4 ms·

The right to free speech in the USA concerns political speech, and the relationship between the people and their government. It is not a shield against punishm

by sk5t 8y ago

The right to free speech in the USA concerns political speech, and the relationship between the people and their government. It is not a shield against punishment by society for controversial or ill-considered comments. Indeed, it likely would prove impossible to grant such protections without limiting freedom of political or religious expression.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Your first mistake is believing in the fiction that corporations are people. Just because judges said so, doesn't make it true. My primary complaint comes down to this country coming to an understanding of "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to actual people, and shouldn't apply to companies and capricious decisions. Things people do on their private time should have absolutely no bearing on where they work, where they live, or where they shop. We already have laws on companies that restrict many different things. Companies can't violate the EEOC: they can't legally ask if you're married. Nor can they use your racial identity as a reason to hire/fire you. (they do, just under the guise of selective enforcement and firing for 'insubordination') > The right to free speech in the USA concerns political speech, and the relationship between the people and their government. It is not a shield against punishment by society for controversial or ill-considered comments. Indeed, it likely would prove impossible to grant such protections without limiting freedom of political or religious expression. And there was something that bothered me with your post... I've read similar kind of comments regarding desegregation in the South. Not that I'm calling you racist, mind you. But there were people who doubted similarly, and used that as an excuse to not make those changes. Fortunately, they were wrong.
- danso 8y ago
  > Things people do on their private time should have absolutely no bearing on where they work, where they live, or where they shop. Yes, you are correct that the U.S. has passed laws that take a hard line against certain forms of discrimination, especially when it comes to employment and housing. But even a law as accepted and adhered today as The Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the laws EEOC enforces [0]) is not even 30 years old. And in that brief time, into today, it has ongoing battles and controversies. The definition of "disabled" is most definitely not universally agreed upon [1]. Nor is there an easy consensus about the costs society should bear to follow the ADA. One example on HN that comes to my mind is this thread last year [2], in which many folks (perhaps the majority) argued that UC Berkeley should be allowed to continue producing online lectures without subtitles for the hearing-impaired. You're probably aware even the most seemingly obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment -- that the government cannot censor people's free speech -- has been a continual matter of litigation and debate over the past century in every domain, from student protests to national security. And yet you think that an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment -- such that no one in America should suffer negative consequences for expressing beliefs -- would have no complications or unintended consequences. How are you so wrapped up in your own predicament -- having to self-censor because you fear people may dislike and even shun you for your personal opinions -- that you can't see the obvious and immediate ways in which such a law would severely curtail the free speech of everyone, particularly the folks who do not have the resources to go to court? If you believe the 1st Amendment stops the government from abridging free speech, isn't it also blatantly obvious how problematic it would be to enforce this law? (Hint: who do you think runs the regulators and courts who would be in charge of enforcing and passing judgement?) Let's pretend we have the power to time travel and go back to rewrite the 1st Amendment; I challenge you to come up with just the words/phrases that would reasonably describe the free speech protection you want. [0] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=521f98d2-a9b0-4712-8e25-b8797ab93d21 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=521f98d2-a9b0... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856

by sk5t 8y ago

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

Your first mistake is believing in the fiction that corporations are people. Just because judges said so, doesn't make it true. My primary complaint comes down to this country coming to an understanding of "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to actual people, and shouldn't apply to companies and capricious decisions. Things people do on their private time should have absolutely no bearing on where they work, where they live, or where they shop. We already have laws on companies that restrict many different things. Companies can't violate the EEOC: they can't legally ask if you're married. Nor can they use your racial identity as a reason to hire/fire you. (they do, just under the guise of selective enforcement and firing for 'insubordination') > The right to free speech in the USA concerns political speech, and the relationship between the people and their government. It is not a shield against punishment by society for controversial or ill-considered comments. Indeed, it likely would prove impossible to grant such protections without limiting freedom of political or religious expression. And there was something that bothered me with your post... I've read similar kind of comments regarding desegregation in the South. Not that I'm calling you racist, mind you. But there were people who doubted similarly, and used that as an excuse to not make those changes. Fortunately, they were wrong.

danso 8y ago
> Things people do on their private time should have absolutely no bearing on where they work, where they live, or where they shop. Yes, you are correct that the U.S. has passed laws that take a hard line against certain forms of discrimination, especially when it comes to employment and housing. But even a law as accepted and adhered today as The Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the laws EEOC enforces [0]) is not even 30 years old. And in that brief time, into today, it has ongoing battles and controversies. The definition of "disabled" is most definitely not universally agreed upon [1]. Nor is there an easy consensus about the costs society should bear to follow the ADA. One example on HN that comes to my mind is this thread last year [2], in which many folks (perhaps the majority) argued that UC Berkeley should be allowed to continue producing online lectures without subtitles for the hearing-impaired. You're probably aware even the most seemingly obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment -- that the government cannot censor people's free speech -- has been a continual matter of litigation and debate over the past century in every domain, from student protests to national security. And yet you think that an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment -- such that no one in America should suffer negative consequences for expressing beliefs -- would have no complications or unintended consequences. How are you so wrapped up in your own predicament -- having to self-censor because you fear people may dislike and even shun you for your personal opinions -- that you can't see the obvious and immediate ways in which such a law would severely curtail the free speech of everyone, particularly the folks who do not have the resources to go to court? If you believe the 1st Amendment stops the government from abridging free speech, isn't it also blatantly obvious how problematic it would be to enforce this law? (Hint: who do you think runs the regulators and courts who would be in charge of enforcing and passing judgement?) Let's pretend we have the power to time travel and go back to rewrite the 1st Amendment; I challenge you to come up with just the words/phrases that would reasonably describe the free speech protection you want. [0] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=521f98d2-a9b0-4712-8e25-b8797ab93d21 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=521f98d2-a9b0... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856