3 ms·

What makes you think it's not protected speech?

Retric 9y ago
It's a sliding scale at a high level: "Laws that regulate the time, manner, and place, but not content, of speech in a public forum receive less scrutiny by the Court than do laws that restrict the content of expression." Critically, an interview process is almost by definition not a public forum and the bar is thus significantly lower. With various questions about protected classes being barred considered completely reasonable. Further, this prohibits time/manor but not content. Granted, some view free speech as nearly absolute, but with current case law this is rather far from the edge.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Whatever you're quoting is talking about it being okay to restrict speech in a public forum. They went out of their way to say time/place/manner apply to public forum speech. Why do you think that implies non-public speech would have a lower bar? Would it also be constitutional for the government to prohibit fellow employees from asking each other what their salary is? That's just about the legal question. For the more cosmic sort of question, asking questions is definitely part of free speech. Free speech includes the right to have a conversation.
  - Retric 9y ago
    > Why do you think that implies... Because that's the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) "A nonpublic forum is not specially designated as open to public expression. For example, jails, public schools, and military bases are nonpublic forums (unless declared otherwise by the government). Such forums can be restricted based on the content (i.e., subject matter) of the speech, but not based on viewpoint. Thus, while the government could prohibit speeches related to abortion on a military base, it could not permit a pro-life speaker while denying a pro-choice speaker (or vice versa)." PS: I get that people have strong opinions about this, but IMO if you care it's worth looking up the details. It's more reasonable than you might think.

It's a sliding scale at a high level: "Laws that regulate the time, manner, and place, but not content, of speech in a public forum receive less scrutiny by the Court than do laws that restrict the content of expression." Critically, an interview process is almost by definition not a public forum and the bar is thus significantly lower. With various questions about protected classes being barred considered completely reasonable. Further, this prohibits time/manor but not content. Granted, some view free speech as nearly absolute, but with current case law this is rather far from the edge.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Whatever you're quoting is talking about it being okay to restrict speech in a public forum. They went out of their way to say time/place/manner apply to public forum speech. Why do you think that implies non-public speech would have a lower bar? Would it also be constitutional for the government to prohibit fellow employees from asking each other what their salary is? That's just about the legal question. For the more cosmic sort of question, asking questions is definitely part of free speech. Free speech includes the right to have a conversation.
- Retric 9y ago
  > Why do you think that implies... Because that's the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) "A nonpublic forum is not specially designated as open to public expression. For example, jails, public schools, and military bases are nonpublic forums (unless declared otherwise by the government). Such forums can be restricted based on the content (i.e., subject matter) of the speech, but not based on viewpoint. Thus, while the government could prohibit speeches related to abortion on a military base, it could not permit a pro-life speaker while denying a pro-choice speaker (or vice versa)." PS: I get that people have strong opinions about this, but IMO if you care it's worth looking up the details. It's more reasonable than you might think.