Freedom of speech only from government persecution is narrow indeed. I agree with @instant0, as I suspect Mill would as well (quote from wikipedia, not that Mill is my hero or anything but it demonstrates that this isn’t a new idea):
“Society can and does execute its own mandates … it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough…”
Allowing companies and social groups free reign to punish individuals for their speech just places more power in the hands of corporations and rich individuals who have the social influence to mobilise action. Of course an argument could be made against the other extreme, where speech has zero consequences (which wouldn’t be possible in a human society anyway). Hopefully @Gordon_Cameron is right that there is a happy medium that we, as a society, could move towards in a bipartisan manner.
Pretty sure Milo is rich. He didn’t get taken down by a bunch of rich people. He’s facing consequences for having years and years of an open Mic with which he spoke his unfiltered mind.
The lady that decided to call Michelle Obama an ape was middle class, not taken down by rich people, faced consequences for being a disgusting person and I think she might have gotten her job back… was she a public employee? No, that was a private non-profit that was not forced to suspend or fire her. They made that choice based on public pressure but no one forced them.
@ShaunKing: My dear friends in Standing Rock sent me this video, produced by women, featuring women, & asked me to share it with you. Militarized law enforcement have now surrounded their camp.
I don’t know either case that you’re referring to, I was just responding to the two posts above from @Gordon_Cameron and @instant0 and the ensuing discussion about free speech being just government oppression or not.
Generally I am a fan of employee protection legislation, and that includes for speech. Unless a statement encourages violence or breaks the anti-discrimination laws that we have in Aus, in which case they can be charged legally in any event, employees need to be protected. It’s to protect progressive opinions just as much as regressive ones. If a company fires someone based on public pressure, it’s still a form of coercion.
How do you expect me to be treated fairly by a county clerk that thinks blacks are apes, less than animals and should be mowed down by the police without trial… kill them all? If I hand her my paperwork and everything that is my identity in the system, should I feel confident in any company someone like that works for? Keeping in mind, the only reason I know this is they advertise it.
What we’re talking about would be illegal down under. So your point is basically a moot one. Hell, in many way’s it’s completely contradictory. Your position really is that we should’ve arrested the people we’re talking about in the first place.
I am not so sure about the U.S., but if that happened in Aus all of the things you mentioned would fall into the purview of the Anti Discrimination Act and there are government bodies that will actively pursue your complaints and take it seriously. There is discrimination in Australia as anywhere, and that’s why I think all focus needs to be on that. Finding the people that are discriminating in the labour market, housing market, retail market, whatever market and getting rid of them. People who actively harass other people on racial grounds also get charged here.
Our freedom of speech laws are seen as a bit extreme by some other countries, I think. For instance, pro-Nazi speech, Holocaust denial, etc., are I think illegal in Germany.
Perhaps we’re getting into semantics here, but if for instance some employee tosses paperwork out purely because the applicant is a minority that’s discrimination not speech. It’s an action taken, not a statement of opinion. In any event, I do think America has more freedom of speech than Australia when it comes to legal prosecution (defamation laws / hate speech / etc.), not sure how that invalidates me from expressing a personal opinion about it.
She’s free to stand up in a parade and spout her vile crap with the proper permits. I’ll ask for another person to serve me. I will use her posts as a basis for that request. This may or may not result in her firing and investigations, but no matter what she and her Klan members can still apply for podium time even if I put pressure on her company to get rid of an employee who will not properly serve me. I have no reason to believe that she will after that.
I am making a request. She is not going to jail over it nor would I expect her too. Once word gets out, there is a good chance a lot of people will ask for a review of anything she handled too. She opened that door herself.
It doesn’t invalidate it, but you’re using different laws as a basis for your claim. The things we’re talking about would be illegal on your end. So saying “well we have laws if someone say something extra shitty” makes your argument kind of… pointless. Because we don’t have those laws. Most of the stuff we’re talking about is stuff you would bring the force of the government down on people’s heads for.
So, in a way, what you’re saying is: “it’s wrong for the people to speak out against something someone said, but perfectly fine for the government to have them arrested for saying those exact same things.”
People’s actions and political beliefs aren’t a protected class, and other people are free to associate and hire and sell to whomever they choose. I’m not sure how you’d police that without destroying everybody else’s rights in the process.
Of course it’s fine to disapprove of witch hunts. But you’re probably going to be limited to just disapproval.
Is there a specific case here that I am missing? I looked at @Gordon_Cameron talking about anti-semitism and @instant0 responding “Still worth it to have freedom of speech, no?” and am replying to what I thought was a general discussion about speech. As far as I know, the speech that would be illegal in Australia is those that actively promote violence, defamation against an individual, or if you are especially harassing an individual about their race.
My points above are just that there are two dimensions to freedom of speech, legal prosecution and economic persecution (losing your job or being denied from buying products or services). I am in favour legally prohibiting some very extreme forms of speech, which we assumedly disagree about, but I also think that there should be laws in place to prevent economic persecution for any speech that isn’t illegal. Again I assume we disagree about that. Taken together I believe my approach leads to more freedom of speech than just having freedom from legal prosecution and that’s it, unless of course you’re trying to promote violence or yell at your neighbour viciously for being X.
You’re in support of limiting people’s speech and people’s response to the speech of others. I don’t remotely see how that’s more free for anyone. Your position, which is fairly common outside the US, is that everyone should have less freedom of speech. It’s not one I remotely agree with.
Not to keep posting Ken White, but he IS a first amendment lawyer.
I’m pretty sure no freedom was advanced by this ruling protecting an authoritarian from criticism.
[quote=“ShivaX, post:2371, topic:126885, full:true”]
I don’t see how.
You’re in support of limiting people’s speech and people’s response to the speech of others. I don’t remotely see how that’s more free for anyone.[/quote]
It leads to more state control yes.
It also leads to workers having the freedom to say that they are communists, or that there’s nothing wrong with gay people and they should be allowed to get married, or that Allah is the true God, or that women shouldn’t be scientists, or that they think gay people are sinners, or that he doesn’t understand why [insert taboo here] is a big deal, without losing their means to make a living. It also leads to Muslims or any other minority feeling free to walk around in the knowledge that if someone starts screaming at them to go back to Muslimland and much worse that they will get justice.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to divert the thread further and am happy to agree to disagree now that we all understand each other.
Until someone decides those things should be illegal.
And there are protections in the US. You can’t fire someone for being a Muslim, for example. And from your example saying “gay people are sinners” in many parts of Australia could probably be construed as hate speech and, thus, illegal.
I mean American vs European Free Speech is an interesting discussion. But I’m almost always going to take the side of American Speech. Marketplace of ideas and all that. The one place I might look favorably on European Speech is when it comes to public officials/“news” outlets blatantly lying.
