6 ms·

Freedom of speech protects you from government persecution, not social stigma.

syshum 9y ago
No, this is one of the problems we have in society today is this misunderstanding of Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction Not just from government censorship, but from SOCIETY censorship as well Governments, at least Western Government, are a reflection of society in general often delayed by a generation or so. As such if society deems fit to Censor something often that translates into the government censoring the same thing just a few year later. We must be always mindful of threats to free speech not just from government but from society at large. It is incumbent upon everyone to respect everyone else's freedom of expression, individually
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  Who's tradition are you using for that society argument? It sounds like a facile reading of Mills, without ever going to the back half where he talks about valid reasons for a society to put pressure on an individual, but I've been more on the Federalist papers this year for obvious reasons.
- meddlepal 9y ago
  FoS so far as the U.S. Constitution defines it has nothing to do with society. It's all about government.
  - syshum 9y ago
    I fail to understand what the US Constitution has to do with this conversation. The US Constitution is a document that outlines what powers the people of the US have granted to the Federal government, it has no bearing on what I am talking about
    - meddlepal 9y ago
      Uh... Amendment #1 deals with FoS. Sentences 2 and 3 of your post talk about Government AND Society. The first amendment doesn't give a rat's ass about what society thinks. Its a restriction only on the government.
      - xorfish 9y ago
        Freedom of Speech is a principle. It has a value on it's own. I wish more people would see that.
      - sbmassey 9y ago
        You are the one that brought up the US constitution, the OP was talking about freedom of speech as a principle. It is hardly surprising that the US constitution would only apply FoS to the government, since that is what it is trying to define, but the principle of FoS can apply to society as much as anything else.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
We're not talking social stigma; we're talking about someone being fired, having their financial situation put in jeopardy because of inadequate worker protections. If you think that's okay because of the views this engineer holds, you're a terrible human being.
- greekyogurt21 9y ago
  Nah, the employee blackened the eye of the company he works for, potentially causing monetary loss. As a result of the employees controversial memo, the company deemed it necessary to terminate the employee to prevent any additional costs incurred with keeping him on. He's free to spew whatever nonsense he wanto, just like his employer is free to prevent themselves from losing money. :)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - weberc2 9y ago
    It's illegal to fire people over their politics, and that's clearly what happened here.
    - greekyogurt21 9y ago
      Ah yes, I totally forgot that "males are less neurotic and have more drive than females". Silly me. Good luck finding any women to work with you when you spew such nonsense. Aka creating a toxic work place
      - Aunche 9y ago
        Many psychological studies have confirmed psychological differences between men and women. It is not toxic to discuss these findings.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        It seems like half of this debate is utterly preoccupied with misrepresenting the other half. I guess the social justice position is too weak and it's adherents lacking in integrity.
cabalamat 9y ago
No. Freedom of speech is a social convention, and only secondarily a matter of law. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting-as-doxxing/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting...
metaphorm 9y ago
the 1st amendment of the constitution is a prohibition of the federal government enacting a law that limits freedom of religion, expression, or association. freedom of speech is a far more general moral principle and social norm. we ought not conflate the two and there is much more utility in discussing the more general case of freedom of speech and not the narrower more legalistic case of the 1st amendment.
undersuit 9y ago
To add to this, the ex-Googler is still able to express his speech, just not under the private platform of Google. This would be a far different and more contentious case if Google fired an employee for their free speech under a personal website and not a company website.
acchow 9y ago
The freedom of speech in the constitution protects you from government persecution. But the idea is bigger than the constitution. I think it is best expressed in The Friends of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is a deep idea. I think it is virtuous. Silence no ideas.

No, this is one of the problems we have in society today is this misunderstanding of Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction Not just from government censorship, but from SOCIETY censorship as well Governments, at least Western Government, are a reflection of society in general often delayed by a generation or so. As such if society deems fit to Censor something often that translates into the government censoring the same thing just a few year later. We must be always mindful of threats to free speech not just from government but from society at large. It is incumbent upon everyone to respect everyone else's freedom of expression, individually

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
Who's tradition are you using for that society argument? It sounds like a facile reading of Mills, without ever going to the back half where he talks about valid reasons for a society to put pressure on an individual, but I've been more on the Federalist papers this year for obvious reasons.
meddlepal 9y ago
FoS so far as the U.S. Constitution defines it has nothing to do with society. It's all about government.
- syshum 9y ago
  I fail to understand what the US Constitution has to do with this conversation. The US Constitution is a document that outlines what powers the people of the US have granted to the Federal government, it has no bearing on what I am talking about
  - meddlepal 9y ago
    Uh... Amendment #1 deals with FoS. Sentences 2 and 3 of your post talk about Government AND Society. The first amendment doesn't give a rat's ass about what society thinks. Its a restriction only on the government.
    - xorfish 9y ago
      Freedom of Speech is a principle. It has a value on it's own. I wish more people would see that.
    - sbmassey 9y ago
      You are the one that brought up the US constitution, the OP was talking about freedom of speech as a principle. It is hardly surprising that the US constitution would only apply FoS to the government, since that is what it is trying to define, but the principle of FoS can apply to society as much as anything else.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

We're not talking social stigma; we're talking about someone being fired, having their financial situation put in jeopardy because of inadequate worker protections. If you think that's okay because of the views this engineer holds, you're a terrible human being.

greekyogurt21 9y ago
Nah, the employee blackened the eye of the company he works for, potentially causing monetary loss. As a result of the employees controversial memo, the company deemed it necessary to terminate the employee to prevent any additional costs incurred with keeping him on. He's free to spew whatever nonsense he wanto, just like his employer is free to prevent themselves from losing money. :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- weberc2 9y ago
  It's illegal to fire people over their politics, and that's clearly what happened here.
  - greekyogurt21 9y ago
    Ah yes, I totally forgot that "males are less neurotic and have more drive than females". Silly me. Good luck finding any women to work with you when you spew such nonsense. Aka creating a toxic work place
    - Aunche 9y ago
      Many psychological studies have confirmed psychological differences between men and women. It is not toxic to discuss these findings.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      It seems like half of this debate is utterly preoccupied with misrepresenting the other half. I guess the social justice position is too weak and it's adherents lacking in integrity.

cabalamat 9y ago

No. Freedom of speech is a social convention, and only secondarily a matter of law. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting-as-doxxing/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting...

metaphorm 9y ago

the 1st amendment of the constitution is a prohibition of the federal government enacting a law that limits freedom of religion, expression, or association. freedom of speech is a far more general moral principle and social norm. we ought not conflate the two and there is much more utility in discussing the more general case of freedom of speech and not the narrower more legalistic case of the 1st amendment.

undersuit 9y ago

To add to this, the ex-Googler is still able to express his speech, just not under the private platform of Google. This would be a far different and more contentious case if Google fired an employee for their free speech under a personal website and not a company website.

acchow 9y ago

The freedom of speech in the constitution protects you from government persecution. But the idea is bigger than the constitution. I think it is best expressed in The Friends of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is a deep idea. I think it is virtuous. Silence no ideas.