4 ms·

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restr

by causi 3y ago

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? Yes. Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech. Restrictions on non-sexual drag performances are restrictions of freedom of speech. Bans on calling for boycotts of Israeli goods and services are restrictions of the freedom of speech.

bequanna 3y ago
[flagged]
- causi 3y ago
  I don't doubt many of the performers are deriving sexual satisfaction from the performance, but as long as the performance itself is not sexual it isn't harming children. Don't get me wrong, I think "Drag Queen Story Hour" is the gender equivalent of blackface, but a man dressing up like a mockery of womanhood and reading stories doesn't violate anybody else's rights, therefore we have no right to use violence to stop it.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Women can be drag queens too! For me, drag adjacent to Cabaret and Burlesque. I'm not a fan of any of those, but I appreciate that they are art forms that people should be free to express themselves in.
Karunamon 3y ago
The restrictions on teachers you speak of are in their functions as employees of the state while performing their duties on the job on the employer's time. Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue. That goes double when we are talking about public employees whose conduct is directly the function of law.
- causi 3y ago
  That's a fair point.
- iscream26 3y ago
  > Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue. In other words: you're allowed to restrict the speech of other people as long as you own private property. Turns out that freedom of speech in a liberal "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be.
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    You skipped the rather pertinent bit where these restrictions apply only to people who chose of their own volition to take them on. You are, of course, free to not take on the burden of employment from a particular organization if you find their demands on your conduct while they are compensating you for your time to be unacceptable. This relationship is purely transactional. And, sorry, the idea that this is actually a bona fide problem is facile.
    - iscream26 3y ago
      That line of reasoning would make sense if the have-nots in a liberal society didn't need to work just to survive. But that is not the case, is it? Liberal society loves to characterise itself as a rigid, well-structured system in which individuals choose to make idealised rational decisions to work towards their own interests. As opposed to emotional reasoning, which is conveniently implied to be the diametrical opposite of rational thought. And I call it "convenient" because as a result can easily paint protests and strikes, as "irrational" and "despicable" actions perpetrated by "unreasonable" individuals. However, as soon as one considers the fact that the disparity of power between people with private property and people without makes it so that the people without private property cannot afford to make decisions on a "rational vacuum". We quickly find ourselves reverting back to "what are you going to do about it? You don't work, you don't eat."
      - 3y ago
didntcheck 3y ago
> Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech Do you consider a curriculum to be a restriction on freedom of speech? I ask as a genuine question - being from the UK the norm for me is having a national curriculum and standard testing (albeit it executed by private-but-certified exam boards). It seems like common sense to me that obviously teachers have restrictions on what they can say in a classroom. Any employee does within their workplace and job duties, but teaching is one profession where I'd clearly expect a much higher level of restriction (along with the police, who represent the state, and doctors, who have duties of professionalism and to give medical advice only in line with the regulator, and various other regulated roles)

by causi 3y ago

bequanna 3y ago

[flagged]

causi 3y ago
I don't doubt many of the performers are deriving sexual satisfaction from the performance, but as long as the performance itself is not sexual it isn't harming children. Don't get me wrong, I think "Drag Queen Story Hour" is the gender equivalent of blackface, but a man dressing up like a mockery of womanhood and reading stories doesn't violate anybody else's rights, therefore we have no right to use violence to stop it.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Women can be drag queens too! For me, drag adjacent to Cabaret and Burlesque. I'm not a fan of any of those, but I appreciate that they are art forms that people should be free to express themselves in.

Karunamon 3y ago

The restrictions on teachers you speak of are in their functions as employees of the state while performing their duties on the job on the employer's time. Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue. That goes double when we are talking about public employees whose conduct is directly the function of law.

causi 3y ago
That's a fair point.
iscream26 3y ago
> Employers setting limits on the conduct of employees on the job is generally not a freedom of speech, or first amendment issue. In other words: you're allowed to restrict the speech of other people as long as you own private property. Turns out that freedom of speech in a liberal "democracy" is not all it's cracked up to be.
- Karunamon 3y ago
  You skipped the rather pertinent bit where these restrictions apply only to people who chose of their own volition to take them on. You are, of course, free to not take on the burden of employment from a particular organization if you find their demands on your conduct while they are compensating you for your time to be unacceptable. This relationship is purely transactional. And, sorry, the idea that this is actually a bona fide problem is facile.
  - iscream26 3y ago
    That line of reasoning would make sense if the have-nots in a liberal society didn't need to work just to survive. But that is not the case, is it? Liberal society loves to characterise itself as a rigid, well-structured system in which individuals choose to make idealised rational decisions to work towards their own interests. As opposed to emotional reasoning, which is conveniently implied to be the diametrical opposite of rational thought. And I call it "convenient" because as a result can easily paint protests and strikes, as "irrational" and "despicable" actions perpetrated by "unreasonable" individuals. However, as soon as one considers the fact that the disparity of power between people with private property and people without makes it so that the people without private property cannot afford to make decisions on a "rational vacuum". We quickly find ourselves reverting back to "what are you going to do about it? You don't work, you don't eat."
    - 3y ago

didntcheck 3y ago

> Restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach are restrictions on freedom of speech Do you consider a curriculum to be a restriction on freedom of speech? I ask as a genuine question - being from the UK the norm for me is having a national curriculum and standard testing (albeit it executed by private-but-certified exam boards). It seems like common sense to me that obviously teachers have restrictions on what they can say in a classroom. Any employee does within their workplace and job duties, but teaching is one profession where I'd clearly expect a much higher level of restriction (along with the police, who represent the state, and doctors, who have duties of professionalism and to give medical advice only in line with the regulator, and various other regulated roles)