4 ms·

Oh look, another response to "we want to express ourselves without losing our jobs" of "have you actually read the first amendment?". I see this response on HN

Oh look, another response to "we want to express ourselves without losing our jobs" of "have you actually read the first amendment?". I see this response on HN almost daily now. For the millionth time: PC culture goes beyond the constitution's definition of freedom of speech. This is a cultural discussion. This is a discussion about how much power we have given to private companies (like social media giants and media production companies) over our lives. I don't care that the first amendment protects me from government censorship, if my livelihood, the reputation of me and my family, and my future job prospects, can all be destroyed in an instant because of some outrage mob on Twitter. Why are people apologising because a few people on Twitter told them to? Why are people being fired because they made a tweet that wasn't supportive enough (or supportive in the right way) of the "correct" social causes? Call it freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to have an opinion. Whatever. But don't try and avoid the problem by pointing to the constitution as if that suddenly makes this all okay because "at least it's not the government".

nefitty 6y ago
Wait, so you want to limit other people’s free speech so that you can avoid the consequences of your own speech?
Miner49er 6y ago
Sure, if you're complaining that cooperations have too much power, I agree. The problem is, most people that argue against PC culture are pro-capitalist conservatives. This women said she's a registered Libertarian. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want private property, but they don't want businesses to decide how they do business?
- loopz 6y ago
  Problem is people don't eat their own dog food. Rules are good, for others, and for US to break!
- aranelsurion 6y ago
  I don't see how these two things can be mutually exclusive. One can argue for protecting legal rights around private property, yet express their personal disdain about the way that property is currently being used. I might not like how, say, Reddit moderates their platform, and openly express it, and even call for action on building better|decentralized|whatever platforms, yet I might also be ultimately in favor of protecting Reddit's legal right to do with their platform as they please. It's a nuance, not a contradiction.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
I like the formulation of freedom of speech from Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Note the "receive and impart"; it implies that people who want to receive speech of a particular worldview are entitled access to it even if a well-meaning majority think that it's bad for them. [EDIT] Also note "freedom to hold opinions without interference" which stands in stark opposition to the commonly repeated bad idea that "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences".
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You can receive and impart opinions without twitter. Gab and Parler exist. So does email. And sharing an opinion is distinct from holding an opinion, and isn't protected.
  - ulucs 6y ago
    >receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers >any media
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      At the time (1948), media meant, like physical things. That you could publish in print or in newspaper. Even then however, the UDHR doesn't imply that a particular newspaper must publish your view, only that you have the right to publish a newspaper. Similarly, twitter need not publish you. You're free to create a twitter competitor though (and people have)!
blacksqr 6y ago
The quote at the beginning of the reply above yours was taken from the linked article. The article writer explicitly claims her First Amendment rights are under threat. She's the one who pulled the Bill of Rights trigger.
subsection1h 6y ago
Oh, look, another response from Thorentis. blacksqr wasn't the person who brought up the First Amendment; it was Sarah A. Downey. For the millionth time: People who complain about a lack of free speech on privately-owned websites and refer specifically to the First Amendment should be criticized every time.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  This is the equivalent of the teacher's pet pointing out a spelling mistake, without addressing the actual argument. Her central thesis is not that the first amendment should prevent the issues she is addressing from happening. The debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect is usually a diversion people use to avoid discussing the power that private companies have over our ability to express ourselves, and over which information is widely distributed and which is not.
  - blacksqr 6y ago
    The article writer is a lawyer. She should know the meaning of the First Amendment and her readers ought to be able to expect her to know. Her misstatement is evidence that she is arguing in bad faith. It's not only the people on the other side of her argument who use the debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect as a diversion.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Why are people being fired because they made a tweet that wasn't supportive enough (or supportive in the right way) of the "correct" social causes? I honestly rarely have seen this happen. There's almost always some other context to the story or the people who feel that they've been unjustly fired actually vastly underestimate what the impact of their statement was. The reality is when you post on twitter with your name attached to it you are making a public statement that can reach thousands of people. Doesn't matter if you tweet from your toilet, you're reaching an audience that is larger than most people 20 years ago could ever dream of. If that actually for some reason causes a PR shitstorm for your employer, you've damaged their business. This has always let to people being fired, this is not new. Do you know how many local politicians or celebrities or public figures have lost their careers over a single sentence? A ton, there's nothing novel about it. Twitter gives you the opportunity as a complete nobody to reach hundreds of thousands within minutes. It's time people recognise they're not nobody's any more when that happens.
- masonic 6y ago
  I honestly rarely have seen this happen. For one example, the Sacramento Kings lead broadcaster lost his job (and apparently his career) for tweeting "All Lives Matter".
- Udik 6y ago
  > I honestly rarely have seen this happen. Well, I honestly have never seen actual witch burning happen. Yet I know it's wrong and it should not happen. > If that actually for some reason causes a PR shitstorm for your employer, you've damaged their business. Really? You know, I have huge doubts about this. What happens is that people are afraid of making an implicit statement by not taking an action, not of their business to be damaged. Huge companies are still made of people, and those people are afraid of being seen as making a statement that might damage them personally. But the actual risk of a business impact is almost zero. Now that I think of it, kudos to Zuckerberg for having the balls to put a stop to this and calling out the bluff.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Freedom of speech has much broader meaning than American first amendment. Pointing it out every time that private corporations can do what they want under American laws is same as saying the rest of the world doesn't have free speech because their laws or constitutions are different to America.

nefitty 6y ago

Wait, so you want to limit other people’s free speech so that you can avoid the consequences of your own speech?

Miner49er 6y ago

Sure, if you're complaining that cooperations have too much power, I agree. The problem is, most people that argue against PC culture are pro-capitalist conservatives. This women said she's a registered Libertarian. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want private property, but they don't want businesses to decide how they do business?

loopz 6y ago
Problem is people don't eat their own dog food. Rules are good, for others, and for US to break!
aranelsurion 6y ago
I don't see how these two things can be mutually exclusive. One can argue for protecting legal rights around private property, yet express their personal disdain about the way that property is currently being used. I might not like how, say, Reddit moderates their platform, and openly express it, and even call for action on building better|decentralized|whatever platforms, yet I might also be ultimately in favor of protecting Reddit's legal right to do with their platform as they please. It's a nuance, not a contradiction.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

I like the formulation of freedom of speech from Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Note the "receive and impart"; it implies that people who want to receive speech of a particular worldview are entitled access to it even if a well-meaning majority think that it's bad for them. [EDIT] Also note "freedom to hold opinions without interference" which stands in stark opposition to the commonly repeated bad idea that "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences".

joshuamorton 6y ago
You can receive and impart opinions without twitter. Gab and Parler exist. So does email. And sharing an opinion is distinct from holding an opinion, and isn't protected.
- ulucs 6y ago
  >receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers >any media
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    At the time (1948), media meant, like physical things. That you could publish in print or in newspaper. Even then however, the UDHR doesn't imply that a particular newspaper must publish your view, only that you have the right to publish a newspaper. Similarly, twitter need not publish you. You're free to create a twitter competitor though (and people have)!

blacksqr 6y ago

The quote at the beginning of the reply above yours was taken from the linked article. The article writer explicitly claims her First Amendment rights are under threat. She's the one who pulled the Bill of Rights trigger.

subsection1h 6y ago

Oh, look, another response from Thorentis. blacksqr wasn't the person who brought up the First Amendment; it was Sarah A. Downey. For the millionth time: People who complain about a lack of free speech on privately-owned websites and refer specifically to the First Amendment should be criticized every time.

Thorentis 6y ago
This is the equivalent of the teacher's pet pointing out a spelling mistake, without addressing the actual argument. Her central thesis is not that the first amendment should prevent the issues she is addressing from happening. The debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect is usually a diversion people use to avoid discussing the power that private companies have over our ability to express ourselves, and over which information is widely distributed and which is not.
- blacksqr 6y ago
  The article writer is a lawyer. She should know the meaning of the First Amendment and her readers ought to be able to expect her to know. Her misstatement is evidence that she is arguing in bad faith. It's not only the people on the other side of her argument who use the debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect as a diversion.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Why are people being fired because they made a tweet that wasn't supportive enough (or supportive in the right way) of the "correct" social causes? I honestly rarely have seen this happen. There's almost always some other context to the story or the people who feel that they've been unjustly fired actually vastly underestimate what the impact of their statement was. The reality is when you post on twitter with your name attached to it you are making a public statement that can reach thousands of people. Doesn't matter if you tweet from your toilet, you're reaching an audience that is larger than most people 20 years ago could ever dream of. If that actually for some reason causes a PR shitstorm for your employer, you've damaged their business. This has always let to people being fired, this is not new. Do you know how many local politicians or celebrities or public figures have lost their careers over a single sentence? A ton, there's nothing novel about it. Twitter gives you the opportunity as a complete nobody to reach hundreds of thousands within minutes. It's time people recognise they're not nobody's any more when that happens.

masonic 6y ago
I honestly rarely have seen this happen. For one example, the Sacramento Kings lead broadcaster lost his job (and apparently his career) for tweeting "All Lives Matter".
Udik 6y ago
> I honestly rarely have seen this happen. Well, I honestly have never seen actual witch burning happen. Yet I know it's wrong and it should not happen. > If that actually for some reason causes a PR shitstorm for your employer, you've damaged their business. Really? You know, I have huge doubts about this. What happens is that people are afraid of making an implicit statement by not taking an action, not of their business to be damaged. Huge companies are still made of people, and those people are afraid of being seen as making a statement that might damage them personally. But the actual risk of a business impact is almost zero. Now that I think of it, kudos to Zuckerberg for having the balls to put a stop to this and calling out the bluff.

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago

Freedom of speech has much broader meaning than American first amendment. Pointing it out every time that private corporations can do what they want under American laws is same as saying the rest of the world doesn't have free speech because their laws or constitutions are different to America.