4 ms·

> "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences" This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic

> "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences" This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.

ta8645 2y ago
Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  No, because "revoking your visa" is a thing the GOVERNMENT does to someone. Revoking someone's Visa for their speech is explicitly what the 1st is about! Whereas, your PRIVATE employer deciding they don't want to pay you money because you are an asshole (whether that's because you hate LGBTQ people, or aggressively defend their rights with your speech) is THEIR first amendment rights. The 1st is about: Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Limiting a private company's ability to fire you for your speech is against their 1st amendment rights! Indeed, several attempts to build a civil rights framework in the US failed judicial review for this exact reason, and the one we eventually got had to make great efforts to justify that it's limited "protected class" framework was acceptable. I predict it gets overturned. The inverse is also true: The government CAN limit the speech of people in their government jobs. Teachers can legally be prevented from saying things as teachers, without it being an infringement on their speech rights.
anal_reactor 2y ago
Of course people are allowed to say MAGA-phobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
- Conscat 2y ago
  I'm not certain what MAGA-phobic could mean etymologically, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, such as an irrational fear of people transitioning sex. Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear that one might be persecuted for their religious affiliation or sexuality, among other things.
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    > Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear Opposition to LGBT is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear...
    - Conscat 2y ago
      Please refrain from trolling on Hacker News.
      - anal_reactor 2y ago
        I'm just trying to express the idea that "it's obviously us who are the good guys and them who are the bad guys" applies equally to both sides.
        Conscat 2y ago
        You haven't attempted to do that. You asked us to imagine a rational fear of queer people, but there isn't one. You've simply asserted a dogma without substantiating it.
- AngryData 2y ago
  Are you trying to flip the table against them? because I agree with all of that. If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
  - 2y ago
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Not it is not and it is also contradicting the definition of freedom of speech, first sentence: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate. Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, not actions taken by private entities.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Yes, the first amendment is restricted to that, but you proposed some statement would be supportive of freedom of speech. But instead it is contradictory to the definition.

ta8645 2y ago

Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.

mrguyorama 2y ago
No, because "revoking your visa" is a thing the GOVERNMENT does to someone. Revoking someone's Visa for their speech is explicitly what the 1st is about! Whereas, your PRIVATE employer deciding they don't want to pay you money because you are an asshole (whether that's because you hate LGBTQ people, or aggressively defend their rights with your speech) is THEIR first amendment rights. The 1st is about: Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Limiting a private company's ability to fire you for your speech is against their 1st amendment rights! Indeed, several attempts to build a civil rights framework in the US failed judicial review for this exact reason, and the one we eventually got had to make great efforts to justify that it's limited "protected class" framework was acceptable. I predict it gets overturned. The inverse is also true: The government CAN limit the speech of people in their government jobs. Teachers can legally be prevented from saying things as teachers, without it being an infringement on their speech rights.

anal_reactor 2y ago

Of course people are allowed to say MAGA-phobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.

Conscat 2y ago
I'm not certain what MAGA-phobic could mean etymologically, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, such as an irrational fear of people transitioning sex. Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear that one might be persecuted for their religious affiliation or sexuality, among other things.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear Opposition to LGBT is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear...
  - Conscat 2y ago
    Please refrain from trolling on Hacker News.
    - anal_reactor 2y ago
      I'm just trying to express the idea that "it's obviously us who are the good guys and them who are the bad guys" applies equally to both sides.
      - Conscat 2y ago
        You haven't attempted to do that. You asked us to imagine a rational fear of queer people, but there isn't one. You've simply asserted a dogma without substantiating it.
AngryData 2y ago
Are you trying to flip the table against them? because I agree with all of that. If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
- 2y ago

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Not it is not and it is also contradicting the definition of freedom of speech, first sentence: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate. Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, not actions taken by private entities.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Yes, the first amendment is restricted to that, but you proposed some statement would be supportive of freedom of speech. But instead it is contradictory to the definition.