"Free speech means congress isn’t allowed to silence the media."
Wrong. The First Amendment means that Congress isn't allowed to silence the media. The First Amendment and "free speech" are entirely different entities, with really not much shared between them. The First Amendment is a law and what it does and doesn't mean has been quite precisely specified by the Supreme Court. "Free speech" is a more loosely-specified concept, and is much broader than the First Amendment. One could easily believe (as I and many others do) that free speech is very valuable, so valuable that it deserves even stronger protections than those granted by the First Amendment.
Due to the seemingly consistent inability of many people to understand the broader concept you expressed there I feel the need to spell it out in a bit more detail.
Free speech: the freedom to speak one's mind (this can apply in any context).
Any and all consequences for speaking one's mind are a direct assault on one's freedom of speech in the relevant context, by definition.
The first amendment protects individuals who speak their minds from government imposed consequences for doing so. This is meant to prevent the government from curtailing their freedom to express themselves.
"Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence" means (in the context of the US) that even if there aren't any governmental consequences for speaking your mind there might still be social ones.
Hypothetical situation: People debate the merits of a non-governmental entity (for example, an employer) placing various restrictions on speech in some context (say, in the work place). Someone comes along and glibly points out that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence". Said commenter has _completely_ missed the point.
Is the implication of violence/aggression in said speech is a justified consequence?
> Said commenter has _completely_ missed the point
I'm I understanding this correctly, this is because it is against the principle of free speech, and people might conflate it with 1A? Isn't it preconditioned on everyone being on the same page about free speech? We've seen people having extreme opinions being shunned by the the rest of the cohort. How does this group then maintain cohesion, rather is it even possible to do so?
> Is the implication of violence/aggression in said speech is a justified consequence?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but note that I was speaking to definitions (ie I wasn't debating the merits of any particular situation). Employing relevant terms in a mutually understood manner is a prerequisite for the productive conversation of a topic.
> this is because it is against the principle of free speech, and people might conflate it with 1A?
You misunderstand. In the hypothetical situation, the merits (or extent, or mechanics, etc) of free speech (ie the principle) in some specific social context (ex at work) are being discussed. Someone shows up to the party and unhelpfully points out what the current legal realities are. But the legal status isn't what's under discussion - in context, it's an off topic comment that serves only to derail the conversation.
"Free speech means congress isn’t allowed to silence the media"
That's the narrow redefinition of free speech that's currently in vogue with people who want to crack down on free speech. The whole time I was growing up, until quite recently in fact, free speech meant the freedom to speak your mind. The idea that people would routinely get fired for voicing their opinions, which is the world the new ideologues want to create for us, would have seemed shockingly unfree.
The classic cliché of the limits of free speech is "yelling fire in a crowded theater". That's where society used to draw the limit. Those lines are being way, way, way moved, and the people moving them are pretending that they're just reiterating the old standard. It's a radical shift, and everyone who doesn't subscribe to this orthodoxy can feel it, even if they're too vulnerable to be able to stand up to the priests.
I completely agree with the sentiment of what you expressed.
However, I have to nitpick for accuracy. Despite becoming a cliche, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" was never actually the standard in the US. Currently it's "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)
I just mean that culturally it's the classic example that people would always bring up to illustrate the limits of free speech. The legal standard is a different question of course. But that's part of the issue here. Free speech isn't just a narrow legal question. It's a cultural value, and it's under assault in a way we've never seen in our lifetimes. The fact that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" was never actually the legal standard (which is interesting by the way!) supports this point.
Whacking their knees with a crowbar wouldn't stop them from speaking either, but we don't do that when someone expresses a wrong view, nor should we try to get them fired. Free speech as a cultural value requires that people actually be free to speak. If one fears losing one's livelihood, one is not free to speak. That's obvious.
For a long time, it was the left who championed this. Noam Chomsky, an archetype of the left, has always been one of the biggest free-speech advocates in the US, and takes a far more expansive view than "free speech only means the government can't put you in prison". He advocated for Walt Rostow, a technocrat whom he had condemned in print as a war criminal, to be allowed to teach at MIT. But he's a libertarian socialist, and the left has taken an authoritarian turn.
The social-media driven ideological lust for driving wrong-speakers out of their jobs (and inflicting anything else the mob can muster) is clearly a recent development in America, and you have to go back at least to McCarthyism to find anything comparable.
To preface I'm going to be loose with the actual decision of Citizens United:
Ironically, since the Supreme Court ruled restrictions on spending money was a violation of the first amendment, one could argue that losing your paycheck, and your ability to spend money you would have otherwise had, is a form of losing their speech.
I'm not sure I believe any of that but I think it is an interesting idea.
True, it also means to leave people to their opinion. The reduction to government is certainly short sighted at least.
People reiterating it to justify banning people have to live with the fact that they too might get excluded.
We have certainly dogmatic speech rules around racism and sexism while most people don't really perpetuate it, but can still be penalized if some schmuck thinks you have crossed a line of imagined decency.
Companies are really bad at policing speech, of course it would be restrictive. People demanding more of it should just be ignored because they haven't thought it through.
I would argue that this is the fault of the 2-party system rather than of said 63M people. The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option. Maybe if Sanders was a candidate..
> The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option.
Yeah, that's not true. If you believe the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton, I don't know what to tell you - you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality.
Am I though? It was her husband that bombed Serbia (as far as I know trump did not start any full scale war unlike the previous 3 presidents - see libya, iraq, afghanistan, yugoslavia, etc), her husband that did the whole encryption export bullshit (and she was in the gov in both cases), she herself supported the TPP. Maybe with her there would be slightly less concentration camps at the border with mexico and net neutrality would remain a thing but I can't really think of many more things that she would do better.
Regardless, it is not whether about "the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton" but rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither.
EDIT: Maybe she would have defended syria during the Turkish invasion but I seriously doubt it.
> rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton".
The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing.
> If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither.
The thing is, in politics, you don't get to "choose neither" because you get one or the other and that choice, regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground, has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country (and, to some extent, outside it too.)
>The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing.
Depends where you live I guess. I have quite a few friends in the Middle East or in Damascus who are happy to not have been bombed. There's absolutely no doubt that Hillary was much more of a war hawk than trump has been. I'd even say he has been the least hawkish president in the past 40 years.
> than the trash fire that is the current US situation
Everyone that I know has been saying that for their own country for ages, I personally believe that the US is doing much better when compared with certain European nations (such as Britain for example). As I mentioned before comparatively with the past presidents Trump (at least in my limited european view) has done less evil (I mentioned it before, cancelled TPP and did not declare any war). If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better.
> you don't get to "choose neither"
I do, I get to vote for a 3rd party that will at least vote for sane choices in the parlement.
> regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground
I do not appreciate your tone (including from the previous post: "you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality"). Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this.
> has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country
And so would voting for your preferred candidate. There would be no point on voting if it made absolutely no difference.
> If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better.
It's impossible to argue a counterfactual but: she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19; I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have colluded with the Russians; Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds; Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets; Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China; Wouldn't have alienated Europe (except for the right wing countries); Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO, etc.
I mean, I could go on for hours listing the things that any rational person would have avoided doing if they were elected.
> Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this.
No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump.
> she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19
She might have done somewhat better, sure, but the economy would suffer even more in return (which implies homelessness, debt, etc). It is not an easy choice to make regardless.
> colluded with the Russians
I do not find anything wrong with this.
> Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds
I do not know anything about these so I will take your word.
> Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets
This is not relevant to him being a president unless if he has been using public money to funnel money to himself by using it.
> Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China
Said trade war has been going on for a while (and was started by china), most HN commenters seem to take the US side in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077339 for example. In addition I was under the impression that the Democratic party has anti-china policies too.
> Wouldn't have alienated Europe
That again had happened before Trump came to power, although admittedly Trump worsened it. Still, I think that this is a minor issue.
> Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO
I do not find anything wrong with this either. WHO is quite responsible for the current state regarding covid and I am pretty sure that they continue their anti-mask propaganda.
Honestly, all of these seem like minor things when considering what I mentioned before (which I would rather not keep repeating but here they are: the TPP and the various invasions that Clinton or her Husband started or assisted). At the same time I doubt that she would be able to resolve the NK situation.
> No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump.
I do not get it. You do not gain anything by insulting your debate "opponents", so why do this? In addition this is just an opinion, so what if I believe that? Even if I end up being proven wrong is it really that bad?
I agree with you to a degree, but would argue there has always been a distinction about what is allowable as civil speech in the workplace, e.g if I cuss out a co-employee I would expect to be fired, even though I was just freely expressing myself. What I find disturbing is the firing of individuals for what they say outside of the workplace e.g on social media, and then due to internet outcry the person is fired. This is far too close to your workplace being able to decide what you are allowed to think, for me to be comfortable with, and it is becoming a norm.
> free speech meant the freedom to speak your mind
As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost everyone else.
Also "speaking your mind" has never been (and never should be) consequence free. There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently.
> The idea that people would routinely get fired for voicing their opinions [...] would have seemed shockingly unfree.
I'm pretty sure people have been fired for voicing their opinions all the time - it just wasn't white folk, especially men. And not just fired - plenty of people have been killed for voicing their opinion in the USA since day 1. Just not really white folk, especially men.
> That's where society used to draw the limit.
Because society used to be a lot more lopsided in terms of diversity, power balance, etc. Now the balance has shifted and some of the people who previously had all the power do not like it one bit.
> As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost everyone else.
There's some truth to that, but the solution is obviously to extend the same freedom to everyone, not dive into authoritarianism.
> There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently
It is not at all the majority who are "applying consequences". It is a small vanguard of extremists, most of whom conspicuously belong to the classes they criticize.
> There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently
And this was a good thing. Before that the majority applied said consequences via witch trials.
> I'm pretty sure people have been fired for voicing their opinions all the time - it just wasn't white folk, especially men. And not just fired - plenty of people have been killed for voicing their opinion in the USA since day 1. Just not really white folk, especially men.
Said people did not have the freedom of speech. It would be great if we changed that so that it applies to everyone.
> GP is talking about cultural power, not political power.
And yet where do the life and death decisions get made? In political arenas, not cultural ones.
> - being told they're the root of all evil
For a long time, they were. (Trust me, I'm English, I'm painfully aware of this.) Many of them in power still are - just look at the GOP, for example, or UKGOV.
> - being told they can't "punch down"
I mean, "punching down" is bad no matter who does it.
> - being told colourblind-ness is racist
Because it's still picking a side - "I don't want to get involved" is just an implicit picking of the side with the most power.
> And yet where do the life and death decisions get made? In political arenas, not cultural ones.
Look at the UK government demographics. The cabinet especially is more diverse than the actual general population.
> For a long time, they were. (Trust me, I'm English, I'm painfully aware of this.) Many of them in power still are - just look at the GOP, for example, or UKGOV.
I'm English too and this is a complete mischaracterisation of our cultural history.
You can't judge the past by today's standards. To do so is childish and un-empathic. Remember, the British were the one to end slavery because our culture battled with this opposing idea (it goes against our core belief in individual freedom) for a long time.
Not to mention, every single culture on Earth would've done exactly the same if they had the chance.
> I mean, "punching down" is bad no matter who does it.
You're missing my point.
Saying that white people are punching down is racist, because it implies a hierarchy where white people are on top. It's a white supremacist viewpoint, albeit with a guilty conscience.
> Because it's still picking a side - "I don't want to get involved" is just an implicit picking of the side with the most power.
No - you don't get to judge people for staying out of this shit flinging contest going on in today's politics. Most people just do not care and they never will.
I will concede that the current UKGov is less white male than it has been but UK politics has always been much more progressive in that regard.
> You can't judge the past by today's standards.
In some aspects, absolutely. In things like "did they invade, subjugate, enslave, and pillage?", you absolutely can. Just because they didn't have porcelain toilets and lightbulbs doesn't mean what the British Empire got up to was ok, for example.
> every single culture on Earth would've done exactly the same if they had the chance
Not exactly a justification.
> Saying that white people are punching down is racist, because it implies a hierarchy where white people are on top.
In terms of political, cultural, etc. power, they are, that's the point - you don't pick on people with less power than you (see also: British Empire.)
> you don't get to judge people for staying out of this shit flinging contest going on in today's politics.
Of course you do. "It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing." (Reverend Charles Frederic Aked, 1916)
> In some aspects, absolutely. In things like "did they invade, subjugate, enslave, and pillage?", you absolutely can. Just because they didn't have porcelain toilets and lightbulbs doesn't mean what the British Empire got up to was ok, for example.
I'm not going to excuse these things. What I will let slide is that it was individuals who did this, not "white males". I think associating race and gender with a particular ideology is deeply harmful to our culture, especially when those people were products of their time. They didn't know any differently.
> In terms of political, cultural, etc. power, they are, that's the point - you don't pick on people with less power than you (see also: British Empire.)
I guess we just disagree. I don't believe a person of colour has any more or less 'power' than me, solely based on racial divide. What is a problem in our society is class divide, but that isn't related to race. Or are you going to suggest I'm move privileged than Will Smith (or another rich/famous/powerful person of colour)?
I think GP is trying to say that Facebook routinely takes the stance that they shouldn't be the arbiter of acceptable speech. So it's notable that they are actively policing speech in this instance.
If you extend HR policies to your users, you won't have too much left after a while. And that isn't what free speech means at all. It is trivial that there a consequences to speech as there are consequences for trying to police speech.
"Free speech means congress isn’t allowed to silence the media." - Exactly but Facebook the platform can but they choose not to because it's convenient for them regardless of whether someone spreads misinformation or maligns another person.
> Exactly but Facebook the platform can but they choose not to because it's convenient for them regardless of whether someone spreads misinformation or maligns another person.
You've gone way off topic, missed the point of the people you're responding to, and seem to have some agenda regarding Facebook that's not relevant to this discussion, which is about Facebook as an employer.
Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.
Arguably, one purpose of HR is to help employees work well together. It is in their literal job description to be arbiter of decency.