Social Shamming is NOT a Freedom of Speech Issue

Ok, so recently on these forums I've noticed an upsurge of people calling out other groups for socially shamming intolerant people for expressing their views. They are calling them out, saying that the intolerant person's freedom of speech is being restricted. This is incorrect. Freedom of Speech as outlined in the Constitution is as such:

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.[1]

If you notice, the FIRST word of the amendment is Congress. Congress makes laws. Therefore the First Amendment EXPLICITLY states that freedom of speech restrictions ONLY apply to government restrictions. So a bunch of people calling Donald Stirling a racist and socially shaming him into not expressing his views ISN'T a freedom of speech issue. The media socially shaming Muslim haters for stereotyping all Muslims as extremists ISN'T a freedom of speech issue. A homophobe getting socially shamed into serving homosexuals at his business ISN'T a freedom of speech issue.

There are no if's, and's, or but's about this. You can't say, "Yes I understand that freedom of speech is about government restricting speech, but...". No, there aren't any buts. Your conversation ends once you've admitted that freedom of speech is about government only. In FACT, social shaming is itself a usage of free speech. The people have the right to socially shame someone else for saying something offensive. That person has their own decision to make on if he wants to continue to exercise his free speech and say those things or shut up. Government may not be able to stop you from talking, but society certainly can try. It's within their rights. Free speech doesn't come with protection from ALL repercussions to your speech. THERE are ALWAYS consequences for your words and the government can only protect you from government consequences. That's all.

Personally, I thought all these things were obvious, but it looks like that isn't the case. With all the accusations of freedom of speech violations being flung around. It appears that everyone has forgotten what that phrase ACTUALLY means and it has become more of a buzzword(phrase) for when you are upset that another group is telling you not to say something (usually offensive). ATS, we are above this. Deny ignorance please.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There are no if's, and's, or but's about this. You can't say, "Yes I understand that freedom of speech is about government restricting speech, but...". No, there aren't any buts. Your conversation ends once you've admitted that freedom of speech is about government only.

One that I find particularly amusing is when it comes to the work place.

Your employer can limit what you discuss in the workplace without impinging on your First Amendment rights.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Or ATS. ATS can limit what we say on these forums, which they do. We all agree to the T&C which outlines what we are allowed to say and talk about and what we aren't.

I thought it was obvious, too, but I run across post after post that claim someone's Freedom of Speech is being violated when government is clearly not involved at all. Too many people think Freedom of Speech means that one can say anything they want without any consequences or repercussions from ANYONE. And, frankly, I expect more from people who post on ATS. That's my mistake.

Losing one's job because of something they said is NOT a Free Speech violation!
Being the victim of terrorism because of something you printed is NOT a Free Speech violation!

I hope your thread does some good as regards education.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It may wind up as a link in my signature.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I agree mostly. I think it is wrong to fire someone for using their free speech on their own time. I believe employers cross the line when they snoop into people's personal lives, and fire them for something they post on their personal social media. That is my opinion, and I refuse to knowingly support any business that will fire someone for stating an opinion on their own time.

Employers don't get to own our lives. I feel the same about scummy administrators suspending and expelling people for things that happen off campus.

I can see firing someone for saying something #ty on the job, what they do on their own time is not their concern.

Bunch of double talk, imo. Haters gonna hate while hiding behind notions of freedom of speech.

originally posted by: TKDRL
I think it is wrong to fire someone for using their free speech on their own time.

That's fine for you to think it's wrong. But getting fired for saying something doesn't mean their Free Speech was violated, which is what many people claim.

a reply to: TKDRL

It's fine to have that attitude, in fact you are FREE to have it. But at the end of the day, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. In fact, if you were to get government involved with this and side with you, it would become a freedom of speech issue. An issue where the government is restricting speech, namely the business'.

I totally get what free speech is, but i have this doubt, i guess, and hopefully someone can clear the air for me.
Why is it that we go beyond shaming or criticizing and go straight to destroying people's lives as much as possible?
It seems it has less to do with freedom of speech and more us just wanting to tear another human down.
Like, let's say i'm Mr Racist Mcwhite, and i say "black people steal!"
anyone has the right to call me a racist ignorant pig, and i'm cool with that. but why then destroy everything i have accomplished too? why go that extra mile?
Like that couple that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple...sure they are jerks. But to force them to go on a public apology tour? make them cry in front of everyone? why push things so far?
it feels like fighting intolerance with zero tolerance, and i am not sure that fixes the problem.
I'm not saying we should keep our mouth shut when we spot discrimination, but are we sure we are going about it the right way? Don't we risk creating more "aggressive" racism as a result?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
One of the main reasons I am against gay rights groups that attack christian business owners who don't wish to associate themselves with gay wedding cerimonies. That is using the government to violate their right to free expression and association.

I personally will never knowingly support with my money, or speech, or ever work for a company that behaves that way, acts as if they own the minds and opinions of their employees. That is how I believe it should be fought. Getting harder to do these days, with large megacorps gobbling all the smaller businesses up for breaksfast. Luckily I live in the country, the only mega corp like entity around here is a Tim Horton, the rest is all family owned mom and pop shops lol.

For the gov't to step in and try to limit a magazine's content in an attempt to avoid content that rubs one group or another is a violation of free speech though. Which I kind of got the impression some wanted in the conversation about the terrorist attack.

And well if someone got upset about your speech and tried to off you the gov't would still be required to protect your rights and prosecute the offenders since murder is still murder for the most part regardless of the reasoning behind such acts.

It's not a freedom of speech issues; it's an a-hole issue.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The key difference is public vs private. It's often somewhat conveniently overlooked...


-NF

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
Like that couple that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple...sure they are jerks. But to force them to go on a public apology tour? make them cry in front of everyone? why push things so far?

No one forced them to do ANYTHING.

Many employers have code of conduct policies. You want to work there you sign the policy or no job for you.
I have our coaches, parents and umpires sign conduct policies to, they can't participate in my league without signing. Those are not infringing on their freedom of speech.

Ugh. People fail to realize what freedom of speech was for (and still should be). It was not meant to allow people to say whatever they want and express in whichever way they want at any given moment in time that they pleased. It was put there to protect the people from tyrannies, to be able to speak out against oppression and corruption, to be able to bring this oppression and corruption to light for everyone else without repercussions to their life and freedom.

In an ironic way, we no longer have freedom of speech in this western world.

a reply to: vasaga

How so? Have you been arrested for speaking out about government tyranny?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Prime example: Edward Snowden.

a reply to: vasaga

There are a lot of things I find wrong with the Edward Snowden case, but I'm not entirely sure it is a free speech issue. I think it has more to do with violating security protocols and leaking classified information. It's a gray that you may have a point with. Though it is certainly more complicated than just a "freedom of speech" issue.