I've read several articles now about fellow americans losing their jobs for things they say off the job that their bosses disagree with.
Courts have ruled this is ok, and people will spout something along the lines of "free speech does not mean free from responsiblity".
Under that line, one could argue you're free to denounce the government if youre willing to take responsiblity with a bullet in your back. certainly denying one income, and therefore food, shelter, and basic security through termination could be considered easily as drastic.
thoughts?
>>1 has been banned for stating an inflamitory opinion.
offtopic: error report has been logged regarding duplicate posts.
>>1
They were fired. Or rather: their employers chose to not continue a buisness relationship. No actual action ("bullet in your back") was taken against the employee. In fact any action that was going on (payment of wages) has ceased.
>certainly denying one income, and therefore food, shelter, and basic security through termination could be considered easily as drastic.
The ex-employee is not denied income. They are free to take any other job they want.
The problem of the employee's de facto dependency on that job has nothing to to with freedom of speech, but rather with the economic system. Q.v. capitalism, wage slavery.
Way to make a shitty thread, >>3-7. The bugfix is to stop hitting the reply button so much.
Now, let's try to ignore that and get back to the topic at hand.
> The problem of the employee's de facto dependency on that job has nothing to to with freedom of speech
And the problem of a person's de facto dependency on oxygen has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so I'm really free to strangle people who say things I don't approve of?
That argument is a pretty cheap cop-out.
>>9
No, but you are free to end any mutual relationship with people you don't approve off.
Your example of strangling people would be equivalent to the employer hunting down the employee and hacking off his/her arms and legs, ensuring (s)he won't be able work again.
Strangling people prevents them from voicing their opinion in the future, as does shooting them. Laying them of doesn't.
Freedom of speech means that the exchange between those who are willing to talk and those who are willing to listen won't be supressed.
It means not that anybody has to give you a platform, that anybody has to listen to or agree with you, or that people are not allowed to judge you based on your statements and adjust their future dealings with you accordingly.
What the hell does this have to do with the first amendment? Did he work for the government?
So the employee's de facto dependency on his arms and legs does have something to do with freedom of speech?
I'm trying find out here which negative consequences of speaking out are, in your opinion, relevant to the question of freedom of speech, and why:
>12
Points 2-4 are aggressive actions. Point 1 isn't.
It's the difference between punching somebody you disagree with in the stomach or turning your back and walking away.
If you don't voice your opinion out of fear of becoming unpopular (negative consequence), do you consider this an issue of freedom of speech?
so firing someone, thus suddenly and without warning denying them basic food, shelter, and possibly punishing their children for something they said by denying them food, shelter, college, is not aggressive.
i'd rather be shot or punched in the stomach thank you.
i forgot which one of our founding fathers, but one of them said that to threaten ones paycheck is to threaten ones life, as the ability to buy food and housing is essential to life. if/when we start space colonization there will also be oxygen bills, and at that time denying one employment will equal strangulation.
>so firing someone [...] is not aggressive.
It may be malicious, but it is not aggressive. Nobody owes you their cooperation.
>denying them basic food, shelter
Being fired hardly prevents people from taking another job or having provided for a period of unemployment.
On a semi-related note: what kind of negative consequences (if any at all) would you be willing to accept for speaking out?
>founding fathers [...] to threaten ones paycheck is to threaten ones life
I'd like to know who said this, because I suspect that he drew a healthy profit from being able to do exactly that.
>when we start space colonization there will also be oxygen bills
And, no doubt, there will be people dumb enough to make their lives (and that of their children) dependent on their employers' goodwill. You are also assuming a society where oxygen is not part of the commons and employees are dependent on a single employer. Do you really not see any underlying problems with this situation?
You should take a step back and ask yourself why an employer is a in a situation where denying their cooperation can seriously affect employees (to the point that >>1 likened being laid off to being executed). You should also look back around 150 years when people where actually in danger of starving when losing a job and how they reacted to this.
A lot of people in a lot of places are dependant on their employer, and can't just get a new job if they lose the one they have. Just because you are a priviledged and highly-educated member of society who can change jobs like you change underwear, doesn't mean everyone can.
There are a lot of desperate people out there, who would feel getting punched in the stomach is a much less aggressive act than being laid off as a retaliation for something they said. Those people know to keep their mouths shut.
Is this, to you, completely unrelated to freedom of speech?
>A lot of people in a lot of places are dependant on their employer, and can't just get a new job if they lose the one they have.
And I already said that that is the problem.
>Those people know to keep their mouths shut.
>Is this, to you, completely unrelated to freedom of speech?
Will they be subject to physical force (being beaten, locked up, shot, etc.) if they they speak out?
If so, it has to do with freedom of speech, if not, it doesn't.
To exaggerate it a bit:
If a slave does not dare to speak out against his master out of fear that he'll be withheld food, would you really call this a problem with freedom of speech?
> If so, it has to do with freedom of speech, if not, it doesn't.
I'd say anything that causes people to keep quite has to do with freedom of speech. If people can get fired for something said, they'll keep quiet. So yes, it has something to do with freedom of speech. Why do you think statutes related to whistle-blowers exist?
Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. Make of that what you will.
> And I already said that that is the problem.
Right. So what? The problem with getting punched in the stomach expressing your opinions is just a consequence of the fact that humans are vulnerable to punches in the stomach, but that doesn't make it any less relevant to freedom of speech, does it?
"You can say whatever you want, but if you do be prepared to suffer the consequences."
Doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me.
Sounds like sarcastic tyranny.
I think what you meant to say was, according to >>17's employment scenario , anyone who would be punched in the stomach for unpopular speech should just find someplace to speak where they won't be punched in the stomach, which in the case in which it's supposed to bring about social change renders it useless or silent, since the point is to reach and persuade initially nonreceptive ears. how many millions of african americans would still be using separate bathrooms today under this philosophy had the courts not ruled to protect them from illegal repression of free speech?
Now let's come back to employment, same principle, but instead of direct perpetration of starvation or eviction, it's indirectly done through the termination of living wage, muddying of people's resumes/references, and with the increasing amount of consolidation in the economy, industry wide black balling.
I fail to see the difference between said scenario and that of using fire hoses and attack dogs.
>I fail to see the difference between said scenario and that of using fire hoses and attack dogs.
Initiation of violence.
If you can't see the difference between ending a relationship and putting a gun to someones head, I can't help it.
And to repeat my question:
>If a slave does not dare to speak out against his master out of fear that he'll be withheld food, would you really call this a problem with freedom of speech?
>I'd say anything that causes people to keep quite has to do with freedom of speech.
So if I would stop posting in this thread because negative reponses distress me and cause me to lose sleep, you'd call this a issue of freedom of speech?
>Why do you think statutes related to whistle-blowers exist?
As another band-aid to put on the severed arm of labour?
>Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. Make of that what you will.
Another thing I already asked and nobody answered:
>what kind of negative consequences (if any at all) would you be willing to accept for speaking out?
Are nonviolent, passive reactions acceptable? Or only if they don't inconvene you? If so, what constitutes acceptable inconvenience? (And let's not kid ourselves here, nobody in a first world nation is dependent on a specific job.)
>>14,16
What you illustrate is a different problem, people are too dependent on companies/organizations for their survival. This reminds me about what Paul Graham says about employment:
> The list of what you can't ask in job interviews is now so long that for convenience I assume it's infinite. Within the office you now have to walk on eggshells lest anyone say or do something that makes the company prey to a lawsuit. And God help you if you fire anyone.
> Nothing shows more clearly that employment is not an ordinary economic relationship than companies being sued for firing people. In any purely economic relationship you're free to do what you want. If you want to stop buying steel pipe from one supplier and start buying it from another, you don't have to explain why. No one can accuse you of unjustly switching pipe suppliers. Justice implies some kind of paternal obligation that isn't there in transactions between equals.
http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html
If we didn't need to work for companies and please our bosses in order to live, then what >>1 describes wouldn't be a problem.
So maybe you say something that catches the ire of your boss, and he fires you, and you lose your house because you can't pay your mortgage, and you die of cancer because you don't have health insurance, but... um, but... INVISIBLE HAND!!!
>>23
and that is the problem, the assumption of equality, which is false. Corporations have rediculous amounts of power which individuals can never hope to achieve. As such an individual cannot hope to have equal footing when conducting relations, and is at their mercy.
>>22
equals "end relations" with each other, but an individual would be foolish to consider himself the equal in power and resources to a huge corporation.
First, >>21 is not me.
>If a slave does not dare to speak out against his master out of fear that he'll be withheld food, would you really call this a problem with freedom of speech?
If I was a person equal in status to the slave owner, would I be wrong to say to him "I think you should let your slave speak", just because I didn't say "I think you should set all your slaves free"? I would be more likely to succeed with the first suggestion rather than the second, don't you think?
> what kind of negative consequences (if any at all) would you be willing to accept for speaking out?
I fail to see how the question is relevant. I felt really strongly about something, maybe I would be prepared to die painfully for speaking out about it. Maybe I am a coward who wouldn't ever voice the slightest disagreement with my boss on any topic. What do my individual reactions have to do with the larger issue of freedom of speech?
> And let's not kid ourselves here, nobody in a first world nation is dependent on a specific job.
Oh really? Did you go around and ask everybody? Or are you just extrapolating from the fact that you and your friends aren't?
One slight issue here: the first amendment on the United States Constitution only protects the speech from being censored BY THE GOVERNMENT! Nowhere does it say that you can't be oppressed by your peers, employer, or any other entity.
>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I can't read posts 2 through 12 because they are auto deleted instead of saved on a 0.01 kb file for people to download if they want. If that's freedom of speech then threatenning people with unemployment and poverty if they say what they want is freedom of speech aswell.
>...would I be wrong to say to him "I think you should let your slave speak"...
Not wrong. Just ignoring the basic dilemma.
>I would be more likely to succeed with the first suggestion rather than the second, don't you think?
Sure. And if you are really persuasive the weekly whippings might be reduced from ten to eight strikes too. And the owner can bask in his generosity because you just acknowleged that there is qualitatively nothing wrong with the status quo.
>What do my individual reactions have to do with the larger issue of freedom of speech?
The question was semi-sarcastic. I wanted to know how far people would go in coercing others whilst exercising their "freedom of speech". Most of the people in this thread extended "FoS" so far to include "force people to act", instead of just "freedom from the actions of others".
E.g. should the owner of a bakery be allowed to refuse serving you because he disagrees with your opinion or would that violate your "freedom of speech"?
>Oh really?
Food, shelter, basic medical care.
> Sure. And if you are really persuasive the weekly whippings might be reduced from ten to eight strikes too. And the owner can bask in his generosity because you just acknowleged that there is qualitatively nothing wrong with the status quo.
So basically, unless you solve every problem in the world all at once, there's no use doing anything? Ideologies are nice to have, but you have to have some pragmatism.
> E.g. should the owner of a bakery be allowed to refuse serving you because he disagrees with your opinion or would that violate your "freedom of speech"?
This could, depending on circumstances, easily fall under anti-discrimation laws in many places already.
I think that we're no better or no worse than any other society. But the basic structure of any job is that you work for your boss which is an inherently unequal relationship. The boss can pretty much fire you for anything, and if I remember right, they don't even legally have to give you a reason.
So it isn't just free speech that becomes the issue. It's the way you dress and depending on the job, your extra-curricular activities could matter as well, especially if you're a salesman or otherwise represent the business in the public eye. I could easily imagine a salesman losing his job if it was determined that he was a Confederate Civil War re-enactor, or something similar, because they don't want their company associated with things that they find distasteful.
I think it's more of a peasant lord kind of situation not really master slave, but whatever.
Gah. Try reading the 1st Amendment. The GOVERNMENT can't pass laws that abridge free speech. This does not force private individuals or organizations to have to respect free speech. Marshall vs. the Post Office pretty clearly laid out that property rights supercede speech rights (for better or for worse).
I think we've long since laid behind the specific example of the US constitution, and are now talking about freedom of speech in general. I know I'm not American, and I really don't care one way or the other what the US constitution says.
>>35
You should care. America is a big place and if they have freedom of speech there, that's one more choice for a place you can live and remain free...
>>36 There are no other places where you can be free, and have that freedom assured by the government!
He who has the gold makes the rules. Wrong or right, thats simply how life is. When you work for someone youre essentially a guest in his home. And he has the right to stipulate what you can and cannot do. Retailers like Target forbid sexual Harrassment, though one could argue it being against free speech.
You speak as if this was some sort of natural law. It is not. It's merely an arbitary legal decision.
>>43
No, the law forbids sexual harresment. Here's a non-broken example:
[company] forbids cursing.
This could be argued to be a violation of free speech, but is allowed under the law because it could offend a customer, which could affect buisness. However, what someone does on their own time, as was the example in >>1, has no bearing on someone's job performance, and discriminating based on such factors should be disallowed.
Going on a slight tanget, with regards to FoS in general (not related to the 1st) does the doctrine of "Political correctness" cause more harm to FoS than it does good?
A boss has the right to fire his employees, as long as it is not on the basis of sex, gender, race, religion, etc.
Freedom of speech protects a persons speech from the government, but not from other citizens who also excersize their rights.