4 ms·

Not part of the rest of the conversation, just narrowing in on the idea of speech being free if there are consequences. That sounds like some sort of 1950's-er

Not part of the rest of the conversation, just narrowing in on the idea of speech being free if there are consequences. That sounds like some sort of 1950's-era doublespeak. If there are consequences, how would speech be free? It's a very American-centric perspective that "Free Speech" is defined as "1st Amendment". Free speech means not getting fired, jumped, killed, poisoned, expelled, etc. Fired is something that would happen in Soviet Times as well, in the USSR, and in the McCarthy era, in the U.S. Apologies for the "two sidesism".

foldr 2y ago
Free speech doesn’t mean not getting fired. You can get fired in any county for things that you say (e.g. insulting your coworkers, lying to your boss, defaming your employer on social media, …). The exact laws and social conventions obviously vary from country to country, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept in general.
- theultdev 2y ago
  Someone doxxing you and pressuring your employee to fire you because you said something they don't agree with politically is the same as you insulting your coworkers in your eyes? You don't see any discrepancy between those two scenarios? And you don't see anything wrong with the former scenario?
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    They didn't say it was the same. You're arguing with what you imagined they said.
    - theultdev 2y ago
      They presented a strawman. I'm unravelling it. I want to know where their values are and if they contradict. I'm re-presenting the original scenario being discussed and the scenario they introduced. Comparing the two while also redirecting back to the original moral dilemma.
      - ziddoap 2y ago
        Unraveling it by creating your own? Maybe we can have a strawman party after.
        theultdev 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ziddoap 2y ago
        Right into the ad hominem, fantastic debate tactic. Very dialectic of you. The irony of saying "maybe you'll figure out how to have a real debate." after a string of personal attacks is *chef's kiss*. >yet you complain when you get a meta level comment about your behavior. I'm not complaining. And you're not giving me a "meta level comment about my behavior". You're just attempting to insult me.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        You're just abstracting it and trying to draw concrete conclusions form abstract cases. Of course it depends on what someone says; to ignore this is asinine.
  - fabbari 2y ago
    Not the op, but no - I don't see anything wrong with the scenario: the employer is making the call, and if they find the speech of the employee doesn't fit with their worldview they have all the rights to fire them. Practical example: the employer is an LGBTQ+ friendly establishment, the employee is on social media saying that LGBTQ+ people are all deviants and will all burn in hell for their sins. I think the employer should have the freedom to fire the person, right? Forcing the employer to keep the employee is the equivalent of compelled speech. Edit: fixed - no joke - pronouns
slg 2y ago
How do you define which speech is speech worthy of protection and which speech is a consequence of speech and therefore not worthy of protection? For example, imagine some CEO says something politically objectionable, as is their right granted by allowing free speech. Do I have the right to protest or boycott their company as part of my free speech rights or would that be illegal because I'm rendering a consequence for the CEO's speech? I just have trouble conceptualizing what you think a world with consequence free speech would actually look like.
- noworriesnate 2y ago
  This is a good question that would require a long debate to answer, but the answer obviously is neither of these two extremes: - Every entity except the US govt is allowed to enforce consequences for speech - there should never ever be any consequences for any speech ever
  - slg 2y ago
    It is funny to see this type of comment downthread of a criticism of bothsidesism. You set up a spectrum in which one "extreme" is the status quo of American culture going back generations and the other "extreme" is a seemingly impossible to achieve idea for which I have never seen a single reasonable person advocate. One of those is a lot more extreme than the other. The only reason we are even having this conversation in this thread is because the Trump administration is trying to be more extreme than your first "extreme" by having the US government inflict consequences for speech.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Fire in a crowded theator is the type of speech often used as an example serious terrorism plans should be stopped before they turn into acts. i don't know how you enforce the above though.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      "Fire in a crowded theater" was originally a strawman introduced by the Supreme Court to justify their ruling in Schenck v. United States. To remind, Schenck was a Socialist Party member who was distributing flyers encouraging resistance to the draft during WW1, and was convicted for the same under the Espionage Act of 1917. SCOTUS affirmed his conviction, saying that "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils". Here's the flyer itself, in case you want to read those very dangerous words for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Reverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... So, all in all, a good reminder that not only the slippery slope very real, but sometimes it's there from the get go.

foldr 2y ago

Free speech doesn’t mean not getting fired. You can get fired in any county for things that you say (e.g. insulting your coworkers, lying to your boss, defaming your employer on social media, …). The exact laws and social conventions obviously vary from country to country, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept in general.

theultdev 2y ago
Someone doxxing you and pressuring your employee to fire you because you said something they don't agree with politically is the same as you insulting your coworkers in your eyes? You don't see any discrepancy between those two scenarios? And you don't see anything wrong with the former scenario?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  They didn't say it was the same. You're arguing with what you imagined they said.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    They presented a strawman. I'm unravelling it. I want to know where their values are and if they contradict. I'm re-presenting the original scenario being discussed and the scenario they introduced. Comparing the two while also redirecting back to the original moral dilemma.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      Unraveling it by creating your own? Maybe we can have a strawman party after.
      - theultdev 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ziddoap 2y ago
        Right into the ad hominem, fantastic debate tactic. Very dialectic of you. The irony of saying "maybe you'll figure out how to have a real debate." after a string of personal attacks is *chef's kiss*. >yet you complain when you get a meta level comment about your behavior. I'm not complaining. And you're not giving me a "meta level comment about my behavior". You're just attempting to insult me.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      You're just abstracting it and trying to draw concrete conclusions form abstract cases. Of course it depends on what someone says; to ignore this is asinine.
- fabbari 2y ago
  Not the op, but no - I don't see anything wrong with the scenario: the employer is making the call, and if they find the speech of the employee doesn't fit with their worldview they have all the rights to fire them. Practical example: the employer is an LGBTQ+ friendly establishment, the employee is on social media saying that LGBTQ+ people are all deviants and will all burn in hell for their sins. I think the employer should have the freedom to fire the person, right? Forcing the employer to keep the employee is the equivalent of compelled speech. Edit: fixed - no joke - pronouns

slg 2y ago

How do you define which speech is speech worthy of protection and which speech is a consequence of speech and therefore not worthy of protection? For example, imagine some CEO says something politically objectionable, as is their right granted by allowing free speech. Do I have the right to protest or boycott their company as part of my free speech rights or would that be illegal because I'm rendering a consequence for the CEO's speech? I just have trouble conceptualizing what you think a world with consequence free speech would actually look like.

noworriesnate 2y ago
This is a good question that would require a long debate to answer, but the answer obviously is neither of these two extremes: - Every entity except the US govt is allowed to enforce consequences for speech - there should never ever be any consequences for any speech ever
- slg 2y ago
  It is funny to see this type of comment downthread of a criticism of bothsidesism. You set up a spectrum in which one "extreme" is the status quo of American culture going back generations and the other "extreme" is a seemingly impossible to achieve idea for which I have never seen a single reasonable person advocate. One of those is a lot more extreme than the other. The only reason we are even having this conversation in this thread is because the Trump administration is trying to be more extreme than your first "extreme" by having the US government inflict consequences for speech.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Fire in a crowded theator is the type of speech often used as an example serious terrorism plans should be stopped before they turn into acts. i don't know how you enforce the above though.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    "Fire in a crowded theater" was originally a strawman introduced by the Supreme Court to justify their ruling in Schenck v. United States. To remind, Schenck was a Socialist Party member who was distributing flyers encouraging resistance to the draft during WW1, and was convicted for the same under the Espionage Act of 1917. SCOTUS affirmed his conviction, saying that "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils". Here's the flyer itself, in case you want to read those very dangerous words for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Reverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... So, all in all, a good reminder that not only the slippery slope very real, but sometimes it's there from the get go.