8 ms·

> Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. I don't think this auth

by jkyle 11y ago

> Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. I don't think this author understands the constitution. This may apply on public campuses. However, it most certainly does not apply on private campuses. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. UI is a public university, but Northwestern is not. Whether a private university should behave this way is a different proposition. But there seems to be this trend of invoking the constitution like some holy shield against "whatever I disagree with".

return0 11y ago
> expelled, fired, or censored I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?
- josephpmay 11y ago
  Not at all. People get fired all the times for things they've said. [0] http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinney_post_gets_teacher_fired_but_she_insists_she_only_meant_well_when_pining_for_segregation/ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinn...
  - bhayden 11y ago
    Even worse than that, sometimes people get fired for political donations. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was "pressured to resign" (fired) for supporting Prop 8. You don't even have to say unpopular beliefs, you just have to hold them privately until someone uncovers them through digging through your records.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  Google "mozilla Eich" for a case study that hits close to home for many HN readers.
  - nosefrog 11y ago
    Freedom of hate speech isn't in the bill of rights.
  - politician 11y ago
    I don't know why you're being down-voted. Eich was literally driven out of Mozilla by the social backlash to personal opinions he expressed publicly. This is a fine example regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his position which I won't repeat here because it is irrelevant in this context.
  - geofft 11y ago
    That was voluntary, so I'm not sure what its relevance is to that comment. It's also hard to be an effective leader of a company when it is known that you desire many of your employees not to have civil rights, and there's no reason for Mozilla to spend its money on an incompetent CEO. (Note that I'm not saying that Eich is incompetent on technical matters, or even incompetent as a manager in the abstract, just an incompetent CEO for the company he was CEO of.)
    - return0 11y ago
      "Voluntary", with a gun in his head.
    - hoopd 11y ago
      Eich leaving Mozilla was absolutely not voluntary and I wish people would stop saying it was. He "voluntarily" resigned in response to coercive threats against the company he founded and spent 15 years building.
      - geofft 11y ago
        I'm taking this from Mozilla's blog post, which goes to lengths to portray it as voluntary (in addition to saying it outright at the top): https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... Since he left ten days after being promoted to CEO, and since the donations were known about in advance, I would argue that he should have known he would have been a compromised leader of Mozilla and if he valued his job, could have stayed CTO as he had been for 15 years. (And if he didn't expect his own employees to write public blog posts calling for his dismissal, then that alone makes him an incompetent and out-of-touch CEO. Whether or not his dismissal was voluntary, if that's the case, he was not qualified for the job.)
defen 11y ago
> Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. I'm not trying to single you out here, but I see this type of comment all the time whenever free speech issues come up, and I can't help but see it as a middlebrow dismissal. Yes, we all agree that in the USA, the First Amendment only covers government suppression of speech. But perhaps equally important is whether we want to live in a society where the smallest amount of "wrong speech" can subject you to almost unlimited social & economic consequences, none of it state-sanctioned. Should you lose your job and have to go into hiding and start a new life because you make a joke in poor taste to your 50 twitter followers? Should you lose your job and get death threats because you take a disrespectful photo at a grave site and share it with 5 friends on facebook? They're not First Amendment issues, but they are free speech issues.
- zorpner 11y ago
  The question you have to ask yourself is, what would be necessary to eliminate that potential for consequences? Unfortunately for your argument, the answer is inevitably a hypocritical restriction of speech. You cannot wish for both free speech and immunity from consequences, since all that is required for those consequences to take place is more speech.
  - hoopd 11y ago
    It's not speech but coercion that forces people to lose their jobs. Threats of boycotts and premanent brand destruction involve speech but it's an overly broad definition if you classify political action as speech.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > it's an overly broad definition if you classify political action as speech. The Constitutional protections in the first amendment of free speech, press, assembly, and petition are all largely motivated by the desire to protect political action, because restrictions on any of those things inhibit political action. Its an overly restrictive definition of speech that excludes political action.
protomyth 11y ago
"I don't think this author understands the constitution. This may apply on public campuses." Its not "may". It most certainly does apply on public campuses. I point you to https://www.thefire.org https://www.thefire.org for a fuller explanation.
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  After the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried. And that was a high school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
  - protomyth 11y ago
    High School operates under very different rules. We don't treat our children very well in the cases of free speech.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Nah, it depends. For example, if he put the effigy up in a public area with restricted signage or the what not it could be removed and he could be disciplined for the infraction. Such regulations of public space have been upheld as long as they do not differentiate based on content. [1] Now, if he was rejected from putting it up at the university art show or if other forms of art, signage, etc. were allowed in that area..it'd be a clear violation. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/01/12/376788864/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-sign-regulation-case http://www.npr.org/2015/01/12/376788864/supreme-court-hears-...
  - scintill76 11y ago
    Well, maybe they did differentiate based on content, if an unapproved[0] anti-police-violence rally (specifically on African-American victims) was held in the same spot the night before, part of what "made" the "art" so "triggering" (mixed quasi-quotes on concepts from both sides.) I don't know how to easily/reliably determine if it was unapproved though. P.S. The Facebook event page for the rally might be interesting: https://www.facebook.com/events/338643562987236/ https://www.facebook.com/events/338643562987236/ Also: https://storify.com/DearSplenda/serhat-tanyolacar-terrorizes-blackhawkeyes-at-uiow https://storify.com/DearSplenda/serhat-tanyolacar-terrorizes... [0] http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/did-anyone-at-university-of-iowa-apologize-to-serhat-tanyolacar-after-they-got-the-whole-story/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/did-anyone-at-university-o...
dimino 11y ago
The invocation of the Bill of Rights here is to provide an example of a document attempting to moralize. The author's intent here is that this highly respected moral document protects free speech (the Bill of Rights being what the writers thought to be a non-exclusive set of human rights codified in a legal document), and so we should think twice before doing otherwise. I am aware of the popular notion that legality and morality are completely separate conversations, but morality does actually inform legality, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. The Bill of Rights is one of those rare legal documents that's seen as a valuable reflection of morality, even today. Agree with it or not, the author isn't attempting to form a legal argument here, so pointing out the lack of a legal standing for the Bill of Rights at Northwestern is kind of missing the point, I think.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
Free speech is not just an amendment to a constitution. It's a universal human right that should apply in all human activities.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Suppose that rather than expressing anti-PC opinions, the person facing social ostracism made a statement like "I have a left breast, here it is on camera". Suppose folks who disapprove of revealing breasts then wrote to her employer, publicly criticized her, and other such things. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunter-moore-erin-brockovich-revenge-porn http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunte... Is this a sentiment you support? Strangely, I've never seen any of the people pointing out that the constitution only applies to the government (in the context of conversations like this) expressing similar sentiment on the topic of revenge porn, doxxing homosexuals, or similar things.
- jkyle 11y ago
  First, I didn't say the constitution only applies to the government. I stated the fact that the right to free speech does not protect someone from being removed from private property or dismissed from a private employer. You still have the right to free speech in whatever arena you wish to exercise it. I'm not sure what relevance your link has to my statement. Virtually all of the things described in that post are illegal. Death threats, harassment, stalking, breaking and entering. Are you suggesting that my telling someone to exit my property (for whatever reason) is the moral equivalent of threatening to kill them?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    No, I'm suggesting the actions of the revenge porn site are the moral equivalent of most PC activists: publicizing personal information about a target, criticizing that person to their employer, and encouraging social ostracism. I realize that some folks (both SJWs, revenge porn fans, 4chan doxxing a homo) take that too far, but I'm not discussing those particular actions. I'm sticking strictly to advocating for firing (and actually firing) women who post pictures of themselves, folks who advocate for or are outed as homosexual, etc. What I'm suggesting is that there is more to this discussion than merely interpretation of the law.

by jkyle 11y ago

return0 11y ago

> expelled, fired, or censored I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?

josephpmay 11y ago
Not at all. People get fired all the times for things they've said. [0] http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinney_post_gets_teacher_fired_but_she_insists_she_only_meant_well_when_pining_for_segregation/ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinn...
- bhayden 11y ago
  Even worse than that, sometimes people get fired for political donations. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was "pressured to resign" (fired) for supporting Prop 8. You don't even have to say unpopular beliefs, you just have to hold them privately until someone uncovers them through digging through your records.
joeclark77 11y ago
Google "mozilla Eich" for a case study that hits close to home for many HN readers.
- nosefrog 11y ago
  Freedom of hate speech isn't in the bill of rights.
- politician 11y ago
  I don't know why you're being down-voted. Eich was literally driven out of Mozilla by the social backlash to personal opinions he expressed publicly. This is a fine example regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his position which I won't repeat here because it is irrelevant in this context.
- geofft 11y ago
  That was voluntary, so I'm not sure what its relevance is to that comment. It's also hard to be an effective leader of a company when it is known that you desire many of your employees not to have civil rights, and there's no reason for Mozilla to spend its money on an incompetent CEO. (Note that I'm not saying that Eich is incompetent on technical matters, or even incompetent as a manager in the abstract, just an incompetent CEO for the company he was CEO of.)
  - return0 11y ago
    "Voluntary", with a gun in his head.
  - hoopd 11y ago
    Eich leaving Mozilla was absolutely not voluntary and I wish people would stop saying it was. He "voluntarily" resigned in response to coercive threats against the company he founded and spent 15 years building.
    - geofft 11y ago
      I'm taking this from Mozilla's blog post, which goes to lengths to portray it as voluntary (in addition to saying it outright at the top): https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... Since he left ten days after being promoted to CEO, and since the donations were known about in advance, I would argue that he should have known he would have been a compromised leader of Mozilla and if he valued his job, could have stayed CTO as he had been for 15 years. (And if he didn't expect his own employees to write public blog posts calling for his dismissal, then that alone makes him an incompetent and out-of-touch CEO. Whether or not his dismissal was voluntary, if that's the case, he was not qualified for the job.)

defen 11y ago

> Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. I'm not trying to single you out here, but I see this type of comment all the time whenever free speech issues come up, and I can't help but see it as a middlebrow dismissal. Yes, we all agree that in the USA, the First Amendment only covers government suppression of speech. But perhaps equally important is whether we want to live in a society where the smallest amount of "wrong speech" can subject you to almost unlimited social & economic consequences, none of it state-sanctioned. Should you lose your job and have to go into hiding and start a new life because you make a joke in poor taste to your 50 twitter followers? Should you lose your job and get death threats because you take a disrespectful photo at a grave site and share it with 5 friends on facebook? They're not First Amendment issues, but they are free speech issues.

zorpner 11y ago
The question you have to ask yourself is, what would be necessary to eliminate that potential for consequences? Unfortunately for your argument, the answer is inevitably a hypocritical restriction of speech. You cannot wish for both free speech and immunity from consequences, since all that is required for those consequences to take place is more speech.
- hoopd 11y ago
  It's not speech but coercion that forces people to lose their jobs. Threats of boycotts and premanent brand destruction involve speech but it's an overly broad definition if you classify political action as speech.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > it's an overly broad definition if you classify political action as speech. The Constitutional protections in the first amendment of free speech, press, assembly, and petition are all largely motivated by the desire to protect political action, because restrictions on any of those things inhibit political action. Its an overly restrictive definition of speech that excludes political action.

protomyth 11y ago

"I don't think this author understands the constitution. This may apply on public campuses." Its not "may". It most certainly does apply on public campuses. I point you to https://www.thefire.org https://www.thefire.org for a fuller explanation.

blakeyrat 11y ago
After the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dried. And that was a high school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
- protomyth 11y ago
  High School operates under very different rules. We don't treat our children very well in the cases of free speech.
jkyle 11y ago
Nah, it depends. For example, if he put the effigy up in a public area with restricted signage or the what not it could be removed and he could be disciplined for the infraction. Such regulations of public space have been upheld as long as they do not differentiate based on content. [1] Now, if he was rejected from putting it up at the university art show or if other forms of art, signage, etc. were allowed in that area..it'd be a clear violation. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/01/12/376788864/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-sign-regulation-case http://www.npr.org/2015/01/12/376788864/supreme-court-hears-...
- scintill76 11y ago
  Well, maybe they did differentiate based on content, if an unapproved[0] anti-police-violence rally (specifically on African-American victims) was held in the same spot the night before, part of what "made" the "art" so "triggering" (mixed quasi-quotes on concepts from both sides.) I don't know how to easily/reliably determine if it was unapproved though. P.S. The Facebook event page for the rally might be interesting: https://www.facebook.com/events/338643562987236/ https://www.facebook.com/events/338643562987236/ Also: https://storify.com/DearSplenda/serhat-tanyolacar-terrorizes-blackhawkeyes-at-uiow https://storify.com/DearSplenda/serhat-tanyolacar-terrorizes... [0] http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/did-anyone-at-university-of-iowa-apologize-to-serhat-tanyolacar-after-they-got-the-whole-story/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/did-anyone-at-university-o...

dimino 11y ago

The invocation of the Bill of Rights here is to provide an example of a document attempting to moralize. The author's intent here is that this highly respected moral document protects free speech (the Bill of Rights being what the writers thought to be a non-exclusive set of human rights codified in a legal document), and so we should think twice before doing otherwise. I am aware of the popular notion that legality and morality are completely separate conversations, but morality does actually inform legality, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. The Bill of Rights is one of those rare legal documents that's seen as a valuable reflection of morality, even today. Agree with it or not, the author isn't attempting to form a legal argument here, so pointing out the lack of a legal standing for the Bill of Rights at Northwestern is kind of missing the point, I think.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

Free speech is not just an amendment to a constitution. It's a universal human right that should apply in all human activities.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Suppose that rather than expressing anti-PC opinions, the person facing social ostracism made a statement like "I have a left breast, here it is on camera". Suppose folks who disapprove of revealing breasts then wrote to her employer, publicly criticized her, and other such things. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunter-moore-erin-brockovich-revenge-porn http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunte... Is this a sentiment you support? Strangely, I've never seen any of the people pointing out that the constitution only applies to the government (in the context of conversations like this) expressing similar sentiment on the topic of revenge porn, doxxing homosexuals, or similar things.

jkyle 11y ago
First, I didn't say the constitution only applies to the government. I stated the fact that the right to free speech does not protect someone from being removed from private property or dismissed from a private employer. You still have the right to free speech in whatever arena you wish to exercise it. I'm not sure what relevance your link has to my statement. Virtually all of the things described in that post are illegal. Death threats, harassment, stalking, breaking and entering. Are you suggesting that my telling someone to exit my property (for whatever reason) is the moral equivalent of threatening to kill them?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  No, I'm suggesting the actions of the revenge porn site are the moral equivalent of most PC activists: publicizing personal information about a target, criticizing that person to their employer, and encouraging social ostracism. I realize that some folks (both SJWs, revenge porn fans, 4chan doxxing a homo) take that too far, but I'm not discussing those particular actions. I'm sticking strictly to advocating for firing (and actually firing) women who post pictures of themselves, folks who advocate for or are outed as homosexual, etc. What I'm suggesting is that there is more to this discussion than merely interpretation of the law.