3 ms·

We have decided that there are limits to freedom of association, though, for example when it comes to discrimination. Forcing people to interact with others who

by ksdale 6y ago

We have decided that there are limits to freedom of association, though, for example when it comes to discrimination. Forcing people to interact with others whose opinions they disagree with seems plausibly less imposing than forcing someone to interact with others whose religion they disagree with. I'm not sure this as clear-cut as you make it sound. And I think it's quite the strawman to suggest that anyone believes that someone should be able to direct profanity at an interviewer and get hired, and I also don't think it's productive to equate "profanity" with "views that someone disagrees with."

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>We have decided that there are limits to freedom of association, though, for example when it comes to discrimination. Yes, we have. And that's a good thing. But why should the same not apply to speech? I think it's unhealthy to view rights in an absolutist manner, be that freedom of expression, freedom of association or the right to privacy. All rights interact and are often in opposition to one another, they need to be balanced. >And I think it's quite the strawman to suggest that anyone believes that someone should be able to direct profanity at an interviewer and get hired, and I also don't think it's productive to equate "profanity" with "views that someone disagrees with." Perhaps. It was an attempt as reductio ad absurdum but I may have missed the mark. After all the comment I was replying to asserted that "If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free."
- ksdale 6y ago
  As you say, the rights are often in opposition, and I would say that your proposed limit on speech in favor of association would actually require undoing limits on association that are arguably more fundamental. If a person can be fired for holding objectionable opinions, how far are we away from firing them because they talk about unionizing or because of their religion? Or will those things be on a list of "Things You're Allowed to Have an Opinion About"? And I agree that the quoted sentence is too absolute, but I don't think the spirit is wrong, in the sense that behavior can be circumscribed by society in a way that that completely prevents it without it having been made illegal, and it's not convincing (to me, anyway) to suggest that the behavior isn't prohibited because it is, in fact, legal.

by ksdale 6y ago

M2Ys4U 6y ago

>We have decided that there are limits to freedom of association, though, for example when it comes to discrimination. Yes, we have. And that's a good thing. But why should the same not apply to speech? I think it's unhealthy to view rights in an absolutist manner, be that freedom of expression, freedom of association or the right to privacy. All rights interact and are often in opposition to one another, they need to be balanced. >And I think it's quite the strawman to suggest that anyone believes that someone should be able to direct profanity at an interviewer and get hired, and I also don't think it's productive to equate "profanity" with "views that someone disagrees with." Perhaps. It was an attempt as reductio ad absurdum but I may have missed the mark. After all the comment I was replying to asserted that "If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free."

ksdale 6y ago
As you say, the rights are often in opposition, and I would say that your proposed limit on speech in favor of association would actually require undoing limits on association that are arguably more fundamental. If a person can be fired for holding objectionable opinions, how far are we away from firing them because they talk about unionizing or because of their religion? Or will those things be on a list of "Things You're Allowed to Have an Opinion About"? And I agree that the quoted sentence is too absolute, but I don't think the spirit is wrong, in the sense that behavior can be circumscribed by society in a way that that completely prevents it without it having been made illegal, and it's not convincing (to me, anyway) to suggest that the behavior isn't prohibited because it is, in fact, legal.