Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.

So no advocating harm or spreading falsehoods about groups of people then? That's what I've been saying all along!

When have I defended the right to do illegal threats in this thread? Also there is a general difference in doing something, and saying that you will do it. It is better to look at some examples then now in this case. For example the employer could have the freedom to say to his workers that he will fire them for demanding more pay, but he could not actually fire them then (Of course the workers should then know their rights including that they can't be fired then.). However then also the employer that said that can't be fired for that reason alone. Also, there is a difference in an illegal threat, and the hate speech laws that you support. For example, it would be illegal to point at someone with a gun and tell them to do thing X now or get shot, as the chance of violence towards the person to whom this is told is an imminient risk, and not obeying the person saying that would result in death or injury. This is especially true if the person that wants this done has done the thing already before, as then it is likely that he will do it again. However, this is different from somebody saying, that everyone that does thing X should be shot, as then the threat of violence is not imminient, and the chances that it will be done are minimal.

Another example would be to consider the statements like "rob the banks", and the statement, "we will rob this and this bank at this and this time", as it is clear that in the former example there will be no harm actually caused to the banks, as it is extremely unlikly that they will actually be robbed, but in the latter one the danger of harm is very real. However, in both this and the above example, context is very important, as words alone can't be considered a threat. For example, if the person that makes the statement "we will rob this and this bank at this and this time" has no weapons and no objects that would indicate that he will actually do that, then his words should not be considered illegal. Again, it is all about the harm principle, as only when the statement causes direct harm, or when it tells about planning the causing of harm should the statement be illegal. However, in the case of planning the harm the statement itself is not illegal, as shown by my example, but the planning of the harm itself is illegal. Also it is very good to keep in mind that the planning part depends heavily on context. Also the advocating harm part should follow the same idea that the palnning does, so that it heavily depends on the context, and only when it can directly cause harm should it be illegal, and to be honest most of the time public statements are not causing direct harm, as any harm that might come is indirect, for example e leader of a criminal group could be tried because he gave orders to kill somebody. Again, context is very important.

To emphasize further for the context of the planning and advocating harm, the words themselves are not the ones that are illegal, but the cause of harm as that it causes. This can be further observed by another example. Let's say a criminal group uses the words "collect the milk" as words that mean killing somebody. In that case for example the boss of the group could be tried for saying that to a person in detail, so that the target person(s) would be known that after the person who was ordered to, killed that somebody who was known, but then it of course has to be proven in court that in that context the statement means exactly that. However without that detailed context, nobody could be tried for saying that.

Tolerance should never be used as an excuse to tolerate intolerance.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Tolerance should never be used as an excuse to tolerate intolerance.

Sounds good until you try to define tolerance. Afteral, what some people regard as rights, others regard as highly offensive behaviour. Sometimes that behaviour is regarded as inappropriate, as hateful - such as hate speech, as provocative, other times behaviour is regarded as freedom of expression, belief, free speech.
Problems arise not in the concepts of freedom, but in the understanding of what is acceptable and what is not, things which are often defined by culture rather than universal morality. If you look at the Charlie Hebdo example, a cartoonist was fired from there for making cartoons that certain jewish groups found insulting. Granted they didn't shoot up the whole office, but then again they didn't need to, the office did their bidding of getting rid of the offending cartoonist. They refused to retract their cartoons that muslims found offensive which is why they were targeted.
Then what followed? World leaders from countries where the press is limited, where freedom of speech is limited, took part in ridiculous marches with other world leaders to condemn this attack on freedom of speech. Now some jewish student union in France is calling on hate speech to be banned online, what they mean though is anything they deem to be offensive, I don't believe for a second that they mean banning cartoons or opinions that are offensive to anyone else.
So while some people can agree that certain things are offensive, it would be very difficult to work out what doesn't offend anyone, perhaps political cartoons should be banned as they are offensive by nature, or should people and groups accept a bit of offence in order to preserve a wider expression of free speech?

For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.

In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.

 Psienesis wrote:

For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.

In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.

There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Tolerance should never be used as an excuse to tolerate intolerance.

Eventually this just becomes 'Unless you believe exactly as I do, I won't tolerate you'

Sining wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Tolerance should never be used as an excuse to tolerate intolerance.

Eventually this just becomes 'Unless you believe exactly as I do, I won't tolerate you'

Slippery slopes are quite slippery this time of year, eh?

I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do

 Pendix wrote:

In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.

There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.

I'm shocked. I don't know anything about it, but doing a little background reading it seems that if that were true it would be very illegal. I'm shocked that someone whose job is presumably some kind of employment specialist would say something like that.

Sining wrote:
I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do

You know, in my experience there's at least as many people complaining about how PC is bad because they're being called on being gigantic douches.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.

I'm shocked. I don't know anything about it, but doing a little background reading it seems that if that were true it would be very illegal. I'm shocked that someone whose job is presumably some kind of employment specialist would say something like that.

I think it makes sense... Imagine if you will for a moment, that you work for... say, Microsoft as some big time Software Writer... top of your business. You're at a trade show or other job related event and someone from Apple comes up and asks, "how much do you make per year?" and you tell them "200k". A week later, you get a phone call or email or something from Apple saying, "hey, I know you work for MS, and are making 200k per year, we would love for you to come work for us and we'll pay you 300k per year"

IMO, it doesn't violate free speech if you are hired on to a company and knowingly sign a document saying "I will not disclose X, Y, and Z" and one of those items is your salary.

Obviously this doesn't apply for public sector employees, like teachers or firefighters/police, politicians and the like, because budgets are supposed to be a matter of public record to "reassure" the tax payer that their money isn't being wasted (it is... just not on salaries in most places)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think it makes sense... Imagine if you will for a moment, that you work for... say, Microsoft as some big time Software Writer... top of your business. You're at a trade show or other job related event and someone from Apple comes up and asks, "how much do you make per year?" and you tell them "200k". A week later, you get a phone call or email or something from Apple saying, "hey, I know you work for MS, and are making 200k per year, we would love for you to come work for us and we'll pay you 300k per year"

IMO, it doesn't violate free speech if you are hired on to a company and knowingly sign a document saying "I will not disclose X, Y, and Z" and one of those items is your salary.

Obviously this doesn't apply for public sector employees, like teachers or firefighters/police, politicians and the like, because budgets are supposed to be a matter of public record to "reassure" the tax payer that their money isn't being wasted (it is... just not on salaries in most places)

Oh, it makes sense for companies to try to do something like that, but then again, business aren't usually the go-to places for pro-competition policies. Thing is, that Microsoft/Apple example is exactly how it is supposed to work in a competitive employment marketplace. It's how an person can actually ensure that they are being paid fairly, by working for the company who will pay them the most. It's why it is against the law (in many places). You're pay is actually a form of protected speech, one you can't sign away.

 Pendix wrote:

Oh, it makes sense for companies to try to do something like that, but then again, business aren't usually the go-to places for pro-competition policies. Thing is, that Microsoft/Apple example is exactly how it is supposed to work in a competitive employment marketplace. It's how an person can actually ensure that they are being paid fairly, by working for the company who will pay them the most. It's why it is against the law (in many places). You're pay is actually a form of protected speech, one you can't sign away.

I guess the distinction could actually be down to where the "price" is coming from... I mean, if I'm sitting in the 2nd or 3rd interview, and salary is being discussed, and somewhere I say to the effect of, "I will not work for less than X" is one thing, or I could say, "I was making X before, so I expect that is a fair starting point".... but the employer themselves cannot ask you to disclose how much you were making.


I don't know, it all seems quite a bit legalese to me, so employment practices lawyers could probably speak to this better than I can... it's merely how it was told to me when I was leaving the army

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sining wrote:
I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do

You know, in my experience there's at least as many people complaining about how PC is bad because they're being called on being gigantic douches.

At which point you're agreeing that there's as many people using PC to stifle freedom of speech

Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.

It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).

For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.

Sining wrote:
I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do

Yeah and the whole Social Justice Warriors "movement".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.

It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).

For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.

This seems to be a common misconception but if you're trying to say only the government can censor things, ACLU disagrees with you.

Sining wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.

It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).

For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.

This seems to be a common misconception but if you're trying to say only the government can censor things, ACLU disagrees with you.

No, I'm saying that what private citizens do to stop you from expressing your ideas (blacklisting form tv channels, no news coverage, expulsion from clubs, ect.) is not a matter of freedom of speech.

If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?I mean at what point do you say 'okay, as a private entity, I will refuse to even air you on my tv channel, give you no news coverage and expel you from this club and it's totally ok' and who do you think it is ok to do this to?

Because we have no right to be there. They do not stop us from talking, merely make us less likely to be heard.

It is not a good thing for them to do, in fact it is cowardly, but they have the right to do so if it is their property. Do I condone corporate censorship, no, but at the same time I realize that it is nit covered by freedom of speech.

Just because something is not illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

Psienesis wrote:In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.

There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.

This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.

As such, if someone is working for Disney, and signed something that says "you will not disclose nor discuss how much money you make with anyone" and you do so, especially in a public sphere, then that someone should kind of expect a backlash from it.

Posting about it online might be enforceable, but there is no legal way an employer can prevent you from talking with your co-workers about your pay-scale, working conditions, etc.

If you and Bob both work for ABC Corporation, and do the same work, have the same job-title, same background, same qualifications, etc. you would expect to be making the same amount of money as Bob, right? That's the expectation. It is perfectly within your rights to say "Hey. Bob, I'm making X dollars an hour doing this, how much are you making?" Bob, of course, is under no compulsion to tell you (it is, likewise, his right not to discuss this topic), but if Bob is willing to discuss it, it is a violation of Federal law for your employer to take actions against you for this conversation.

Has been since 1935, when the NLRA was passed.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.

Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.

His point is that if you have a disagreement with someone else, that other person usually can't arrest you because they don't like what you're saying.

The political aspect of free speech is in reference to the government, that the government cannot abridge the freedom of speech or expression as a matter of law.

The "Free Speech" idea has several moving parts to it, its not one overarching umbrella. I think the governmental / political (note, not political speech, political motivated aspects OF free speech... it's a subtle distinction, but a sure one) is what he was getting at.



Censorship is another portion of the moving parts of free speech, but i'm not even going to touch on that one, its a thread all its own (gak, one PIECE of censorship could take a year's worth of sundays to explain and digest in a rational debate, and were' not going to get that on the internet.... that one little piece is "Obscenity". And i don't mean swears. I mean as a legal term as a basis for legally censoring. It's a goddamn quagmire if you like things like sense, sanity, and logic. That famous quote "I can't tell you what's obscene, but i know it when i see it" is so cleverly and ironically true (i probably didn't get that quote dead on, but you get the gist)).

Sining wrote:
If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?

Because the State has a monopoly on violence. No one else has the legal option to go after you guns blazing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sining wrote:
If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?

Because the State has a monopoly on violence. No one else has the legal option to go after you guns blazing.

Self-defense.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sining wrote:
If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?

Because the State has a monopoly on violence. No one else has the legal option to go after you guns blazing.

Self-defense.

Preemptive self defense.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sining wrote:
If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?

Because the State has a monopoly on violence. No one else has the legal option to go after you guns blazing.

Self-defense.

Which is state-sanctioned. The only entity with the legal authority to authorize violence is the State.