3 ms·
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 wha
by 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 agoSure 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 agoThanks! 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.