2 ms·

My wife has never been forced to publish anything against her will. That being said, she has disagreed with the editorial decisions of the paper on a number of

by bhupy 6y ago

My wife has never been forced to publish anything against her will. That being said, she has disagreed with the editorial decisions of the paper on a number of occasions. This is not at odds with the freedom of association; every single organization is comprised of individuals that don't always agree with one another, but work together to overcome their disagreements. Nowhere has there ever been a guarantee that the freedom of association presupposes that every individual has the freedom to confer the exact same set of opinions to everyone in their association. Importantly, my wife doesn't feel like she's entitled to the power to censure other journalists or employees in her company. I know that I don't have the power to do that in my own company, nor should I. There's disagreement within every group, that doesn't render the concept of free association invalid. The Catholic Church has its disagreements, but that doesn't mean that they lose the freedom to congregate because they're somehow no longer a bona fide association on account of that internal disagreement. The Democratic Party has its disagreements (heaven knows), the Republican Party is essentially at war with itself, the Libertarian Party can never agree on what it stands for because it's a motley crew of weirdos. None of this matters, they are all protected by the First Amendment, as associations. Whether they are traded on the NYSE, or they are 501(c)4 non-profit corporations, or they are just an amateur club, they are protected by the same First Amendment, and are subject to the same narrow limits on speech established by Brandenburg v Ohio (and all other relevant precedents). Obviously the transaction cost to quitting and finding a new job is not zero; the Constitution's protection of the freedom of association has no guarantees on what the transaction cost to associate are. Just like free speech, you're free to say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to a free platform; promulgating speech costs money. You're free to keep and bear arms, but you're not entitled to a free rifle; guns cost money. Associations are more than capable of gross misbehavior; but in manners related specifically to the publishing of speech and expression, they enjoy outsized protection, at least in the United States.

mindslight 6y ago
>> The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention. > I'm not sure what this sentence means. I really should have said the implication of the Chinese Room thought experiment - intelligence arises from the constructive behavior of systems, distinct from their mechanical execution. As a (presumed) homo sapien, you should be interested in maintaining the existence of our own species versus entities that could subjugate us. You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. So I don't see how it's particularly productive to continue - you've seemingly made up your mind that desirable small-scale behavior implies desirable large-scale behavior by construction, and ignoring emergent behavior that arises out of scale.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. I'm asserting that organizations are no different from individuals in the eyes of the law. That's what we're talking about here. The law explicitly protects the freedom to associate, and has no point of view on what the size of a valid association should be. > you've seemingly made up your mind that desirable small-scale behavior implies desirable large-scale behavior by construction, and ignoring emergent behavior that arises out of scale. If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" based on the (very accessible) text of the Constitution and the relevant precedents. You might be correct that large-scale group behavior is somehow undesirable — I don't have an opinion about that and might even agree with you! My point is that it doesn't matter, under the law. A group of 10 is protected the same way a group of 1000 or 10,000,000 are. As it currently stands, if you or I were a part of an organization, neither you nor I have any entitlement over how that organization chooses to officially express itself to the public, unless that organization explicitly empowered us to be able to do so. If you think that the law should afford us the power to prevent the organization that we are a part of from expressing itself (even if we are in the minority within that organization) or if you think that the law should have carve-outs for different sized groups, that's a separate argument and discussion, and your best course of action there is to amend the US Constitution. We are currently talking about the legal merits of the Federal Legislature intimidating or hypothetically legislating news outlets for the content of their published speech under the status quo of the US Constitution.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    > If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" When talking about ideals and values, the wider context is what should be. Explaining the current law and its current application is straightforward, and isn't particularly worthwhile without a larger point. I don't see where your comments disclaim that you're only describing the current legal interpretation as opposed to physical reality or how things ought to be, which means that you're advocating for the status quo. But sure, taking your comments as pure factual description of the legal situation - thanks for explaining the rationale leading to part of the problem of corporate entities becoming emergently unaccountable to us humans. If you'd care to discuss the problems with this, please go back and read my previous comments in their intended framework.

by bhupy 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

>> The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention. > I'm not sure what this sentence means. I really should have said the implication of the Chinese Room thought experiment - intelligence arises from the constructive behavior of systems, distinct from their mechanical execution. As a (presumed) homo sapien, you should be interested in maintaining the existence of our own species versus entities that could subjugate us. You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. So I don't see how it's particularly productive to continue - you've seemingly made up your mind that desirable small-scale behavior implies desirable large-scale behavior by construction, and ignoring emergent behavior that arises out of scale.

bhupy 6y ago
> You keep asserting that organizations are no different from individuals, while completely ignoring every way I've pointed out how organizations differ from individuals. I'm asserting that organizations are no different from individuals in the eyes of the law. That's what we're talking about here. The law explicitly protects the freedom to associate, and has no point of view on what the size of a valid association should be. > you've seemingly made up your mind that desirable small-scale behavior implies desirable large-scale behavior by construction, and ignoring emergent behavior that arises out of scale. If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" based on the (very accessible) text of the Constitution and the relevant precedents. You might be correct that large-scale group behavior is somehow undesirable — I don't have an opinion about that and might even agree with you! My point is that it doesn't matter, under the law. A group of 10 is protected the same way a group of 1000 or 10,000,000 are. As it currently stands, if you or I were a part of an organization, neither you nor I have any entitlement over how that organization chooses to officially express itself to the public, unless that organization explicitly empowered us to be able to do so. If you think that the law should afford us the power to prevent the organization that we are a part of from expressing itself (even if we are in the minority within that organization) or if you think that the law should have carve-outs for different sized groups, that's a separate argument and discussion, and your best course of action there is to amend the US Constitution. We are currently talking about the legal merits of the Federal Legislature intimidating or hypothetically legislating news outlets for the content of their published speech under the status quo of the US Constitution.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > If you go back and read my comments, I've not once made any prescriptions of what is "desirable" or what "should" be; I am strictly making descriptive statements about what currently "is" When talking about ideals and values, the wider context is what should be. Explaining the current law and its current application is straightforward, and isn't particularly worthwhile without a larger point. I don't see where your comments disclaim that you're only describing the current legal interpretation as opposed to physical reality or how things ought to be, which means that you're advocating for the status quo. But sure, taking your comments as pure factual description of the legal situation - thanks for explaining the rationale leading to part of the problem of corporate entities becoming emergently unaccountable to us humans. If you'd care to discuss the problems with this, please go back and read my previous comments in their intended framework.