4 ms·

Can you define what free speech would be then? How exactly is that not just an idiotic paradox?

klyrs 5y ago
Exercising free speech can have social consequences. You're free to advocate for the legalization of necrophilia; others are free to criticize you and disagree with you (exercising their own free speech) or shun you (exercising their freedom of association). Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated. edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude... Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.
- alabamacadabra 5y ago
  It’s simply not free speech then. Call it something else, you’re using incorrect terms. Edit because it seems the point is getting lost here: Let me rephrase this: freedom of speech seems to be such that one is not able to have legal action taken against them by the government for their speech. I am not debating that whatsoever. Within the context of the United States, “free” rights are used in the same sense of being granted “Liberty”. You are liberated from being unable to criticize the king, as it were. What are you specifically free from? You are free from the punishments that a king can inflict on you for having used your full speech capabilities. Now, here is where I believe we differ: to me, it’s merely an abstraction to have another entity restrict the speech. As in, sure, I’m not using money to purchase items with Bitcoin, I’m just exchanging money for something that can be exchanged for goods. In that same light it seems that you’re arguing “no one is restricting speech they’re just making it not possible for them to say those things and keep living” If that’s what it is, fine… let’s not call it “free speech”. I submit “free opportunities for punishment”.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  But we aren't talking about necrophilia. It is about people who may work in an environment that is 95% Democrat being attacked as racists or whatever because they have a different political view. The issue isn't exactly about free speech but discrimination. And this happens in a million other ways too: being overweight, having a certain accent, being shorter than average. The fact that people have to resort to a "free speech" defence is indicative of the problem. And, of course, there will be "consequences"...no-one doubts that are consequences for not being like other people.
  - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
    Political party is a personal choice and thus not a protected class. Freedom of association permits us to choose who we do and do not associate with based on that individual's own choices.
    - gnicholas 5y ago
      In many jurisdictions, political affiliation/activity is protected. [1] It looks like PA has had a couple cases on the matter, one offering protection and a more recent one limiting the first case to its facts (i.e., saying it is not precedential anymore). Details on page 319. 1: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
        PA courts determined that the previous 1983 ruling (protecting political party from employer termination) is not good law, and will not use it as precedence again. There are laws in place to prevent employers from coercing employees into political action - i.e. you won't get your annual bonus unless you donate to this political candidate - but these are protections from extortion, and not exceptions to the general rule that political party is not a protected class.
    - 5y ago
chris11 5y ago
Speech is meaningless if it has zero consequences. Freedom of speech isn't absolute. I don't necessarily think freedom of speech should necessarily be the most important consideration if other important values are involved.
J5892 5y ago
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dkural 5y ago
It's about Government's ability to restrict or punish free speech, for example, by making you disappear (e.g. China per Hong Kong and Uighur brainwashing, Saudi Arabia bone-sawing journalists). There can be, and are, private consequences to speech. I may not invite you back for dinner for example, other consequences may be more impactful.
webkike 5y ago
Freedom of speech means that you can express any opinion civilly in a public forum without being persecuted for such speech. It does not mean you won’t get fired for saying something racist, and importantly it means that there are restrictions on speech that are not opinions or expressed civilly, such as the famous “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example.
- delgaudm 5y ago
  Prosecuted, no. Persecuted? You certainly might be.
  - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
    Which would be others exercising their freedom of speech as well, or in the case of her employer, freedom of association.
- kyrra 5y ago
  Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected under the first amendment. That phrase came out of a 1919 SCOTUS ruling[0]. The limitations on speech were slowly restored over the next 50 years, with Brandenburg v Ohio[1] (1969) ultimately blocking making speech illegal. The important distinction is that you can be punished under the law for the intent + consequences of speech. For the fire example, if no one reacted at all to me yelling "Fire!", the state could not go after me. Now, if I caused a stampede or other behavior from those in the theater, I could be sued for various things (manslaughter if someone died, criminal mischief, or disturbing the peace). It's also the same reason the government can go after mob bosses for hiring a hitman to kill someone. They just said something (like, "take that guy out"), which is just speech. But if the actions that resulted in the speech can be directly connected, you can get in trouble for it. EDIT: To make clear here, intent and consequences matter here. It's why you rarely see cases against speech brought, as intent must also be clear and provable in court. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Exercising free speech can have social consequences. You're free to advocate for the legalization of necrophilia; others are free to criticize you and disagree with you (exercising their own free speech) or shun you (exercising their freedom of association). Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated. edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude... Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.

alabamacadabra 5y ago
It’s simply not free speech then. Call it something else, you’re using incorrect terms. Edit because it seems the point is getting lost here: Let me rephrase this: freedom of speech seems to be such that one is not able to have legal action taken against them by the government for their speech. I am not debating that whatsoever. Within the context of the United States, “free” rights are used in the same sense of being granted “Liberty”. You are liberated from being unable to criticize the king, as it were. What are you specifically free from? You are free from the punishments that a king can inflict on you for having used your full speech capabilities. Now, here is where I believe we differ: to me, it’s merely an abstraction to have another entity restrict the speech. As in, sure, I’m not using money to purchase items with Bitcoin, I’m just exchanging money for something that can be exchanged for goods. In that same light it seems that you’re arguing “no one is restricting speech they’re just making it not possible for them to say those things and keep living” If that’s what it is, fine… let’s not call it “free speech”. I submit “free opportunities for punishment”.
hogFeast 5y ago
But we aren't talking about necrophilia. It is about people who may work in an environment that is 95% Democrat being attacked as racists or whatever because they have a different political view. The issue isn't exactly about free speech but discrimination. And this happens in a million other ways too: being overweight, having a certain accent, being shorter than average. The fact that people have to resort to a "free speech" defence is indicative of the problem. And, of course, there will be "consequences"...no-one doubts that are consequences for not being like other people.
- minsc__and__boo 5y ago
  Political party is a personal choice and thus not a protected class. Freedom of association permits us to choose who we do and do not associate with based on that individual's own choices.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    In many jurisdictions, political affiliation/activity is protected. [1] It looks like PA has had a couple cases on the matter, one offering protection and a more recent one limiting the first case to its facts (i.e., saying it is not precedential anymore). Details on page 319. 1: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
      PA courts determined that the previous 1983 ruling (protecting political party from employer termination) is not good law, and will not use it as precedence again. There are laws in place to prevent employers from coercing employees into political action - i.e. you won't get your annual bonus unless you donate to this political candidate - but these are protections from extortion, and not exceptions to the general rule that political party is not a protected class.
  - 5y ago

chris11 5y ago

Speech is meaningless if it has zero consequences. Freedom of speech isn't absolute. I don't necessarily think freedom of speech should necessarily be the most important consideration if other important values are involved.

J5892 5y ago

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dkural 5y ago

It's about Government's ability to restrict or punish free speech, for example, by making you disappear (e.g. China per Hong Kong and Uighur brainwashing, Saudi Arabia bone-sawing journalists). There can be, and are, private consequences to speech. I may not invite you back for dinner for example, other consequences may be more impactful.

webkike 5y ago

Freedom of speech means that you can express any opinion civilly in a public forum without being persecuted for such speech. It does not mean you won’t get fired for saying something racist, and importantly it means that there are restrictions on speech that are not opinions or expressed civilly, such as the famous “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example.

delgaudm 5y ago
Prosecuted, no. Persecuted? You certainly might be.
- minsc__and__boo 5y ago
  Which would be others exercising their freedom of speech as well, or in the case of her employer, freedom of association.
kyrra 5y ago
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected under the first amendment. That phrase came out of a 1919 SCOTUS ruling[0]. The limitations on speech were slowly restored over the next 50 years, with Brandenburg v Ohio[1] (1969) ultimately blocking making speech illegal. The important distinction is that you can be punished under the law for the intent + consequences of speech. For the fire example, if no one reacted at all to me yelling "Fire!", the state could not go after me. Now, if I caused a stampede or other behavior from those in the theater, I could be sued for various things (manslaughter if someone died, criminal mischief, or disturbing the peace). It's also the same reason the government can go after mob bosses for hiring a hitman to kill someone. They just said something (like, "take that guy out"), which is just speech. But if the actions that resulted in the speech can be directly connected, you can get in trouble for it. EDIT: To make clear here, intent and consequences matter here. It's why you rarely see cases against speech brought, as intent must also be clear and provable in court. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio