Freedom of Speech

@Kwek00 Yeah, the government very much sets the tone, and is threatening these corporations and universities if they don't fire people who've engaged in speech they don't like. It gets complicated when we're not talking about the government directly persecuting individuals, but putting pressure on organizations to make sure controversial speech is silenced.

@ostfuidctyvm Civil courts are a very direct form of government intervention. The government sets the rules for suing in civil court, the government sorts out who broke them and what the penalty should be, and the government enforces that penalty with the normal law enforcement it has. I think there are times when civil law should limit free speech (e.g. libel and non-disclosure agreements), but that obviously opens up another dimension of nuance in that the way those laws ae set up needs to balance the value of free speech with other government goals.

In any case, this all depends on the definition of 'freedom' you're using, assuming we're not talking strictly about the first Amendment of the US Constitution. A common dictionary definition of freedom is,


The way you talk about freedom specifically as it pertains to the government focuses heavily on the 'coercion' side of things, and in theory, the government is the only entity that can coerce people, barring extraordinary circumstances, since they have a monopoly on violence. However in terms of how we live our day-to-day lives, the relationship we have with our employers is an inherently coercive one. If they want, they can withdraw the resources we need to fund our livelihoods and throw our lives into disarray. And I say all this as someone who's, again, not always against this strategy.

@BlueVeins You could argue that the state influences all things in society but that is not direct intervention, which is what I'm referring to. If someone commits an act of defamation the police do not initiate proceedings. There is no breach of criminal law and no direct state intervention. The only person who can seek redress is the victim themselves. They alone can initiate any civil action. It's individual vs individual or entity vs entity.

Similarly, with anything deemed to be gross misconduct at work, only the employer can initiate any action. The state is not directly involved. Obviously the state could change employment law such that employers could fire people for any given reason with no course for redress, but as long as they aren't doing that then they're as much hands off as they can be. If the government changes laws to better enable individuals and institutions to clamp down on free speech without good reason then that's a clear threat. I don't see that has happened as yet. Employers should absolutely be able to fire someone who very publicly, by association, brings their name into disrepute or risks damaging their brand or their revenue. It is very often written into employment contracts that personal conduct must not cause reputational harm to the employing company.

Anyhow, I'm just throwing out my thoughts here. I'm not an expert and I appreciate your counter arguments.

@ostfuidctyvm
Okay, but getting someone to initiate proceedings is the easiest part because people and entities are incentivized to sue. If you sue someone and you win, you get money. If you want to talk about the law specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States also holds the position that civil law and litigation can violate the right to free speech. You can read about one decision on the subject here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/46/


This is basically already the case in the US. In the US, you can legally fire someone for any reason outside of their race or gender or whatever, and they don't have to provide a justification. It's known as at-will employment.


This is true, and somewhat inevitable. However, I would like to call into attention the extent to which the phrasing in that last sentence papers over the extent to which other people have agency in how your conduct is perceived. A statement like "Free Palestine" which would normally be considered innocuous might be construed as an antisemitic dog whistle by an entity who has it out for you, or support for LGBT rights could be construed as support for pedophilia. In this way, entities outside of you and your employer can effectively exert power over you and your reputation, and employers do not necessarily care about the substance of the controversy if they feel the uproar makes them look bad.

And do not assume, necessarily, that corporations would only terminate someone for fear of reputational harm. Companies are ultimately made up of people with their own political biases and priorities and interests.

I generally find your commentary on the subject nuanced and insightful, I mostly disagree with some of the minor points. And a lot of my criticisms here are largely theoretical; I think civil law and employment shit is mostly reasonable in the US as-is. I guess I just disagree with the argument you make based on the principles behind them and the implications they have in edge cases.

@smiler2012

@newjaninev2 🤷‍♂you quote this but i am ignorant of american law . all i understand is that law is no longer applicable under the trump administration . i will just quote you something and the hypocricy of this what about january sixth. when the maga crowd stormed the american seat of power in the guise of an legal demonstration and protest of the defeat of there messiah to joe biden

@smiler2012 Yes, americans say they're concerned that they might lose their freedom of speech, but they seem completely unaware that it has already happened.

@SunshineGirl as Kwek00 pointed out, incitement to violence, and defamation, are the sole exceptions - evesything else is fine.

Of course, King Donald wants to include criticism of him or his cabal

@BlueVeins I'm not fully up on whether the FCC (I'm not American) is a government institution or not but if it is then I absolutely agree with you.

@ostfuidctyvm It is. Federal Communications Commission, and its leader is appointed directly by the President.

@Pretzel That will change now that americans have a king

@newjaninev2 wish I could argue against that point.

@newjaninev2 King? I thought they had a facist dictator.

@SunshineGirl thats called theft.....nothing to do with this imaginary "contract" you keep referring to

@gol979 So why is it not theft (or indeed trespass) while you are sitting down in the restaurant consuming goods that you have neither paid for or entered a written contract to buy?

@SunshineGirl because they are wanting to earn a living.....again, not because of some fairy tale "social contract"