Social Shamming is NOT a Freedom of Speech Issue

originally posted by: TKDRL
The internet really is muddying the waters, there has been a ruling somewhere that said bloggers are equivilent to press, and are afforded the same priveledges. So I would assume that could carry over, that as soon as you publish a photo you took on your blog, it fass under published works rules. Who knows, all this needs to be fought out in court and settled I guess.

Yes.

I personally think the student who wrote her opinions is an idiot.

But, does she have a legitimate case? As you say -- "needs to be fought out in court".

All I'm going to say is that I've noticed a very strong overlap between those who are okay with severe social consequences for what is deemed offensive speech and living by the letter of the law that way, but they aren't okay with living by the letter of the law when it comes to cases like Trayvon Martin or Eric Garner.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
. . . .but they aren't okay with living by the letter of the law when it comes to cases like Trayvon Martin or Eric Garner.

What does that mean?

a reply to: TKDRL

Neat, thanks.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think that there are free speech issues, and first amendment issues.

I'm not sure about the specifics of what you can or can't say on the job, but there are laws preventing discrimination, and in a public workplace, since it is run by the government, you would expect they wouldn't be able to limit free speech.

When someone says something on Twitter and there is a backlash, I find it rather annoying, because the person should be able to speak freely. This is still a free speech issue, but I suppose not a first amendment issue. This is why, like with Duck Dynasty, they have a comeback. People want to hear them. Not everyone is offended.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think that there are free speech issues, and first amendment issues.

Well you would be wrong then, or rather wrong in the sense that free speech IS a first amendment issue (there are however first amendment issues that don't deal with free speech). Freedom of speech is very clearly outlined in the Constitution. What is and isn't a free speech issue isn't up for debate.

I'm not sure about the specifics of what you can or can't say on the job, but there are laws preventing discrimination, and in a public workplace, since it is run by the government, you would expect they wouldn't be able to limit free speech.

The business isn't run by the government. It is up to the business to decide to fire someone or not for discriminatory speech, not the government.

When someone says something on Twitter and there is a backlash, I find it rather annoying, because the person should be able to speak freely. This is still a free speech issue, but I suppose not a first amendment issue. This is why, like with Duck Dynasty, they have a comeback. People want to hear them. Not everyone is offended.

Why? Whose free speech is being inhibited? The way I see it is that EVERYONE is using their free speech. The racist on twitter is using his free speech to be racist, and the rest of the population is using their free speech to shame him. At the end of the day though, the racist's speech isn't being censored by anyone. He can continue to spout all the racist drivel he wants despite public opinion. So again, you are wrong.

Like I said in the OP, the ONLY consequences for your speech that the government will protect you from is consequences from the government. All other consequences are fair game. Life isn't fair and some point have differing opinions. If you hold an unpopular opinion, then prepare to be ridiculed for it. That's just the way free speech works. You are trying to distort its definition by making it a social issue.

originally posted by: darkbake
When someone says something on Twitter and there is a backlash, I find it rather annoying, because the person should be able to speak freely.

They ARE able to speak freely. Or maybe your definition of "speaking freely" is different from mine. I am able to speak freely here, but there could be consequences ranging from someone disagreeing with me all the way to being banned. "Speaking freely" does not guarantee no one will comment on what you say. That's freedom. People may disagree, put me down, or attack me personally, but I am still free to speak my mind within T&Cs. And so are they. It's part of living in a society.

This is still a free speech issue, but I suppose not a first amendment issue.

When I hear "free speech" I cannot disassociate it from the first amendment. That is what protects our ability to speak freely. Only if the government comes in and makes me shut up has my free speech been violated. "Free speech" does not mean you can say whatever you want and no one can comment on it. That would be taking THEIR freedom of speech away.

This is why, like with Duck Dynasty, they have a comeback. People want to hear them. Not everyone is offended.

That's the way it works. There are consequences to what we say. No, not everyone was offended by their words, but some were and there were consequences.

originally posted by: darkbake
When someone says something on Twitter and there is a backlash, I find it rather annoying, because the person should be able to speak freely.

I'm guessing you don't see the irony and hypocrisy of your quote above?

It's called freedom OF speech.

Not freedom FROM speech.

Big difference.

a reply to: Jamie1

Both people, the original person and the people who are "offended" have the right to voice their opinions. But I tend to be on the side of the person speaking their mind, and not the people trying to shut that person up.

I'll have to give an example here. When the guy from Duck Dynasty experienced social backlash for his opinion, I was on his side, because I believe he has a right to express his opinion, even if it offends some people. Even if I was offended by it, I wouldn't make him apologize and take it back.

Some people would, I wouldn't.

If everyone was only allowed to speak when it was deemed offensive to no one, no one would be allowed to speak. When I state an opinion, it is usually going to offend half the crowd. That's just the nature of taking sides.

If you have to worry about being fired, and essentially losing your ability to feed your family, for saying the "wrong thing", or holding the "wrong opinion" in your private life...... Then how can anyone claim to have free speech?

Sure, say what you want, but you may lose your job if you do. Might as well keep your mouth shut about everything then I guess.