7 ms·

> However, I understand we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own. That's rea

> However, I understand we have freedom of association, and a business may not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their own. That's really the heart of it, isn't it? Forget employer for a moment - if you said something really offensive to one of your friends, and they decided to stop being your friend, you'd be upset, but should they be allowed to no longer be your friend? Of course they should. People get to choose with whom they associate, and companies (who are not people, but that's a different post) get to choose who they hire, because those people are a reflection of them. Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

leereeves 4y ago
There's also the freedom to criticize and choose not to associate with a company that fires people for expressing their opinion.
- b112 4y ago
  This is actually key, and I think the primary part here should be, as long as there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. Look at Google. Now try to never ever touch code they touch, information they curated a bit, or anything they do. Good luck with that! Try your best, you will be tainted. Somehow. Someway. A key example? Try to email people, without Google/Gmail/Workplace bring the result often. Google is the de facto monopoly of many things, and you are forced to touch them, even if you try not to. So in such a case, well... I don't know. But there is no choice.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    Funny how this is the only scenario where the right cares about anti-trust
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Overtonwindow 4y ago
It is. There is no freedom from consequences, unless you are a politician maybe. I think if America continues on its current path, people will increase exclusive association into "us versus them." I don't think that will help us in the long term.
puffoflogic 4y ago
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn shut. What you meant to say was, what we value is freedom of speech from government consequences, not private actors. And that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the former as the latter.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Well, in the US, "Freedom of speech" is often used in the context of the US constitution so, while it is indeed freedom from consequences, it's freedom from consequences in the narrow sense of freedom from the consequence of the government using its police power to imprison you for saying something. ADDED: In other situations the degree of saying whatever you want is very context-dependent and also dependent on what consequences you're willing to suffer.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomohelix 4y ago
The problem comes when the very act of non-association with someone effectively silences them. If everyone is allowed to speak through a megaphone, except people with certain ideologies because the megaphone maker refuses to do business with them, then you can argue that is a form of censorship, or at least, have the effect of censorship. This can happen to anything and anyone, regardless of whether such ideologies are correct or not. What we would end up with are echo chambers. And I sincerely believe that those are the cause of many social issues right now.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Are all views valid and should be listened to? In order to ensure free speech do we all have to thoughtfully engage with white supremacists or pederasts? Seems to me free speech is my having a choice who I associate with as well.
  - tomohelix 4y ago
    Not all views is valid. And nobody should be forced to associate with someone they don't like. But I don't consider corporations "people". And they should not have the prerogative to choose what views they will amplify. That is what I meant by non-association can become censorship. A person can't do that. But a large corporation providing a public service can.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Ah, OK - I missed that you were talking about corporations. So can we rephrase this by saying that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be fine with white supremacists and people who argue for pederasty on their platforms? I struggle with this at the extremes.
      - tomohelix 4y ago
        There are hate speech laws they can follow. That should cover the extremes. And if they don't, then it is the failure of the legislation. Just like how you can't go to walmart and insult everyone you see. It would actually be illegal to retaliate against those people. But call the cops and they can be dealt with. At least with the laws, there is more checks and balances. It isn't perfect, but it is better than giving private entities massive power to control opinions.
Georgelemental 4y ago
How far do you take freedom of association though? Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Refuse to hire women unless they have sex with the CEO? Etc…
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Question like these are pointless since they’re already solved. The American Law system already said no at the highest point possible.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited in how they can disassociate with employees. You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with people of a certain race. But employers do not have those rights under US law. So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for dealing with these issues.
    - livueta 4y ago
      I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain logical consistency, either both or neither.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        Just to be clear, the implications of what you're suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. Are you sure that's better?
        livueta 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
idi_amin 4y ago
>Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
refurb 4y ago
“Not free of consequences” is a cop out. What are consequences? Being ignored? Sure. Being physically beaten? That’s a consequence too.
- eddieroger 4y ago
  There are also assault and battery laws in place to deal with this.
sattoshi 4y ago
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. How I hate the proliferation of this idiotic phrase. Freedom of speech is a concept, an ideal. Not whatever the US constitution says. The idea is that powerful forces won’t punish you for speaking your mind. If saying “I don’t like blue party” gets you fired, debanked and slandered in the media; it’s not really freedom of speech. You also have “freedom to murder”, but you need to suffer the consequences. A freedom like that is no freedom at all.

leereeves 4y ago

There's also the freedom to criticize and choose not to associate with a company that fires people for expressing their opinion.

b112 4y ago
This is actually key, and I think the primary part here should be, as long as there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. Look at Google. Now try to never ever touch code they touch, information they curated a bit, or anything they do. Good luck with that! Try your best, you will be tainted. Somehow. Someway. A key example? Try to email people, without Google/Gmail/Workplace bring the result often. Google is the de facto monopoly of many things, and you are forced to touch them, even if you try not to. So in such a case, well... I don't know. But there is no choice.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Funny how this is the only scenario where the right cares about anti-trust
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Overtonwindow 4y ago

It is. There is no freedom from consequences, unless you are a politician maybe. I think if America continues on its current path, people will increase exclusive association into "us versus them." I don't think that will help us in the long term.

puffoflogic 4y ago

> Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn shut. What you meant to say was, what we value is freedom of speech from government consequences, not private actors. And that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the former as the latter.

ghaff 4y ago
Well, in the US, "Freedom of speech" is often used in the context of the US constitution so, while it is indeed freedom from consequences, it's freedom from consequences in the narrow sense of freedom from the consequence of the government using its police power to imprison you for saying something. ADDED: In other situations the degree of saying whatever you want is very context-dependent and also dependent on what consequences you're willing to suffer.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tomohelix 4y ago

The problem comes when the very act of non-association with someone effectively silences them. If everyone is allowed to speak through a megaphone, except people with certain ideologies because the megaphone maker refuses to do business with them, then you can argue that is a form of censorship, or at least, have the effect of censorship. This can happen to anything and anyone, regardless of whether such ideologies are correct or not. What we would end up with are echo chambers. And I sincerely believe that those are the cause of many social issues right now.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Are all views valid and should be listened to? In order to ensure free speech do we all have to thoughtfully engage with white supremacists or pederasts? Seems to me free speech is my having a choice who I associate with as well.
- tomohelix 4y ago
  Not all views is valid. And nobody should be forced to associate with someone they don't like. But I don't consider corporations "people". And they should not have the prerogative to choose what views they will amplify. That is what I meant by non-association can become censorship. A person can't do that. But a large corporation providing a public service can.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Ah, OK - I missed that you were talking about corporations. So can we rephrase this by saying that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be fine with white supremacists and people who argue for pederasty on their platforms? I struggle with this at the extremes.
    - tomohelix 4y ago
      There are hate speech laws they can follow. That should cover the extremes. And if they don't, then it is the failure of the legislation. Just like how you can't go to walmart and insult everyone you see. It would actually be illegal to retaliate against those people. But call the cops and they can be dealt with. At least with the laws, there is more checks and balances. It isn't perfect, but it is better than giving private entities massive power to control opinions.

Georgelemental 4y ago

How far do you take freedom of association though? Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Refuse to hire women unless they have sex with the CEO? Etc…

Jcowell 4y ago
> Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Question like these are pointless since they’re already solved. The American Law system already said no at the highest point possible.
- nostromo 4y ago
  But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited in how they can disassociate with employees. You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with people of a certain race. But employers do not have those rights under US law. So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for dealing with these issues.
  - livueta 4y ago
    I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain logical consistency, either both or neither.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Just to be clear, the implications of what you're suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. Are you sure that's better?
      - livueta 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

idi_amin 4y ago

>Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

refurb 4y ago

“Not free of consequences” is a cop out. What are consequences? Being ignored? Sure. Being physically beaten? That’s a consequence too.

eddieroger 4y ago
There are also assault and battery laws in place to deal with this.

sattoshi 4y ago

> Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. How I hate the proliferation of this idiotic phrase. Freedom of speech is a concept, an ideal. Not whatever the US constitution says. The idea is that powerful forces won’t punish you for speaking your mind. If saying “I don’t like blue party” gets you fired, debanked and slandered in the media; it’s not really freedom of speech. You also have “freedom to murder”, but you need to suffer the consequences. A freedom like that is no freedom at all.