4 ms·

I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case.

by jeswin 7y ago

I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position. Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech.

AdrianB1 7y ago
You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else. Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution. In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue". The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.
  - burrows 7y ago
    Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free speech isn’t violated.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively initiating or assisting such attacks? (Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral principles you're applying here.)
      - burrows 7y ago
        Government ought to have a force monopoly. Government ought to be “small” (functionally and structurally limited). Government ought to defend the natural rights of its citizens from physical force initiated by criminals and international aggressors. A government that does not fulfill these duties is evil. The Constitution clearly prevents the government from using guns to break my free speech. Does it also require the government to use its guns to protect my free speech from criminals? Ethically, this is the government’s duty. If the government isn’t doing this, it lacks a legitimate purpose. Private entities do not have a duty to protect man’s natural rights. But, it is immoral for them to violate a man’s natural rights. Amazon didn’t violate anyone’s natural rights by cancelling a private contract because of public comments.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      You can disagree on who is obligated to defend what kinds of speech, but do you agree with the parent's point - that the grandparent conflated an amendment with a moral principle?
      - burrows 7y ago
        Yes. > Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech. Refers to the free speech natural right. > You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else. Refers to an amendment. The amendment protects the natural right from state aggression. However, the right can be violated in ways not “made illegal” by the amendment.

by jeswin 7y ago

AdrianB1 7y ago

You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else. Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

jshevek 7y ago
Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution. In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue". The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.
a1369209993 7y ago
That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.
- burrows 7y ago
  Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free speech isn’t violated.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively initiating or assisting such attacks? (Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral principles you're applying here.)
    - burrows 7y ago
      Government ought to have a force monopoly. Government ought to be “small” (functionally and structurally limited). Government ought to defend the natural rights of its citizens from physical force initiated by criminals and international aggressors. A government that does not fulfill these duties is evil. The Constitution clearly prevents the government from using guns to break my free speech. Does it also require the government to use its guns to protect my free speech from criminals? Ethically, this is the government’s duty. If the government isn’t doing this, it lacks a legitimate purpose. Private entities do not have a duty to protect man’s natural rights. But, it is immoral for them to violate a man’s natural rights. Amazon didn’t violate anyone’s natural rights by cancelling a private contract because of public comments.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    You can disagree on who is obligated to defend what kinds of speech, but do you agree with the parent's point - that the grandparent conflated an amendment with a moral principle?
    - burrows 7y ago
      Yes. > Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech. Refers to the free speech natural right. > You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else. Refers to an amendment. The amendment protects the natural right from state aggression. However, the right can be violated in ways not “made illegal” by the amendment.