Yes, I understand that complaint. I just couldn’t see how it applies to Hawley’s claim of a first amendment violation.
Teiman is neither a US citizen nor currently located within US jurisidiction, right? Are you trying for a sneaky extraterritorial power grab by pretending he has any constitutional rights? :-P
Ok, I actually think you kind of have a point. “Freedom of speech”, like “democracy”, is an ideal regardless of how your institutions choose to protect or ignore it. In the US it’s protected mainly by the First Amendment and some private institutional policies (eg in academia). This is arguably not true freedom of speech, as Liebling said “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” Likewise other places (eg China) may have far fewer protections, but violations can still be discussed in the abstract.
Ideals aside, legally Hawley’s book doesn’t have special protection and he’s dumb and/or disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Never mind that, I demand you publish my book!
No snark: I think this would be a great thread topic–a general topic on Freedom of Speech–and I’ll create one later today when I have a minute if no one else does.
I will continue to violate both of your “1st Amendment Rights” by ignoring this discussion.
I’m sure there’s a Police Squad skit somewhere around here.
Maybe if you grant me moderator powers, and I threaten to delete your posts?
AMEN!
Maybe what he meant was “an assault BY the First Amendment”.
Yes, Hawley is wrong and an idiot. But I don’t think Teiman was defending him. He was arguing that xkcd ignored the distinction between government censorship (prohibited by the First Amendment in the US) and censorship in general. The latter is not prohibited in the US (TV networks literally employ censors), but it still violates the abstract ideal of freedom of speech.
I think xkcd might argue that he was talking about rights, and rights don’t exist except as defined by law. But the latter is also open to debate.
Oh, we’re arguing with a cartoon? I must have missed that part, in which case I wouldn’t have weighed in, since I couldn’t care less.
What’s important to me is that Simon and Schuster did not violate Hawley’s freedom of speech, which is protected in the First Amendment. His inalienable rights are still completely intact and he’s a whiney bitch to suggest otherwise. The only argument to be made that he’s been censored is one that minimizes the enormity of actual censorship around the world.
But by all means, if Hawley decides he wants to come out against the free market on the grounds that it censors people, I’m sure he would have no problem fitting it into his complete and utter lack of political ideology.
-Tom
Ok, let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose a dissident in China was arrested after criticizing the government? Was his freedom of speech violated? There is no legal protection comparable to the First Amendment in China, but I think many would argue that it was violated.
If so, then “Freedom of speech” is distinct from “What the government will protect”, and therefore the First Amendment is not necessarily relevant.
I think this is valid, but we should then make a distinction that “freedom of speech” does not equal the First Amendment.
China may violate what we consider to be an innate human right of freedom of speech, but they are not violating the First Amendment. Same as Simon & Schuster.
If you’re asking whether I understand the concept of inalienable rights, yes, I do.
Josh Hawley has the right to say whatever nonsense is in his book even if a big publisher decides not to publish it. His right to free speech hasn’t even been threatened, so he has no cause to invoke the First Amendment. He can stand on an apple crate in a park and read his manuscript out loud, and until he’s arrested for public nuisance, no one can stop him.
-Tom
Hawley can literally release his book online, right now, for free.
He wont go to jail. He wont suffer any legal challenges.
His rights are not infringed.
This is a bit backwards. A violation of freedom of speech is when government takes action against you for speaking. IOW it’s not that the speech is “what government will protect”, it’s that the freedom is the “freedom to speak without government sanction.”
Sure, but you can violate freedom of speech even if you don’t remove all forms of expression.
I mean, suppose the government revoked your internet access because you criticized the president. Have your freedoms been violated? After all, you can still stand next to Hawley and criticize the government in the park.
Part of the problem here is that freedom of speech bumps up against other freedoms, like S&S’s freedom to control its property. So it’s necessary to limit freedom of speech, but we shouldn’t deny that it’s being limited in that case.
Oooo, semantics argument! My favorite!
In the American context, when we say “Freedom of Speech” we mean freedom for government regulation of our speech as enshrined in the first amendment. However, when non-Americans say it they are sometimes referring to a broader and more nebulous concept, the idea that individuals can be prevented from saying what they want by powerful parties. In this case “powerful parties” may include government but also includes rich and influential businesses or individuals.
Yes, this is a government sanction resulting from speech. That’s exactly what a 1A violation looks like.
Not necessarily. When a private university grants tenure, it does so partly to protect freedom of speech. The government is not involved. Freedom of speech can encompass more than just protection from the government.
Edit: Or, what Tortilla said. Freedom of speech only equates to 1A in the minds of some Americans.