3 ms·

How is "the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech" distinct from "freedom of association"? Is freedom of association a

How is "the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech" distinct from "freedom of association"? Is freedom of association a bad thing? Or do you just want to limit it with respect to firing? How about hiring? Is it ok not to hire people who have values I deplore?

ripcjk 1y ago
[flagged]
- techpineapple 1y ago
  I think so? If it’s not a specific threat of imminent harm. (Just, to answer your question, I don’t advocate such behavior)
- jmye 1y ago
  What does that bullshit non sequitur have to do with the post you responded to? Is there some reason you feel compelled to interact in such an abjectly dishonest way?
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    It's not a non-sequitur - people are calling for death [1] (somehow this doesn't get a mention in the NPR article - an honest oversight, I'm sure!), while the post claimed they were being fired for constitutionally protected speech. So it makes sense to ask if calls for death are protected. To answer that question, I think it's close? It's not imminent lawless action or a true threat, which are the usual criteria for when the 1st Amendment doesn't shield speech. But it could be interpreted as instructing someone to commit a crime. But since it could be argued the posters have no reasonable expectation their instructions will be carried out [2], that means it's probably (speculating, I don't know of any precedent on this) protected. In the USA - most other countries are not nearly so permissive. [1] https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-donald-trump-j-k-rowling-elon-musk-and-more-after-charlie-kirk-assassination/ https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-do... [2] Carried out specifically because they issued them, and not because someone was going to kill Rowling anyway.

3 ms·

How is "the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech" distinct from "freedom of association"? Is freedom of association a

by delichon 1y ago

ripcjk 1y ago
[flagged]
- techpineapple 1y ago
  I think so? If it’s not a specific threat of imminent harm. (Just, to answer your question, I don’t advocate such behavior)
- jmye 1y ago
  What does that bullshit non sequitur have to do with the post you responded to? Is there some reason you feel compelled to interact in such an abjectly dishonest way?
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    It's not a non-sequitur - people are calling for death [1] (somehow this doesn't get a mention in the NPR article - an honest oversight, I'm sure!), while the post claimed they were being fired for constitutionally protected speech. So it makes sense to ask if calls for death are protected. To answer that question, I think it's close? It's not imminent lawless action or a true threat, which are the usual criteria for when the 1st Amendment doesn't shield speech. But it could be interpreted as instructing someone to commit a crime. But since it could be argued the posters have no reasonable expectation their instructions will be carried out [2], that means it's probably (speculating, I don't know of any precedent on this) protected. In the USA - most other countries are not nearly so permissive. [1] https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-donald-trump-j-k-rowling-elon-musk-and-more-after-charlie-kirk-assassination/ https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-do... [2] Carried out specifically because they issued them, and not because someone was going to kill Rowling anyway.