDIT: I choose to be tolerant of ideas that may be abhorrent or cause harm, because the alternative is much worse.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- RaleyField 9y ago
  Freedom of speech is only relevant to government and public spaces, shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. EDIT: Wtf is wrong with people on HN today? I merely stated the law, it isn't even my opinion. It demonstrably passed Google's legal team, so it's unlikely that I'm wrong.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. As may the government through statute. This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough, and additional law needed to prevent employment termination from expression not deemed "in fashion".
    - RaleyField 9y ago
      > This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough I don't have to hear obscenities on my private property. There's also freedom of association. It seems weird to me that one would be against authoritarianism when it comes to freedom of speech but be blindly for authoritarianism when it comes to association. I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want. Would you hold the same argument if I decided to acquire 51% of Google stock and fire all female employees? Or just the ones that decided to exercise their free speech? What shareholders wants comes second to government regulations to protect workers, for good reason.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
Banthum 9y ago
>This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? Right now, I think most progressives say no, conservatives obviously say yes. That is the actual gray area this comes down to. Firing someone is a harmful action. Progressives obviously support this. As for your cartoon - Categorizing anyone who disagrees with your values as a cartoon villain of pure evil, deserving of no rights and no response but violence, is the foundation of evil. The cartoon glorifies harmful action - and it's a great representation of the far left now. Progressives absolutely tolerate opinions and actions that harm others - they hold the opinions and commit the actions with great energy.
swat535 9y ago
There cannot be a division between the exercise of a right and the protection of repercussion of exercising said right. To not afford protection to those who exercise a constitutional right is to strip all practical effect of those rights It is illogical to conclude that we give people certain rights if we were simply to abandon them to their persecutors when they choose to exercise their rights. What was theoretically protected becomes merely a facade and an illusion that people have rights when in fact they are at the mercy of those who would attempt to subvert their rights The practical effect of legislation is at the core of even the most introductory and basic courses of any law degree whether it is from an Ivy League University or the most rundown backwater campus The general statement that you don't benefit from a certain degree of protection when exercising a constitutional right without any sort of mention of what a reasonable limit on those rights would be completely ignores the fact that constitutions were drafted PRECISELY to protect individuals who wished to exercise those rights
- etchalon 9y ago
  The problem in cases of "social outrage" is that the outrage is, itself, expression. The same protections that you demand exist for people expressing their right has to fall on both sides of a debate. You can't draw a neat box around one person's thought and say "protect this from others".
  - Sacho 9y ago
    This makes it a complex problem and a balancing act, but it doesn't mean we just throw our hands up in the air and give up. For example, California's Labor Code contains this piece of legislation protecting freedom of speech against retaliation in very specific circumstances: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=6310 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... The "chilling speech" effect is one of many reasons why anti-SLAPP statutes exist, a way to explicitly protect freedom of speech from specious attacks. We certainly couldn't expect people to have no reaction to speech, in fact, no reaction to speech would mean the speech is worthless! But there are cases where we can decide that a certain retaliation to speech is explicitly prohibited, and this is uncontroversial enough to find many examples of laws and statutes doing just that.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? The debate and argument of ideas is non-negotiable if we desire a free society. EDIT: I choose to be tolerant of ideas that may be abhorrent or cause harm, because the alternative is much worse.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
RaleyField 9y ago
Freedom of speech is only relevant to government and public spaces, shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. EDIT: Wtf is wrong with people on HN today? I merely stated the law, it isn't even my opinion. It demonstrably passed Google's legal team, so it's unlikely that I'm wrong.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. As may the government through statute. This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough, and additional law needed to prevent employment termination from expression not deemed "in fashion".
  - RaleyField 9y ago
    > This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough I don't have to hear obscenities on my private property. There's also freedom of association. It seems weird to me that one would be against authoritarianism when it comes to freedom of speech but be blindly for authoritarianism when it comes to association. I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want. Would you hold the same argument if I decided to acquire 51% of Google stock and fire all female employees? Or just the ones that decided to exercise their free speech? What shareholders wants comes second to government regulations to protect workers, for good reason.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

Banthum 9y ago

>This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? Right now, I think most progressives say no, conservatives obviously say yes. That is the actual gray area this comes down to. Firing someone is a harmful action. Progressives obviously support this. As for your cartoon - Categorizing anyone who disagrees with your values as a cartoon villain of pure evil, deserving of no rights and no response but violence, is the foundation of evil. The cartoon glorifies harmful action - and it's a great representation of the far left now. Progressives absolutely tolerate opinions and actions that harm others - they hold the opinions and commit the actions with great energy.

swat535 9y ago

There cannot be a division between the exercise of a right and the protection of repercussion of exercising said right. To not afford protection to those who exercise a constitutional right is to strip all practical effect of those rights It is illogical to conclude that we give people certain rights if we were simply to abandon them to their persecutors when they choose to exercise their rights. What was theoretically protected becomes merely a facade and an illusion that people have rights when in fact they are at the mercy of those who would attempt to subvert their rights The practical effect of legislation is at the core of even the most introductory and basic courses of any law degree whether it is from an Ivy League University or the most rundown backwater campus The general statement that you don't benefit from a certain degree of protection when exercising a constitutional right without any sort of mention of what a reasonable limit on those rights would be completely ignores the fact that constitutions were drafted PRECISELY to protect individuals who wished to exercise those rights

etchalon 9y ago
The problem in cases of "social outrage" is that the outrage is, itself, expression. The same protections that you demand exist for people expressing their right has to fall on both sides of a debate. You can't draw a neat box around one person's thought and say "protect this from others".
- Sacho 9y ago
  This makes it a complex problem and a balancing act, but it doesn't mean we just throw our hands up in the air and give up. For example, California's Labor Code contains this piece of legislation protecting freedom of speech against retaliation in very specific circumstances: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=6310 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... The "chilling speech" effect is one of many reasons why anti-SLAPP statutes exist, a way to explicitly protect freedom of speech from specious attacks. We certainly couldn't expect people to have no reaction to speech, in fact, no reaction to speech would mean the speech is worthless! But there are cases where we can decide that a certain retaliation to speech is explicitly prohibited, and this is uncontroversial enough to find many examples of laws and statutes doing just that.