4 ms·

The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have fre

The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have freedom of association as long as they don’t violate a protected class ( race, religion, sex, age, national origin, etc...). Since you the government can’t force a company to associate with someone they disagree with, you can be fired for things you say.

ddingus 8y ago
As it should be. There is no shield in the first Amendment. Just because it is legal to say does not mean it should be said.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Before you write that off, consider speech with built in impunity. The shield is not there because there needs to be checks and balances on speech. While we do see unfortunate outcomes, review them. All those people had options. People often cite the Mozilla event. It is not so often mentioned how a lot of people were going to leave. Being a leader, in that example, carries with it some implications. People do not blindly follow in enough numbers to be a concern. These are human dynamics. Legislating them, and or expecting people to deal en mass with others to the degree needed here is impractical. There are risks and rewards in all aspects of life, very few sure things. We are nowhere near a state of society where it is possible to consider otherwise.
skrebbel 8y ago
GP explicitly called out that there is not just a legal issue of free speech, but also a cultural one. Your response, "but it's legal!" in short, does not address that at all. Lots of things are legal but maybe not what we want. I'd say a working culture where having the wrong political opinion can get you fired is definitely one of them.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Think that through then - what do you want the government do to in that situation? Start to police culture? How would that go? Are you sure that won't end in unintended consequences?
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    Who says I (or @coffeemug) is arguing for government action?
    - ddingus 8y ago
      How else does it get done?
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Do you have another way to police and enforce culture? What are you actually arguing then, since you claim the comments don't address your issue?

ddingus 8y ago

As it should be. There is no shield in the first Amendment. Just because it is legal to say does not mean it should be said.

ddingus 8y ago
Before you write that off, consider speech with built in impunity. The shield is not there because there needs to be checks and balances on speech. While we do see unfortunate outcomes, review them. All those people had options. People often cite the Mozilla event. It is not so often mentioned how a lot of people were going to leave. Being a leader, in that example, carries with it some implications. People do not blindly follow in enough numbers to be a concern. These are human dynamics. Legislating them, and or expecting people to deal en mass with others to the degree needed here is impractical. There are risks and rewards in all aspects of life, very few sure things. We are nowhere near a state of society where it is possible to consider otherwise.

skrebbel 8y ago

GP explicitly called out that there is not just a legal issue of free speech, but also a cultural one. Your response, "but it's legal!" in short, does not address that at all. Lots of things are legal but maybe not what we want. I'd say a working culture where having the wrong political opinion can get you fired is definitely one of them.

manigandham 8y ago
Think that through then - what do you want the government do to in that situation? Start to police culture? How would that go? Are you sure that won't end in unintended consequences?
- skrebbel 8y ago
  Who says I (or @coffeemug) is arguing for government action?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    How else does it get done?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Do you have another way to police and enforce culture? What are you actually arguing then, since you claim the comments don't address your issue?