5 ms·
Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal an
by nokcha 6y ago
Yes, calling for a company to fire someone is generally protected under the First Amendment. (There might be some edge cases, like if a state has a criminal anti-discrimination law and someone is inciting the company (to unlawfully fire a specific person specifically on the basis on a legally protected characteristic).)
But the ideal of freedom of expression is broader than limitations on the powers of government. The ideal also encompasses social norms that encourage open and honest discussion. Bad arguments made in appropriate public forums should be met with counterarguments, and certainly not with being placed on industry blacklists or getting fired. Otherwise, there are very real chilling effects on the willingness of people to engage in honest discussion. (To clarify what I mean by "appropriate public forum" above, let me give an example: Protesting someone's funeral by marching on a public sidewalk and waving signs inscribed "God hates X" is legally protected (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), but is outside the bounds of what most people would consider appropriate. Protesting in that place and manner rightfully subjects the protester to public scorn.)
- tptacek 6y agoI can't say anything about this better than Ken White did today; I cosign this in its entirety: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221
- amadeuspagel 6y ago> /6 That's because of the fundamental deal behind First Amendment values: you can't use the government to punish speech because the marketplace of ideas, the private sector, society's "more speech" is the best way to address "bad speech," not government action. This category of "more speech", including everything from criticism to calling for someone to get fired is dishonest. The letter doesn't oppose criticism.
- tptacek 6y agoCalling for people to be fired is "more speech".
- enoch_r 6y agoThe HN guidelines say: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Are these good guidelines? Do you think they encourage better better discussions? Do you value having a community in which these guidelines are culturally accepted? If people started violating these guidelines en masse, do you think it would make sense to defend them? Or would that be silly, because the answer to bad speech is more speech? The way I see it, the answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean there can't be cultural differences in the way we use speech - some worlds in which we more often misrepresent our oppenents, interpret their statements in the worst possible light, and use that to attempt to destroy their lives, and some worlds in which we choose not to. I view the letter as an attempt to move us towards the latter world - say, to push discourse away from Twitter-style and towards HN-style debate.
- tptacek 6y agoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You are free to speak. You are not free to speak in my house, as I have not invited you there. If I did invite you, I could attach conditions.
- enoch_r 6y agoI'm saying there exist, in some communities, cultural norms that we treat ideas we disagree with with respect. We interpret them charitably. We don't make personal attacks on those who hold them. We assume good faith. If you understand why someone might defend those cultural norms on Hacker News, then perhaps you can understand why someone would defend those same norms in, say, academia, or journalism, or publishing, or the arts.
- tptacek 6y ago