Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People, mainly conservatives, just don't understand what free speech means. You are absolutely correct in saying that free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking and can make no laws that do stop you as long as you are nt making threats to individuals. Free speech has nothing to do with the consequences of speaking stupidly and showing the world how stupid, bigoted, or racist you actually are. Thus companies that you work for can fire you for your stupid, bigoted, or racist speeches, tweets, or facebook posts.
Or they could fire you for being active in advocating for black issues or LGBT issues, etc. If not, why not? If firing somebody for being pro-BLM isn't valid, then why would anything other reason be valid?
Honestly, it's just a weird curiosity that popped into my head after reading your post. Since no speech has any legal standing, how can it be illegal to hire and fire and screen based off of being too pro-gay or pro-black or pro-immigrant?
It is, of course, correct that the First Amendment refers to the Government restricting speech by American citizens.
Now, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, urged the National Football League to punish football players that 'take a knee' during the playing of the National Anthem.
I would submit that President Trump is 'the Government'.
I would also submit that the President urging a private company to 'fire' players if said players engage in 'speech' would be prohibited by the First Amendment.
In other words, the "Government" was restricting the speech of American Citizens by proxy.
So, if we all agree that the government may not restrict speech, can we also agree that the government cannot wield its power to make private companies restrict the speech of others?
What Trump did falls into a bit of a grey area. He tweeted that the players should be fired, but took no additional steps to make it happen. As far as I know, none of the players were actually fired, so either he didn't really care about this much, or his ability to wield power as POTUS is not much.
That to me was a much more clear cut example of a violation of the First Amendment than what Trump did. There was another letter sent to the FCC recently by 12 Dem senators over conservative news outlet Sinclair. In true Orwellian fashion, the senators claimed that they were worried that "Sinclair is engaged in a systematic news distortion operation that seeks to undermine freedom of the press..."
People, mainly conservatives, just don't understand what free speech means. You are absolutely correct in saying that free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking and can make no laws that do stop you as long as you are nt making threats to individuals. Free speech has nothing to do with the consequences of speaking stupidly and showing the world how stupid, bigoted, or racist you actually are. Thus companies that you work for can fire you for your stupid, bigoted, or racist speeches, tweets, or facebook posts.
People, mainly leftists, just don't understand that free speech is good for society, even when it means hearing things they don't like. They hope to use government power to control political speech but have so far been thwarted by the Constitution. So they resort to harassment, smears, bullying and intimidation.
People, mainly leftists, just don't understand that free speech is good for society, even when it means hearing things they don't like. They hope to use government power to control political speech but have so far been thwarted by the Constitution. So they resort to harassment, smears, bullying and intimidation.
Pretty much sums up the 1st amendment, Freedom of speech protects society not an individual. Just as the 2nd amendment protects society by allowing a person to be armed if they choose too.
But just as in the 1st amendment someone can spout off everything that makes your blood boil, but they have the right to say it. The 2nd amendment give society the right to be armed if they choose, and also means at some point a NUTCASE will doe something horrible and kill innocent people.
Both amendments are to protect society, not the individual.
It is, of course, correct that the First Amendment refers to the Government restricting speech by American citizens.
Now, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, urged the National Football League to punish football players that 'take a knee' during the playing of the National Anthem.
Here is a handy link referencing what Mr. Trump has said.
I would submit that President Trump is 'the Government'.
I would also submit that the President urging a private company to 'fire' players if said players engage in 'speech' would be prohibited by the First Amendment.
In other words, the "Government" was restricting the speech of American Citizens by proxy.
So, if we all agree that the government may not restrict speech, can we also agree that the government cannot wield its power to make private companies restrict the speech of others?
Everything you said here is true. However, I submit to you that the president "urging" someone to do something is not the same thing as "commanding" someone to do something. Big difference. The president can urge me, you, Congress, leprechauns, etc. to say or do whatever he likes. It still has no bearing on the decisions that are ultimately made by those he wishes to sway. As long as he didn't force the NFL to take action against the players, there is no case to be made that the government restricted the players First Amendment rights.
It is, of course, correct that the First Amendment refers to the Government restricting speech by American citizens.
Now, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, urged the National Football League to punish football players that 'take a knee' during the playing of the National Anthem.
Here is a handy link referencing what Mr. Trump has said.
I would submit that President Trump is 'the Government'.
I would also submit that the President urging a private company to 'fire' players if said players engage in 'speech' would be prohibited by the First Amendment.
In other words, the "Government" was restricting the speech of American Citizens by proxy.
So, if we all agree that the government may not restrict speech, can we also agree that the government cannot wield its power to make private companies restrict the speech of others?
Thank you. What "the government" did to the NFL players could be considered restricting free speech. But the safe "government" that is fine with what the NFL did, is angry about what ABC did to Roseanne.
With the late 1940s/50s Hollywood blacklist, we're talking about people accused on flimsy evidence at best, outright paranoid conclusion-jumping at worst, of Communist or otherwise "Unamerican Activities". If any actors, screenwriters, etc. actually did call for the overthrow of the US government and the Constitution, I haven't seen any evidence for it, let alone high quality evidence. Furthermore, none of the accused said anything suggesting that their opponents deserve personalized scorn (governmental or cultural or economic).
Rosanne Barr: She may not suggest blacklisting the most liberal members are outright traitors. Yet she IS, by the very nature of her words and tone, suggesting that blacks in general deserve amused belittlement at best. How else do you interpret the comparison of Valerie Jarret with an ape, especially in the historical way of the comparison of blacks with apes?
Unfortunately, mainstream does not equal truth. Lots of things used to be mainstream, yet were shown to be in outright error. Diseases caused by witches and demons, practically universal until the advent of microbiology. The earth is a flat disk. Also believed before Erotosthenes concluded that the difference in noontime shadow lengths at Syene and Alexandria could only be accounted for by a curved earth.
Same thing with social and cultural values. We accept things today that were considered distastefully weird or even downright scandalous in the past, and even as late as half a generation ago (transgenderism for the latter, Catholic-Protestant differences for the former a few centuries ago. Not to mention all the other intolerances in the intervening time). We as a society have come to recognize it's been wrong all along to deny marriage to LGBT - among many other things. The business community, like the rest of society, has moved on beyond old unjust and outmoded ideas and simply acting in accordance to true justice, however belatedly.
If the mainstream got it so wrong with religious differences, race, able-bodied status, orientation, and gender identity - then how can you expect me to take the mainstream seriously when it comes to their sizing up of ANY "annoying" kind of group -- even "stupid people", "weirdos", "sensitive people", "betas", "unfeminine women", even "gullible" and "naïve" people?
And that is why I refuse to take seriously mainstream definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" - the mainstream has an incredibly poor track record of sizing up the worth of the different.
"Retrobution" in this case, is justified based on what I just said above - today's society realizes just how morally indefensible our past actions were, and are now calling out the die-hards.
If they make speech that deliberately degrades the essential dignity of others whose trait and/or themselves personally did nothing to likewise hurt, harm, or degrade others; then they deserve calling out and an appropriate social punishment - especially if done with clear intent to degrade that dignity.
Slander, inciting riots, and such are not legitimate free speech. If the speech is likely to encourage others to castigate a certain subset of people (or even person) merely based on an irritating trait alone - then "we the people" should oppose that speech. Failing to do so creates an atmosphere that encourages people to (falsely) think it legitimate to reject and shut out "those people" to the point that they are unable to contribute to society as much as they could have absent that shutting out.
Added:
Free speech absolutist think that it's a violation of the first amendment to forbid somebody from engaging in speech clearly designed to marginalize people based on nitpicky, noncharacter aspects of their personhood. Not only is there no productive purpose in engaging in that kind of speech, it's also proven to be destructive to a person's psychological health and general workplace environment. Defending abusive speech assumes that people with certain personal shortcomings clearly not signaling intent to hurt or demean others (if they actually do so at all) deserve whatever abuse, humiliation, and scorn for that reason alone - even if the speech is not an essential part of a business's proper functioning.
Seriously, it's irrational, but a lot of people think there's a compelling public interest in letting such bullying happen.
I actually thought you were replying with a reasoned post to mine. I was even going to overlook you bringing up Barr, as I never mentioned her, nor even alluded to her.
I have pointed out in other threads I think she was stupid to publicly state such things, even if they were a joke, or what is in her heart. As I have said, entertainers are typically clueless compared with the general public, but think they are smart/knowledgeable because of fame. At the end of the day they, are entertainers, nothing more.
Thus they should not potentially alienate half of their audience/fans with their clueless comments.
However, when I see you post such absurd things as witches/demons/flat earth presumably as some sort of convoluted comparative analogy, it is clear you are not reasoned. Why not go back to cavemen/women while you are at it.
My span of socially unacceptable and majority thought, vs. a mere 8 or so years later deserves a much better thought out comparison, not going back to the Salem witch trials.
I will stop here to see if you can get back on track, or if the sophomoric weaksauce you shifted to was the best that you have.
Then, maybe we can get into you seeming to justify action taken against a fellow citizen, for a simple campaign contribution to a political cause.
I love how butthurt Trumpers are about Roseanne getting axed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I have no issues with this and if she was working for me I would have done the same thing.
Yeah me too. I would have fired her in a heartbeat. I never saw Rosanne as a conservative anyway. I heard she's a 9/11 'truther.' Good riddance to her. This is another case of liberals confusing reality with something they have imagined in their minds.
Pretty much sums up the 1st amendment, Freedom of speech protects society not an individual. Just as the 2nd amendment protects society by allowing a person to be armed if they choose too.
But just as in the 1st amendment someone can spout off everything that makes your blood boil, but they have the right to say it. The 2nd amendment give society the right to be armed if they choose, and also means at some point a NUTCASE will doe something horrible and kill innocent people.
Both amendments are to protect society, not the individual.
actually both amendments protect the individual over society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Thank you. What "the government" did to the NFL players could be considered restricting free speech. But the safe "government" that is fine with what the NFL did, is angry about what ABC did to Roseanne.
really? and just what did the government do to the NFL players to restrict their free speech rights?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
