4 ms·

> We limit corporate-related speech all of the time. You're not allowed to threaten employees with termination for not enduring illegal activity, for example. Y

by zoky 2y ago

> We limit corporate-related speech all of the time. You're not allowed to threaten employees with termination for not enduring illegal activity, for example. You're also not allowed to advertise in certain ways in certain industries: a great example would be the ban on cigarette ads on TV, or the strict regulation around pharmaceutical ads. Yes, you’re not allowed to do things that violate the law. That applies to individuals as much as corporations, though. But that is quite different from restricting someone from expressing an opinion. > His speech isn't limited, FWIW - he's allowed to say it, but the company he works for may suffer operational or economic consequences for it. He won't personally go to jail for it. The problem is not that the company may suffer “operational or economic consequences”. That could be true regardless of what he said, or whether he said anything at all. The problem is that the government is punishing the company for his publicly expressing an opinion. Even if you disagree with his opinion or find it distasteful, that should disturb anyone who values free speech.

jrflowers 2y ago
> The problem is not that the company may suffer “operational or economic consequences”. That could be true regardless of what he said, or whether he said anything at all. The problem is that the government is punishing the company for his publicly expressing an opinion. This is a good point. The problem is not that the company may suffer consequences, the problem is that the company is suffering consequences.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  If you read the ruling you can see the judge explained that some of what Jassy said was opinion and some was not. If you want to call the ruling problematic you could try engaging with the specific arguments the judge laid out and refute them rather than refuting the strawman that opinion is not allowed.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    This is a good point. Rather than responding to what somebody posts it is best to refute something else that they could have posted, but did not post

by zoky 2y ago

jrflowers 2y ago

> The problem is not that the company may suffer “operational or economic consequences”. That could be true regardless of what he said, or whether he said anything at all. The problem is that the government is punishing the company for his publicly expressing an opinion. This is a good point. The problem is not that the company may suffer consequences, the problem is that the company is suffering consequences.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
If you read the ruling you can see the judge explained that some of what Jassy said was opinion and some was not. If you want to call the ruling problematic you could try engaging with the specific arguments the judge laid out and refute them rather than refuting the strawman that opinion is not allowed.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  This is a good point. Rather than responding to what somebody posts it is best to refute something else that they could have posted, but did not post