4 ms·

> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. While this is mostly technic

> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. While this is mostly technically true, unique aspects of the law in the US compared to other countries makes this false for practical purposes. For example, labor protection laws in other countries protect employees from retaliation for their speech: a company is usually only allowed to fire employees for cause related to their employment. Private speech unrelated to my employer wouldn't suffice in the country I live in. Effectively, this means my employer cannot censor me. A standard retaliatory consequence for disapproval of speech that people seek in the USA on the other hand is to have a person fired.

stephenr 6y ago
Your argument about employment falls down because the law doesn't prevent them from reacting to things you do. If you go on TV and call the CEO a pig fucker, I guarantee you will face some consequences. If you go on TV and call the President or Prime Minister a pig fucker, you may also face consequences from your employer, but the government (in countries where a concept of free speech applies) can't do shit about you saying that. They may decide to look more closely at your tax filings, or immigration status, or what have you.
- BlackFly 6y ago
  You've missed the point. The biggest chilling factor to speech in the USA is that your employer will fire you because a mob decides you said something wrong. This cannot happen in the country I live. That I could make my employment grievances public and this would give reason to my employer to terminate me with cause is irrelevant to the fact that my employer cannot fire me for wrongspeak on facebook. Edit: of course I can still feel social consequences since my colleagues can make it very clear they disagree with me or find my view abominable.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    That's an indication that the US needs to fix their laws about wrongful termination. It's unrelated to "censorship". Of note, the current president and the party that nominated him, many of whom are complaining about this current situation, is in favour of "at will" hiring, whereby a person can be fired without reason.
    - BlackFly 6y ago
      I agree they need to fix their laws, but this is censorship. Punishing people for their speech with the intention of suppressing other people from speaking is censorship and the people that do it are would-be censors. That is what the statement of chilling effect means. Instead of harassing librarians until the librarians burn books, the censors nowadays harass employers until they fire the speakers.

stephenr 6y ago

Your argument about employment falls down because the law doesn't prevent them from reacting to things you do. If you go on TV and call the CEO a pig fucker, I guarantee you will face some consequences. If you go on TV and call the President or Prime Minister a pig fucker, you may also face consequences from your employer, but the government (in countries where a concept of free speech applies) can't do shit about you saying that. They may decide to look more closely at your tax filings, or immigration status, or what have you.

BlackFly 6y ago
You've missed the point. The biggest chilling factor to speech in the USA is that your employer will fire you because a mob decides you said something wrong. This cannot happen in the country I live. That I could make my employment grievances public and this would give reason to my employer to terminate me with cause is irrelevant to the fact that my employer cannot fire me for wrongspeak on facebook. Edit: of course I can still feel social consequences since my colleagues can make it very clear they disagree with me or find my view abominable.
- stephenr 6y ago
  That's an indication that the US needs to fix their laws about wrongful termination. It's unrelated to "censorship". Of note, the current president and the party that nominated him, many of whom are complaining about this current situation, is in favour of "at will" hiring, whereby a person can be fired without reason.
  - BlackFly 6y ago
    I agree they need to fix their laws, but this is censorship. Punishing people for their speech with the intention of suppressing other people from speaking is censorship and the people that do it are would-be censors. That is what the statement of chilling effect means. Instead of harassing librarians until the librarians burn books, the censors nowadays harass employers until they fire the speakers.