You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You still have to deal with and be accountable for the consequences of what you say.
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions. If you make homophobic, and-mask comments, you have to own those and be willing to deal with how others respond to those comments (such as your employer or media outlet). Cancel culture isn't the end of free speech, it's just the bluntest way that people have to show that someone has said something they don't agree with - and they are exercising their own rights to respond to it however they want.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people have to accept your views, or treat those views with sacred respect. It just means you can say them, and other people can decide how they want to respond to it.
Well said. The employer is full woke, so expressing "dissenting" views publicly hurts the image of the employer, so it's only natural that the employer wants to sever all ties with her. It's not a matter if we agree with the views of one versus another. Actors are very public-facing, so unfortunately their word carries more weight than most, for the general populace. So, nothing exactly is surprising or enraging here.
Honestly conservatives should be cheering this on...a corporation is simply exercising it's unregulated power and protecting it's bottom line in the free market by getting rid of someone at will.
Repercussions from whom? 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government). But institutions like universities also declare something closely allied, "academic freedom", and that's supposed to mean that the institution will not limit your scholarly inquiry and speech. So yes, even an un-tenured faculty member or student should be safe from being removed for saying repellent things as long as it's done in an academic way. When any institution proclaims freedom of speech, they (ought to) make the implicit promise that they will not use any of their powers (censure,firing,etc.) to limit freedom of speech, and NOT merely acknowledge that the government won't throw you in jail or shut you down. The reality often differs from this, and it's very disappointing.
To support freedom of speech in a given context goes beyond the 1st amendment. It means a commitment to solve conflict through the exercise of speech, not play non-speech tactics by using your authority or influence to fire/cancel/etc. So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue, that you would rather silence / shut down / financially disadvantage / etc. someone than actually engaging, through your own speech, whatever it is that they're saying. One is under no obligation to support freedom of speech in all contexts, of course. For example, if my friend is grieving, I don't support the (beyond 1st amendment) freedom of speech of others to say things that might offend that person; I freely admit that. But there is a cost to limiting speech -- that people will increasingly find temporarily convenient ways other than speech to address their conflicts, that can only in the long term lead to escalation. They best way for a pluralistic society is to be tolerant and try to persuade. The alternative is not pretty.
So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue,
Free speech doesn't require open dialogue. It protects both speech and the right to not speak.
The First Amendment equally protects the right of free association with others (which includes the right to refuse to associate with others). (There are minor limits on this such as barring racial discrimination in commerce)
So if you say something I find offensive, I'm free to react to that by refusing to speak to you and by refusing to even be anywhere together with you, and this fits very nicely in the spirit of
The First Amendment needs to be updated. What good is freedom of speech when you can only say what is approved by the party line? Yes, repercussions will not come from the government, they will come from the organized social media mob. Very capable of impacting your life in a very negative way.
Free speech chiefly starts with not having prior restraint. Whatever you want to say, you can probably just go ahead and say it. If it's somehow unlawful, at least you have a chance to say it first.
This is followed closely by the government generally not being allowed to punish you or silence you after the fact for what you said.
But you can still royally fuck up your reputation; say the wrong thing and people will dislike you. They're free to dislike you. They're free to refuse to listen to you, and to
You assume you can have a fair debate over twitter or facebook. I would argue that such a thing highly unlikely. You want a proper debate you cite sources and evidence. You use logic and question each other's assumptions. It takes work and high informational content to persuade another person. It's just not going to happen at less than 200 characters.
The promise of the Internet was supposed to be the freedom to exchange information. Instead information was commoditized and turned into short bytes of unhealt
> 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government).
Nope. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".
Yup. I was wondering when this woman would cross the line. She made some trans-phobic comments and I thought Disney would dump her then. I actually give Disney props for hanging in there as long as they did.
I actually liked her character on the show and I don't want to see her go, but I understand that biting the hand that feeds you results in getting put down. She gave management no choice, IMHO.
Cancel culture is the left not realizing *they* are becoming the fascist state. Government isn't some monster that lives up the hill, it is the everyday interactions of the society. When you are depriving someone of their livelihood - and thus their healthcare, shelter, and food - on the basis that you disagree with their statements then you are the dictator.
If society is allowed to beat an individual in to oblivion for espousing their views, then that individual doesn't have freedom of speech or expressi
Walk into your office and start yelling racist diatribes, and then lament about how you shouldn't have been fired because of free speech. See where that lands you in any circle of rational people.
There's a difference between being disruptive at work, or on the employers clock, and speaking freely on your own time, on your own platform. And here, I'm assuming you're doing the typical liberal equating of political views with racism. As in disagreeing with BLM is racist despite my disagreement being their Marxist political beliefs and the BLM slogan simply being a co-opting of one issue to gain support for their political movement.
Let's compare this to kneeling to the national anthem. I don't want t
Yes, but the issue here is that if we're ok with this, then we should be just as accepting of any other un-personing and firing over other freedom of speech protected speech. Being pro gay rights? Protected by free speech, but if you can be fired for what this actress said, then the same kind of repercussions can be levied against this speech.
If we accept firings, un-personing and other serious repercussions for speech protected by freedom of speech, then we can't really complain if it's applied to us, o
Considering I don't say stuff like this, especially on social media, I'm fine receiving the same treatment. In fact, I encourage it. The though of punishment makes a hell of a deterrent against acting like an ignorant ass when my name is associated with it.
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions.
That is exactly what Freedom of Speech means. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a freedom. There's an old joke that expresses it (paraphrasing):
American: We have Freedom of Speech, because we are allowed to openly criticize our president. Soviet: We also have Freedom of Speech, because we are also allowed to openly criticize your president.
Note that the Soviets never had the right to openly criticize their own rulers. By your logic, Freedom of Speech exists where you will be locked up or killed for what you say. That is the opposite of a Freedom. By that same logic, we all have the freedom to murder anyone we want, but we just have to face the repercussions.
You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You just gave a great example of what is not a freed
There's an even better joke from here in Czechoslovakia. "Yes, we have freedom of speech in the country. Freedom after the speech is a different matter entirely."
American: We have Freedom of Speech, because we are allowed to openly criticize our president.
You can be fired from your job for things you say in public. At-will employment has something to say to your absolute free speech theory.
And I challenge you to explain how Gina's horrible Holocaust analogy is political speech that would be protected by hypothetical anti-discrimination laws that may or may not exist in your state.
Actually it is. Your rights end where mine begin and visa versa. That means you don't have the right to be vindictive against peoples opinions. Only the government is limited from infringing on peoples freedoms? Nope, so are people.
Rising speech to the level of counter action is infringement.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, you're just parroting BLM/Antifa/Woke bullshit "consequences for your talkie talkie" baby brained bullshit.
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.
- Alan Turing
Misunderstanding freedom of speech/cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You still have to deal with and be accountable for the consequences of what you say.
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions. If you make homophobic, and-mask comments, you have to own those and be willing to deal with how others respond to those comments (such as your employer or media outlet). Cancel culture isn't the end of free speech, it's just the bluntest way that people have to show that someone has said something they don't agree with - and they are exercising their own rights to respond to it however they want.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people have to accept your views, or treat those views with sacred respect. It just means you can say them, and other people can decide how they want to respond to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. The employer is full woke, so expressing "dissenting" views publicly hurts the image of the employer, so it's only natural that the employer wants to sever all ties with her. It's not a matter if we agree with the views of one versus another. Actors are very public-facing, so unfortunately their word carries more weight than most, for the general populace. So, nothing exactly is surprising or enraging here.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly conservatives should be cheering this on...a corporation is simply exercising it's unregulated power and protecting it's bottom line in the free market by getting rid of someone at will.
Re:Misunderstanding freedom of speech/cancel cultu (Score:5, Insightful)
Repercussions from whom? 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government). But institutions like universities also declare something closely allied, "academic freedom", and that's supposed to mean that the institution will not limit your scholarly inquiry and speech. So yes, even an un-tenured faculty member or student should be safe from being removed for saying repellent things as long as it's done in an academic way. When any institution proclaims freedom of speech, they (ought to) make the implicit promise that they will not use any of their powers (censure,firing,etc.) to limit freedom of speech, and NOT merely acknowledge that the government won't throw you in jail or shut you down. The reality often differs from this, and it's very disappointing.
To support freedom of speech in a given context goes beyond the 1st amendment. It means a commitment to solve conflict through the exercise of speech, not play non-speech tactics by using your authority or influence to fire/cancel/etc. So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue, that you would rather silence / shut down / financially disadvantage / etc. someone than actually engaging, through your own speech, whatever it is that they're saying. One is under no obligation to support freedom of speech in all contexts, of course. For example, if my friend is grieving, I don't support the (beyond 1st amendment) freedom of speech of others to say things that might offend that person; I freely admit that. But there is a cost to limiting speech -- that people will increasingly find temporarily convenient ways other than speech to address their conflicts, that can only in the long term lead to escalation. They best way for a pluralistic society is to be tolerant and try to persuade. The alternative is not pretty.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue,
Free speech doesn't require open dialogue. It protects both speech and the right to not speak.
The First Amendment equally protects the right of free association with others (which includes the right to refuse to associate with others). (There are minor limits on this such as barring racial discrimination in commerce)
So if you say something I find offensive, I'm free to react to that by refusing to speak to you and by refusing to even be anywhere together with you, and this fits very nicely in the spirit of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech chiefly starts with not having prior restraint. Whatever you want to say, you can probably just go ahead and say it. If it's somehow unlawful, at least you have a chance to say it first.
This is followed closely by the government generally not being allowed to punish you or silence you after the fact for what you said.
But you can still royally fuck up your reputation; say the wrong thing and people will dislike you. They're free to dislike you. They're free to refuse to listen to you, and to
Re: (Score:2)
You assume you can have a fair debate over twitter or facebook. I would argue that such a thing highly unlikely. You want a proper debate you cite sources and evidence. You use logic and question each other's assumptions. It takes work and high informational content to persuade another person. It's just not going to happen at less than 200 characters.
The promise of the Internet was supposed to be the freedom to exchange information. Instead information was commoditized and turned into short bytes of unhealt
Re: (Score:1)
> 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government).
Nope. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".
You are free to expr
Re: (Score:2)
I actually liked her character on the show and I don't want to see her go, but I understand that biting the hand that feeds you results in getting put down. She gave management no choice, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cancel culture isn't the end of free speech
Cancel culture is the left not realizing *they* are becoming the fascist state. Government isn't some monster that lives up the hill, it is the everyday interactions of the society. When you are depriving someone of their livelihood - and thus their healthcare, shelter, and food - on the basis that you disagree with their statements then you are the dictator.
If society is allowed to beat an individual in to oblivion for espousing their views, then that individual doesn't have freedom of speech or expressi
Re: (Score:2)
Walk into your office and start yelling racist diatribes, and then lament about how you shouldn't have been fired because of free speech. See where that lands you in any circle of rational people.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a difference between being disruptive at work, or on the employers clock, and speaking freely on your own time, on your own platform. And here, I'm assuming you're doing the typical liberal equating of political views with racism. As in disagreeing with BLM is racist despite my disagreement being their Marxist political beliefs and the BLM slogan simply being a co-opting of one issue to gain support for their political movement.
Let's compare this to kneeling to the national anthem. I don't want t
Re: (Score:2)
If we accept firings, un-personing and other serious repercussions for speech protected by freedom of speech, then we can't really complain if it's applied to us, o
Re: (Score:2)
Considering I don't say stuff like this, especially on social media, I'm fine receiving the same treatment. In fact, I encourage it. The though of punishment makes a hell of a deterrent against acting like an ignorant ass when my name is associated with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions.
That is exactly what Freedom of Speech means. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a freedom. There's an old joke that expresses it (paraphrasing):
American: We have Freedom of Speech, because we are allowed to openly criticize our president.
Soviet: We also have Freedom of Speech, because we are also allowed to openly criticize your president.
Note that the Soviets never had the right to openly criticize their own rulers. By your logic, Freedom of Speech exists where you will be locked up or killed for what you say. That is the opposite of a Freedom. By that same logic, we all have the freedom to murder anyone we want, but we just have to face the repercussions.
You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You just gave a great example of what is not a freed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American: We have Freedom of Speech, because we are allowed to openly criticize our president.
You can be fired from your job for things you say in public. At-will employment has something to say to your absolute free speech theory.
And I challenge you to explain how Gina's horrible Holocaust analogy is political speech that would be protected by hypothetical anti-discrimination laws that may or may not exist in your state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to avoid listening to someone's speech, that's fine. We all do that.
If you try to prevent other people from hearing speech, then that is censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to avoid listening to someone's speech, that's fine. We all do that.
If you try to prevent other people from hearing speech, then that is censorship.
At-will employment
Personal responsibility
They canceled Colin Kaepernick for kneeling (Score:2)
Bluefield College just suspended its basketball team for kneeling and forefeited a game as a result.
Someone call the whaaaambulance for poor Conservatives crying about Carano.
Re: (Score:1)