3 ms·

> The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sectio

> The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Yes, which is exactly the point. Lazy justifications of any non-governmental punishment of speech with "well the First Amendment doesn't protect against it, so it's fine!" is just that: lazy. > There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. Yes. And there is more to free speech than the First Amendment.

eesmith 9y ago
Which is why "the Left" didn't make that lazy argument. They added laws which protected that sort of speech, which took years of political effort. The Left's arguments were also much more concrete than an appeal to "free speech". Suppress the right to unionize and there will be wildcat strikes and a return to the violent actions of the 1800s. Allow workplace discrimination on the basis of skin color and there will be a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow era. Don't discriminate against women in the workplace because the experience of WWII shows that women are much more capable than was previously thought. [0] You'll also notice that "the Left" deliberately made it harder for people to make some sorts of speech at work, if it results in a hostile workplace. Why, it's almost as if they consistently believe that "free speech" at the workplace has a lesser standing than free speech in a public arena. Sure, there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. There's also more to freedom of assembly than the First Amendment. There is a necessary tension between the two no matter how it is embodied. If freedom of speech trumps the freedom of assembly then there is no liberty. [0] Also, don't discriminated against men, eg, "men aren't allowed to be nurses." Really the argument is that there are very few jobs with a bona fide reason for discrimination on the basis of gender.

eesmith 9y ago

Which is why "the Left" didn't make that lazy argument. They added laws which protected that sort of speech, which took years of political effort. The Left's arguments were also much more concrete than an appeal to "free speech". Suppress the right to unionize and there will be wildcat strikes and a return to the violent actions of the 1800s. Allow workplace discrimination on the basis of skin color and there will be a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow era. Don't discriminate against women in the workplace because the experience of WWII shows that women are much more capable than was previously thought. [0] You'll also notice that "the Left" deliberately made it harder for people to make some sorts of speech at work, if it results in a hostile workplace. Why, it's almost as if they consistently believe that "free speech" at the workplace has a lesser standing than free speech in a public arena. Sure, there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. There's also more to freedom of assembly than the First Amendment. There is a necessary tension between the two no matter how it is embodied. If freedom of speech trumps the freedom of assembly then there is no liberty. [0] Also, don't discriminated against men, eg, "men aren't allowed to be nurses." Really the argument is that there are very few jobs with a bona fide reason for discrimination on the basis of gender.