NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so the night that my nephew was born I had to run some errands, so while I was running them, I was listening to Neal Boortz, and he actually made a very good point. Alot of people think that the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees them not only the right to say whatever the hell they want (as long as it's not a threat) but that they shouldn't suffer repercussions from the stupid things that they say. While it is true that the United States government cannot limit on what you say, in public! However, on private property, such as a home, business, or internet servers, they do have the right to limit how much "freedom of speech" that a person is allowed to have. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. What people forget, and should be reminded of, that The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, deals with the relationship between Government and it's citizens, not the private sector and it's citizens. What brought this discussion up on the Neal Boortz show? Apparently someone said something at their place of work and got fired for it. So what do you guys think?

Not to mention, even in public they are subject to consequences...just not government sanctioned ones.

Not to mention, even in public they are subject to consequences...just not government sanctioned ones.

True.

Hmm, I don't doubt that what you say is true, but I do feel that it is totally wrong.

The Private Sector should never have more power than the Government, and no one should have power over your Freedom of Speech.

It wouldn't matter, as most workers in the U.S. are 'at will' employees, which means that their employers can fire them for pretty much any reason, except for legally protected things like race or sex, and certain other things.

The absurdity of at will employment is for another thread.

I was actually thinking for a while of doing a thread on this, though I was going to be more obnoxious, listing of instances that were not cases of free speech infringement, kind of like:

The following are not cases of free speech infringement:

Telling someone what they just said was stupid.

Telling someone or some group what they are about to do is stupid and they ought not to do it. (It's not stopping you, it's just suggesting that you shouldn't do the stupid thing you're about to do because it's stupid and you will look stupid...)

Not printing your manifesto.

Not broadcasting your manifesto.

Not showing up to your press conference about your manifesto.

Not listening to your damn manifesto. Enough with your fucking manifesto, we get it-you don't like the DMV...

and so on...

The absurdity of at will employment is for another thread.
start one, I am curious

I thought it was common sense that you had freedoms and such out in public but on private land, those are limited. You have rights and freedoms so long as they don't interfere with mine and on my property, I have the right to allow or deny what I wish, within reason.

That's why I'm against laws that prohibit smoking in public and in private places. Smoking in public, if your argument is good enough, I might be persuaded to change my mind but no one, including the government, has a right to tell me that my bar has to bar smoking. It's my business. I pay the taxes. I pay the bills. I bought the property.

Hmm, I don't doubt that what you say is true, but I do feel that it is totally wrong.

The Private Sector should never have more power than the Government, and no one should have power over your Freedom of Speech.

Right. An employee should be allowed to call his employer an asshole to the customers that the employer (and, by extension - all of the employees) depend on to maintain a profitable business....under the guise of free speech!

:rolleyes:

I thought it was common sense that you had freedoms and such out in public but on private land, those are limited. You have rights and freedoms so long as they don't interfere with mine and on my property, I have the right to allow or deny what I wish, within reason.

That's why I'm against laws that prohibit smoking in public and in private places. Smoking in public, if your argument is good enough, I might be persuaded to change my mind but no one, including the government, has a right to tell me that my bar has to bar smoking. It's my business. I pay the taxes. I pay the bills. I bought the property.

They hold the licensing regulations.

It wouldn't matter, as most workers in the U.S. are 'at will' employees, which means that their employers can fire them for pretty much any reason, except for legally protected things like race or sex, and certain other things.

The absurdity of at will employment is for another thread.

It is, don't forget, a two-sided arrangement. The employee also has freedom of mobility to tell his boss to get stuffed and move on to another job for whatever reason they choose also.

The system isn't perfect, but it beats the hell out of the sort of contract labour / indentured servitude, and other unfair labour practices of days past. Days where not only your job was at issue, but workers lived in company houses and shopped at company stores (priced to ensure that workers couldn't build much savings) to maximize profitabilty to the owner while keeping the employees in virtual servitude.

I was actually thinking for a while of doing a thread on this, though I was going to be more obnoxious, listing of instances that were not cases of free speech infringement, kind of like:

The following are not cases of free speech infringement:

Telling someone what they just said was stupid.

Telling someone or some group what they are about to do is stupid and they ought not to do it. (It's not stopping you, it's just suggesting that you shouldn't do the stupid thing you're about to do because it's stupid and you will look stupid...)

Not printing your manifesto.

Not broadcasting your manifesto.

Not showing up to your press conference about your manifesto.

Not listening to your damn manifesto. Enough with your fucking manifesto, we get it-you don't like the DMV...

and so on...

but you still have to READ my manifesto, right?

start one, I am curious

seconded

I don't think the Founders thought tavern owners would censor people...

I think if you have something to say that is worth getting fired over then you shouldn't cry when you get fired. If I had Freedom of Speech in the work place... I dare not dream of it.

I thought it was common sense that you had freedoms and such out in public but on private land, those are limited. You have rights and freedoms so long as they don't interfere with mine and on my property, I have the right to allow or deny what I wish, within reason.

That's why I'm against laws that prohibit smoking in public and in private places. Smoking in public, if your argument is good enough, I might be persuaded to change my mind but no one, including the government, has a right to tell me that my bar has to bar smoking. It's my business. I pay the taxes. I pay the bills. I bought the property.
I agree with this.

Alot of people think that the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees them not only the right to say whatever the hell they want (as long as it's not a threat) but that they shouldn't suffer repercussions from the stupid things that they say.

And they're all stupid.

So what do you guys think?

About what? Yes...yes that is what the first amendment means....

Ok, so the night that my nephew was born I had to run some errands, so while I was running them, I was listening to Neal Boortz, and he actually made a very good point. Alot of people think that the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees them not only the right to say whatever the hell they want (as long as it's not a threat) but that they shouldn't suffer repercussions from the stupid things that they say. While it is true that the United States government cannot limit on what you say, in public! However, on private property, such as a home, business, or internet servers, they do have the right to limit how much "freedom of speech" that a person is allowed to have. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. What people forget, and should be reminded of, that The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, deals with the relationship between Government and it's citizens, not the private sector and it's citizens. What brought this discussion up on the Neal Boortz show? Apparently someone said something at their place of work and got fired for it. So what do you guys think?

Even now you don't have the whole story. Not all speech is protected. You can't incite people to riot and you can't slander another person. No right is absolute.

Even now you don't have the whole story. Not all speech is protected. You can't incite people to riot and you can't slander another person. No right is absolute.
Well, you can slander someone. I always look at it as you can do anything you want to, as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of said action.

Which is what civil disobedience is all about, isn't it?

Hell, you don't even have the right to unrestricted speach on public land. Fighting words, Slander, and calls for violence in conditions of Clear and Present Danger are all unprotected speach.

To be fair, the wording of the Bill of Rights isn't exactly consistant with that, but it is Case Law, and Case Law matters a whole hell of a lot more than what I think.

Even now you don't have the whole story. Not all speech is protected. You can't incite people to riot and you can't slander another person. No right is absolute.

I kinda covered that with (as long as it's not a threat) there Nazz.

They really need to come up with a better phrase than "not protected from the consequences". I am protected from the consequences of you beating the shit out of me because I don't like your soccer team. Granted, if you say certain things, people won't like you and won't have anything to do with you, but that doesn't give them license to harass or assault you.

It is, don't forget, a two-sided arrangement. The employee also has freedom of mobility to tell his boss to get stuffed and move on to another job for whatever reason they choose also.

The system isn't perfect, but it beats the hell out of the sort of contract labour / indentured servitude, and other unfair labour practices of days past. Days where not only your job was at issue, but workers lived in company houses and shopped at company stores (priced to ensure that workers couldn't build much savings) to maximize profitabilty to the owner while keeping the employees in virtual servitude.True, it is a step up from indentured servitude, but then again...it's a step up from indentured servitude.

They hold the licensing regulations.

Perhaps but it still doesn't give them the right to pull that crap.

I've never heard of a business being threatened with that though. Have they actually done that? In both Europe or America?

I thought it was common sense that you had freedoms and such out in public but on private land, those are limited. You have rights and freedoms so long as they don't interfere with mine and on my property, I have the right to allow or deny what I wish, within reason.

That's why I'm against laws that prohibit smoking in public and in private places. Smoking in public, if your argument is good enough, I might be persuaded to change my mind but no one, including the government, has a right to tell me that my bar has to bar smoking. It's my business. I pay the taxes. I pay the bills. I bought the property.

Since when is smoking "free speech" or an absolute freedom? And I say this as a smoker!

The fact that you own a business and own the property does not confer kingship within that realm to you. You can't, for example, argue that you can open a marijuana grow-op in your place of business just because you own it. Your business still exists under the laws of the land. Now, you can argue that anti-smoking laws are dumb, but that doesn't change the fact that such a law, when passed, simply becomes another of the regulations of the land that you are obliged to operate under. Just as you can't suddenly decide that your bar isn't bound by drinking age legislation - or, in the absence of non-smoking legislation in you area, a place where any laws on age where your patrons are permitted to smoke can be exempted.

Nor, incidentally, is a place of business deemed to be a "private" place, unless it is a members-only establishment. And even then this notion is shaky.

But under free speech - at least you are permitted to complain about the law. This would equate to debating where the line of "within reason" falls.

Alot of people think that the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees them not only the right to say whatever the hell they want (as long as it's not a threat) but that they shouldn't suffer repercussions from the stupid things that they say. While it is true that the United States government cannot limit on what you say, in public! However, on private property, such as a home, business, or internet servers, they do have the right to limit how much "freedom of speech" that a person is allowed to have.

Usually laws apply to the whole territory of a country.

Well, you can slander someone. I always look at it as you can do anything you want to, as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of said action.

No. Laws define a standard moral code all citizens should abide for the sake of the human society. If you break the laws, you get punished (fined/arrested) because you endangered the society, and the punishment you receive should be adequate to teach you not to break the rules of society anymore, or to prevent you to do so by stripping you of your freedom (prison).
Being prosecuted and judged isn't a "price" you have to pay. Being willing to accept punishment doesn't give you any right to break the rules, because, by breaking the rules, you infringe the rights of your fellow humans.

Hmm, I don't doubt that what you say is true, but I do feel that it is totally wrong.

The Private Sector should never have more power than the Government, and no one should have power over your Freedom of Speech.

Heh so you then would welcome laws giving me the right to come into your house and preach messages of hatred?