3 ms·

You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about t

You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about the government, not private actors. If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a sailor blush. It gets to the point that it hurts your business. Patrons stop coming in. You can’t recruit. Do you fire him? Of course not! You’d be impugning his free speech and that’s horrible. So the restaurant closes, and you start another. And guess who shows up for a job? Sailor Blusher. Do you hire him? Of course! You have to because if you didn’t, you’d be infringing in his right to get paid to berate strangers! This story isn’t an exaggeration. This is the logical outcome.

billfruit 9y ago
I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens. If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.
ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> The law is about the government, not private actors. So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case? https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
- camel_Snake 9y ago
  IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.

billfruit 9y ago

I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens. If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.

jonathankoren 9y ago
I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.

ThrowawayR2 9y ago

> The law is about the government, not private actors. So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case? https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...

camel_Snake 9y ago
IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.