4 ms·

> Why is this different? It feels like there are lots of business situations where you essentially give up a right as part of a contract. It isn't different, i

> Why is this different? It feels like there are lots of business situations where you essentially give up a right as part of a contract. It isn't different, in your framing, but there are lots of policy reasons why we wouldn't want the state to coerce or compel speech. Especially political speech, as the case is here. And the text of the 1st amendment and years of jurisprudence make freedom of speech different than other rights (just as 5A due process is different than other rights, etc.) We mostly recognize that it is generally a bad thing for the government to make you say things, unless there is a very good reason to do soon (like, you must label your food products with nutrition info) [0]. To reframe, imagine the government made you sign a pledge that "Abortion is murder" or "Abortion is great, everyone should have one" instead. Or imagine a law that says "All contracts are voidable, if you (a business) and your employees and your outside contractors must not participate in a boycott of Israel." That law might reach extremely far (too far?) if the company is Walmart (~2.3 million employees) and Walmart wants to do business with your state (it does) and Walmart is asking you to sign that pledge to now do business with them. So, the question is -- if instead of forcing you to say something, and threatening you with jail, is it okay for the state to just refuse to deal with you (as an incredibly powerful market participant). Some will say "That's pretty clever lawyering on the part of the state to do that," while others will be a little more unsettled, thinking if the state can do this, what else can they do? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#Examples_currently_in_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#Examples_curr...

version_five 4y ago
I agree with you, the question I was wondering about principally was the constitutionality. Regarding your example, something very similar that's actually happening is the requirement for people applying to university faculty positions to submit a "diversity and inclusion statement" which obviously must be very clearly aligned with a particular ideology, in order to be considered. Should this be illegal? It's certainly stupid, it violates all kinds or political freedom, but then you dont have to work at a university either.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > Should this be illegal? It's certainly stupid, it violates all kinds or political freedom, but then you don't have to work at a university either. This is a tough question because I could imagine a DEI statement that wasn't plainly stupid, and which had a strong purpose, just as easily as I could imagine one that was plainly idiotic. And university education sounds like it would be a special case as well (that is -- have all sorts of factors not present in other cases). A non-crazy DEI for a low level state prison guard? Probably nuts. For a hiring manager? Maybe less so. > I agree with you, the question I was wondering about principally was the constitutionality. Appreciate your inquiry, and I'm not an expert in this area of the law, but as an observer, the reach of the 1st amendment can seem sometimes crazy expansive, but I think I'm mostly glad it is? For instance, my town had an ordinance that made panhandling at busy intersections illegal (one new way to outlaw being poor but which had a facially valid purpose -- safety). ACLU sued and said this was a limitation on the 1st amendment rights of the panhandlers and won. Took away millions in attorneys fees. This seems like unsettled law? Hopefully a person of conscience will sue.

version_five 4y ago

I agree with you, the question I was wondering about principally was the constitutionality. Regarding your example, something very similar that's actually happening is the requirement for people applying to university faculty positions to submit a "diversity and inclusion statement" which obviously must be very clearly aligned with a particular ideology, in order to be considered. Should this be illegal? It's certainly stupid, it violates all kinds or political freedom, but then you dont have to work at a university either.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Should this be illegal? It's certainly stupid, it violates all kinds or political freedom, but then you don't have to work at a university either. This is a tough question because I could imagine a DEI statement that wasn't plainly stupid, and which had a strong purpose, just as easily as I could imagine one that was plainly idiotic. And university education sounds like it would be a special case as well (that is -- have all sorts of factors not present in other cases). A non-crazy DEI for a low level state prison guard? Probably nuts. For a hiring manager? Maybe less so. > I agree with you, the question I was wondering about principally was the constitutionality. Appreciate your inquiry, and I'm not an expert in this area of the law, but as an observer, the reach of the 1st amendment can seem sometimes crazy expansive, but I think I'm mostly glad it is? For instance, my town had an ordinance that made panhandling at busy intersections illegal (one new way to outlaw being poor but which had a facially valid purpose -- safety). ACLU sued and said this was a limitation on the 1st amendment rights of the panhandlers and won. Took away millions in attorneys fees. This seems like unsettled law? Hopefully a person of conscience will sue.