5 ms·
> Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society. Not everywhere. You don't have to allow the free discussion
by ucaetano 9y ago
> Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society.
Not everywhere. You don't have to allow the free discussion of ideas by anyone in your home.
Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such. Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- stagbeetle 9y ago> or to be free of the consequences of such. This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's: "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc. See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0] [0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.03.Paper-on-Restrictions-on-FOE.pdf http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...
- ucaetano 9y agoOh, you have the right to hold opinions. You just don't have the right to hold opinions WHERE you want. And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as someone asking you to leave their house isn't. A private company, just like a private house, is not "society".
- stagbeetle 9y agoBeing fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression[0]. Private homes are not sovereign lands and neither are companies. [0]https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html
- joshuamorton 9y agoThat source states that the limitation is defined as being by a public (ie. government) body. >The nature of the public body is irrelevant. It could be legislative, executive or judicial, or a publicly owned enterprise
- stagbeetle 9y agoYou're correct, I misread the source.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ucaetano 9y agoGoogle is not a government, so your point is moot. The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments. Citing your own source: "The right to freedom of expression cannot be limited at the whim of a public official"
- stagbeetle 9y agoGoogle is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. >"The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments." This is incorrect. Article 19 is a prominent humans right organization, specifically focusing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also the second source agreeing that you cannot fire someone for what they say. Here, I'll add a third: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en... pg 54, Ross vs Canada. This is straight from the UN.
- conradoqg 9y agoIn authoritarian governments, you're also free to speak and usually, the consequence is your death, captivity, or torture. I don't buy that argument that you are free to speak but not free of the consequences.
- ucaetano 9y agoAre you saying that someone stopping to be your friend, or someone not wanting to have you as an employee is equivalent to the government killing you?
- metaphorm 9y agowe have laws that govern employment and we don't have laws that govern friendship. these two relationships are not morally or legally equivalent.
- ucaetano 9y agoAnd apparently the laws of employment in CA allow for you to fire someone you don't like, as long as it isn't for a few particular reasons. A company can, for example, fire you for not liking the color red.