2 ms·

Freedom of speech is a guiding principle that predates the United States, and the first amendment, by a few millennia. And yet every discussion about free spee

Freedom of speech is a guiding principle that predates the United States, and the first amendment, by a few millennia. And yet every discussion about free speech online contains a few comments about the first amendment’s narrow legal scope. Sure, that’s right, but freedom of speech does not have a narrow legal scope; it’s a much broader concept, and it is global in nature. In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law.

jv22222 6y ago
My clarification was just to try to bring clarity to the discussion because a lot of times (as seen in the thread) there is some confusion. I’m curious how what you just said translates into real world application? Not trying to argue I am genuinely interested to hear more!
- nostromo 6y ago
  Sure thing, here's a real world application: Let's say an Amazon warehouse worker speaks with the local newspaper about unsafe work conditions. Amazon decides to fire him for this. Was this a violation of the first amendment? No. Was this a violation of the principle of freedom of speech? Maybe. Saying, "well this wasn't protected by the first amendment, so this is a non-issue" wouldn't be fair. Yes, it's not a first amendment issue, but it's still a freedom of speech issue.
  - jv22222 6y ago
    Thanks! This article helped me wrap my head around what you just said: https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/2680 https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/2680 > Hence free speech initially drove whistleblowing protection, and whilst it has been irrelevant for establishing whistleblowing protection, free speech is still driving whistleblower protection.
alexeldeib 6y ago
> In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law. In the recent events in the US, a lot of people have (mistakenly, IMO) cited the first amendment for protection of speech many others don't like. But those protections afford no help against private actors. In that context GP makes a lot of sense bringing up this point. Example: a US senator cites the first amendment when discussing free speech after a publisher refuses to run his book: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-publisher-cancels-book-in-wake-of-capitol-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-...
- kova12 6y ago
  Freedom of speech specifically applies to offensive speech. You don't need any legal protections to talk about flowers and butterflies
  - alexeldeib 6y ago
    Bringing it back to the context of the original reply: it applies to protection from the government, not protection from private individuals when you make speech which offends those individuals. That's why I linked the book case. Hawley cites the first amendment, but he's in a contract with a private entity to publish the book. Barring contract disputes, there is no first amendment case that the publisher must distribute his book.

jv22222 6y ago

My clarification was just to try to bring clarity to the discussion because a lot of times (as seen in the thread) there is some confusion. I’m curious how what you just said translates into real world application? Not trying to argue I am genuinely interested to hear more!

nostromo 6y ago
Sure thing, here's a real world application: Let's say an Amazon warehouse worker speaks with the local newspaper about unsafe work conditions. Amazon decides to fire him for this. Was this a violation of the first amendment? No. Was this a violation of the principle of freedom of speech? Maybe. Saying, "well this wasn't protected by the first amendment, so this is a non-issue" wouldn't be fair. Yes, it's not a first amendment issue, but it's still a freedom of speech issue.
- jv22222 6y ago
  Thanks! This article helped me wrap my head around what you just said: https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/2680 https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/2680 > Hence free speech initially drove whistleblowing protection, and whilst it has been irrelevant for establishing whistleblowing protection, free speech is still driving whistleblower protection.

alexeldeib 6y ago

> In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law. In the recent events in the US, a lot of people have (mistakenly, IMO) cited the first amendment for protection of speech many others don't like. But those protections afford no help against private actors. In that context GP makes a lot of sense bringing up this point. Example: a US senator cites the first amendment when discussing free speech after a publisher refuses to run his book: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-publisher-cancels-book-in-wake-of-capitol-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-hawley-...

kova12 6y ago
Freedom of speech specifically applies to offensive speech. You don't need any legal protections to talk about flowers and butterflies
- alexeldeib 6y ago
  Bringing it back to the context of the original reply: it applies to protection from the government, not protection from private individuals when you make speech which offends those individuals. That's why I linked the book case. Hawley cites the first amendment, but he's in a contract with a private entity to publish the book. Barring contract disputes, there is no first amendment case that the publisher must distribute his book.