You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

6
-4

[–] p0ssum [S] 6 points -4 points (+2|-6) ago 

Yes it does. Consequences are a restraint to free speech.

Freedom of speech simply means the gov't can't charge you with a crime, but even that has it limits. For instance, you cannot yell fire in the theater. That is a crime.

However, in case you haven't noticed, people are often fired for Facebook postings, correct? Is that illegal to fire them, the courts don't seem to think so.

0
4

[–] ElementalPee 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Freedom of speech doesn't have to exclusively involve the government. For example, From ACLU's "What is Censorship" page:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] StateOfMind ago  (edited ago)

That is the first amendment. Freedom of speech is the bigger idea that led to the first amendment, but the two are not the same. One is a grand idea, and the other is a legal provision that requires the govt. to adhere to that grand idea.

Private employers can fire people without violating the first amendment, but they are still violating the idea of freedom of speech (which they are legally allowed to do). They cannot fire people for Facebook posts and still claim they believe in the freedom of speech. In a truly free society, the only consequence of speech would be counter-speech in the form of criticism, not losing a job.

0
0

[–] 3348825? ago 

There's a difference between the First Amendment and Free Speech.