State of Speech

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Saelune:
I am not a robot and do not think like a robot. Absolutes do not work in human terms. I -want- the best and fairest outcome for everyone. And sometimes it upsets people when they are treated fairly and not allowed to abuse others just as others would not be allowed to abuse them. Perhaps you think too often in robotic absolutes?

You basically state my point, the world is not black and white so having a list of "jobs" for the government isn't true in real life.

DrownedAmmet:

What was actively pushing segregation?
My point was the government had to step in to "babysit" when there was rampant discrimination going on against minorities by white people. Had the government (which is of the people, by the people, for the people) not stepped in when they did, I can't imagine how many more people would have been discriminated against and harmed and killed
Now the government has to "babysit" to ensure all their citizens have the right to at least eat at the same goddamn restaurants as everybody else

Wasn't Jim Crow laws made by the government (or at elast state level governments)?

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That comes under the right to reply, doesn't it? It's a blog platform. The whole purpose of it is communicating. If people read and respond, that rather falls under the brief.

The problem is that in thunderf00t case he said legitimate opinions (at least back then) and the answer was to attempt to destroy his life. There's not a lot of point of being able to express your opinion if people can destroy your life afterwards.

inu-kun:

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

The Civil Rights Act, as it stood, was used to protect against workplace discrimination. The US government ensuring that the Civil Rights Act does not provide that protection-- while simultaneously blocking any other legislative attempts to provide the same protections-- is definitely, inarguably, removing said protections. There's no two ways about that.

And it raises the philosphical question: Does not expressively forbidding something means actively encouraging people to act in this way? Which can be a thread in itself.

inu-kun:

Saelune:
I am not a robot and do not think like a robot. Absolutes do not work in human terms. I -want- the best and fairest outcome for everyone. And sometimes it upsets people when they are treated fairly and not allowed to abuse others just as others would not be allowed to abuse them. Perhaps you think too often in robotic absolutes?

You basically state my point, the world is not black and white so having a list of "jobs" for the government isn't true in real life.

DrownedAmmet:

What was actively pushing segregation?
My point was the government had to step in to "babysit" when there was rampant discrimination going on against minorities by white people. Had the government (which is of the people, by the people, for the people) not stepped in when they did, I can't imagine how many more people would have been discriminated against and harmed and killed
Now the government has to "babysit" to ensure all their citizens have the right to at least eat at the same goddamn restaurants as everybody else

Wasn't Jim Crow laws made by the government (or at elast state level governments)?

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That comes under the right to reply, doesn't it? It's a blog platform. The whole purpose of it is communicating. If people read and respond, that rather falls under the brief.

The problem is that in thunderf00t case he said legitimate opinions (at least back then) and the answer was to attempt to destroy his life. There's not a lot of point of being able to express your opinion if people can destroy your life afterwards.

inu-kun:

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

The Civil Rights Act, as it stood, was used to protect against workplace discrimination. The US government ensuring that the Civil Rights Act does not provide that protection-- while simultaneously blocking any other legislative attempts to provide the same protections-- is definitely, inarguably, removing said protections. There's no two ways about that.

And it raises the philosphical question: Does not expressively forbidding something means actively encouraging people to act in this way? Which can be a thread in itself.

Except its exactly true. The Government has a purpose, and if it fails that purpose...or job, its...not doing its fucking job. Why even have a government if they arent doing anything?

KissingSunlight:
-snippage-

I might not be the audience you're looking for, Sunlight, because I'm largely confused by your message. Not your meaning, but your message.

Your language contradicts what I believe your attempt to be. You want to have a conversation about Speech? That's fine. But you begin with condescending language. "Let's try to have an Adult conversation". It's unnecessary. You're talking to (by and large) adults. It's like turning to your twenty four year old kid and going "We're going to this four star restaurant. Remember to behave like a grown up".

The obvious way to take such a statement for most would be that we fail your idea of how adult conversationalists act. We're children, and we need to be reminded on how to behave. Now, personally, I'm not offended by this. I don't think we've had much in real conversation betwixt us, so I don't feel anything aimed at me. But I feel like such a sentiment is aimed at someone. Which, then, hurts credibility.

Simply put, One deson't declare themselves to be the bigger person in order to be the bigger person. One declares it to let the other know that they are being juvenile while the original party is being mature. It's the polite version of "Fuck off, Kid".

Also, I don't see what's adult about getting your pot shots in while you can (The Liberal and Antifa comments) even though you've called for Adult Proceedings. People are not calling you out due to being supporters, but you can't ask for a quorum devoted to intelligent conversation while getting your jabs in edge wise.

It would be one thing if you also called out the right directly, instead of saying "both sides" and only giving examples of the side you seemingly disagree with. In the follow up responses to people taking note of that, you keep mentioning that you said "both sides" but again you focus on how liberals are bad. Do you find that the right has done nothing worth constant mentioning?

Standing for the flag is a great example on how the Right are hypocritical about free speech. It is a respect thing, however there's nothing in the flag code about having to actually stand for the speech. I've posted that in the football thread. But when you point out the facts to people, they don't care because it doesn't matter what the actual rules say, it matters more that people don't like it.

But back to Corporate Censorship.

Hey, Tomi Lahren is suing Glenn Beck for apparently firing her for her views about Abortion.

Marc Lamont Hill was fired after getting into it with David Horowitz after David called him an "Affirmative Action Baby". This happened in 2009. David Horowitz still gets called into Fox News with Hannity even in this year. It happens everywhere.

If we want to paint a picture, the conservatives all support the All-right and Neo-Nazis. But no, of course they don't. But some do. That's the difference of how we also use language. I very rarely see you say "Some Liberals" or "Some on the left". You blanket Left as all being one thing. Liberals too. And if in your heart you do not, all we have is your communication. And in your communication, you do that.

I simply want to know what is the end game if we start the whole conversation with innate bias. That's all.

Saelune:
Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

inu-kun:

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

Ummm...If the cop can just ignore the violent crime happening in front of him, what the actual fuck are we paying him with our tax money for?

inu-kun:

You basically state my point, the world is not black and white so having a list of "jobs" for the government isn't true in real life.

I think we have completely different understandings of what the government is.

The government (at least in a democratic society) is supposed to be a centralized organization that everyone pays into in order for it to more efficiently handle the needs of the people.

Like, if everyone had to maintain the road in front of their house, it would be really hard for some people to maintain the roads in rough terrain (probably fucking up the local economy pretty badly) while some other people would be in a place where repairs are rarely needed and basically get a free ride, and it wouldn't cover all the space where no one lives. But, through the power of government, everyone pays in a little money, and the government can then allocate the funds to wherever the repairs need doing. Thus, the problem is solved more efficiently, the people who need the repairs more often aren't rendered broke and with malfunctioning economies, and the burden is more fairly distributed.

Likewise, when someone gives their tax money to the government, they need to expect fair treatment, like law enforcement doing their job and enforcing the law the same for everyone.

A democratic government is supposed a problem-solving machine that intakes our money and outputs results that make life better for the people in society.

Otherwise, what the actual hell is the point of the government?

No, really, if the government's purpose isn't to care for the needs of the people, why does it exist? Some holdover from the middle ages where kings ruled by Divine Fiat, because reasons?

infohippie:

Saelune:
Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

Saelune:

infohippie:

Saelune:
Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

infohippie:

Saelune:

infohippie:

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

Not being a Nazi is all the moral high ground I need.

But forget Gandhi. Lets talk about oh, I dunno, the last time Nazis were left unchallenged. I believe it was called...the Holocaust.

15million.

My moral high ground is 15million+ bodies high.

Saelune:

infohippie:

Saelune:
Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

Not being a Nazi is all the moral high ground I need.

But forget Gandhi. Lets talk about oh, I dunno, the last time Nazis were left unchallenged. I believe it was called...the Holocaust.

15million.

My moral high ground is 15million+ bodies high.

Because war is exactly the same thing as mob rule. No, people who take that attitude are in fact straying towards Nazidom whether they realise it or not.

infohippie:

Saelune:

infohippie:

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

Not being a Nazi is all the moral high ground I need.

But forget Gandhi. Lets talk about oh, I dunno, the last time Nazis were left unchallenged. I believe it was called...the Holocaust.

15million.

My moral high ground is 15million+ bodies high.

Because war is exactly the same thing as mob rule. No, people who take that attitude are in fact straying towards Nazidom whether they realise it or not.

See, I dont think people should be killed just for looking different or being a different ethnicity. Not being as bad as a Nazi should be the easiest thing, but apparently alot of people didnt know that.

ObsidianJones:
snip

Did you read the trolling comments on the first page? You are dismayed that I asked we should try to have "an adult conversation".

There is a reason why I pointed out the liberal's embrace of Antifa. One is to point out while Conservatives have been traditionally hypocritical about speech. Lately, Liberals have been equally as hypocritical. With the examples that you mentioned, Conservatives continue to be hypocritical about speech.

I guess this is for you as well as for everybody else posting in this thread. The issue I want to explore is how free is our speech when it's under control of corporations. What happened to Jamele Hill can and will happen to people who are not famous. I have to follow social media rules while working for my company. I am far from being a well-known name. Yet, if I post something that my boss doesn't like I can be suspended or fired for it.

Just judging from the posts I have read so far, people have a hard time acknowledging how much power companies have over our ability to speak our minds freely. Also disappointing are people who wants to have speech be more regulated. I believe speech should be free. Even from people who posts immature comments on internet forums.

KissingSunlight:

ObsidianJones:
snip

Did you read the trolling comments on the first page? You are dismayed that I asked we should try to have "an adult conversation".

There is a reason why I pointed out the liberal's embrace of Antifa. One is to point out while Conservatives have been traditionally hypocritical about speech. Lately, Liberals have been equally as hypocritical. With the examples that you mentioned, Conservatives continue to be hypocritical about speech.

I guess this is for you as well as for everybody else posting in this thread. The issue I want to explore is how free is our speech when it's under control of corporations. What happened to Jamele Hill can and will happen to people who are not famous. I have to follow social media rules while working for my company. I am far from being a well-known name. Yet, if I post something that my boss doesn't like I can be suspended or fired for it.

Just judging from the posts I have read so far, people have a hard time acknowledging how much power companies have over our ability to speak our minds freely. Also disappointing are people who wants to have speech be more regulated. I believe speech should be free. Even from people who posts immature comments on internet forums.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948957-Why-Are-People-Against-Personal-Accountabilty-For-Individuals-Who-Behave-Badly

You should really follow your own advice.

Saelune:
See, I dont think people should be killed just for looking different or being a different ethnicity. Not being as bad as a Nazi should be the easiest thing, but apparently alot of people didnt know that.

To add to that, not being a Nazi is easy when the Nazis aren't in power, it'd get harder if people don't take the opportunity to not be a Nazi now and let them get stronger.

Free speech is mostly fine. Worry about illegal restrictions being placed upon you by corporate overlords, like Youtube taking down critical content that doesn't violate Copyright law. Worry about politicians who say that the press should be limited in what it can report. Don't work about the girl with pink and blue dreadlocks or the dude with a confederate flag t shirt. If you put your voice out there in the public space for thousands to hear you should expect to get thousands of responses if they don't like what you have to say. That isn't censorship, that is life.

infohippie:

Saelune:

infohippie:

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

DeffoNotAnAltAccount:
Free speech is mostly fine. Worry about illegal restrictions being placed upon you by corporate overlords, like Youtube taking down critical content that doesn't violate Copyright law. Worry about politicians who say that the press should be limited in what it can report. Don't work about the girl with pink and blue dreadlocks or the dude with a confederate flag t shirt. If you put your voice out there in the public space for thousands to hear you should expect to get thousands of responses if they don't like what you have to say. That isn't censorship, that is life.

What's illegal about Youtube's restrictions? Think that's a bit of an exaggeration

The Decapitated Centaur:

DeffoNotAnAltAccount:
Free speech is mostly fine. Worry about illegal restrictions being placed upon you by corporate overlords, like Youtube taking down critical content that doesn't violate Copyright law. Worry about politicians who say that the press should be limited in what it can report. Don't work about the girl with pink and blue dreadlocks or the dude with a confederate flag t shirt. If you put your voice out there in the public space for thousands to hear you should expect to get thousands of responses if they don't like what you have to say. That isn't censorship, that is life.

What's illegal about Youtube's restrictions? Think that's a bit of an exaggeration

Copyright law overreach is a violation of the law. You laying claim to my copyright content is such a violation.

Youtube's entire copyright process depends on the fact that people won't get engaged in lawsuits over copyright claims. Litigation is expensive. The first time somebody actually challeges a wrongful claim in court out of principle and refuses to settle Youtube will be in hot water because their process isn't in any way reasonably accurate.

Honestly if somebody wanted to do away with Youtube's overreach of copyright law the best way would be to fund somebody who has clearly, unquestionably been wronged by the process. The only way it will get better is force Youtube through consumer or legal pressure. People won't stop using Youtube so legal pressure is the only realistic avenue for change. To my knowledge the best such example would be Fox's copyright claim on a Double Dribble video that they ripped from Youtube and used in an episode of Family Guy. Link: https://kotaku.com/7-year-old-gaming-vid-briefly-pulled-from-youtube-becau-1778002951

Edit: Double Dribble is a good example because the creator of the original video and the creators of the game both have a grievance with Fox. If the case actually went to court Fox would probably just try to buy the rights to Double Dribble in the fisrt place. If some effort for this lawsuit were made one would have to buy the game's copyright and get the cooperation of the creator of the original video.

KissingSunlight:

Saelune:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948957-Why-Are-People-Against-Personal-Accountabilty-For-Individuals-Who-Behave-Badly

You should really follow your own advice.

ObsidionJones, posts like these are why I pre-emptively asked for people to try to have an adult conversation.

Speaking of which, you obviously missed the part of the OP that I did ask for people to do that. To be fair, couple other people made posts that were worthy of mod's wrath, also chose to ignore that simple request. If you choose not to add anything to this discussion, I would recommend that you take your narrow, reductionist, binary worldview to another thread. All you have added to this thread was bragging about fighting Nazis by harassing people everyday on The Escapist forums. Yeah, you really are a regular Simon Wiesenthal.

Excuse me, while I focus on the posts of people who do understand the issue that I brought up.

Maybe dont throw a tantrum -every- time people disagree with you.

This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

Drathnoxis:
Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

Probably not the best solution but I imagine that if a sitting judge had to approve of every single NDA individually that there'd be a less lot bs buried in them.

Gordon_4:

infohippie:

Saelune:
Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

DrownedAmmet:

Gordon_4:

infohippie:

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.

Thaluikhain:

DrownedAmmet:

Gordon_4:

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.

True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaults

DrownedAmmet:

Thaluikhain:

DrownedAmmet:
Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.

True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaults

OK. Obviously, someone was able to successfully derail this thread. So, let's try to get it back On Topic. In case you guys forgot, it is about corporate restrictions on speech.

KissingSunlight:

DrownedAmmet:

Thaluikhain:

As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.

True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaults

OK. Obviously, someone was able to successfully derail this thread. So, let's try to get it back On Topic. In case you guys forgot, it is about corporate restrictions on speech.

I didnt forget, I just didn't want to let those statements stand.
But okay, let's talk about speech. It's not hypocritical to criticise corporations to punish their employees for their speech. The corporations have the right to employ whoever they want, and I have the right to call them cowards for punishing someone for calling our shitty president a white supremacist. Speech is doing great in this country because we all can say what we want, and that includes criticising other people's speech. The most hypocritical thing to me is to claim someone is attacking one's right to speech when they are attacking the speech itself
there, I solved it

Souplex:
People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

The Constitution:
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.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

The idea of Freedom of Speech does not begin and end with the First Amendment, even in the United States.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights were undoubtedly concerned both with what was feasible for a young and uncertain conglomeration of colonies to enforce and with not emulating the overreach they had experienced as a holding of the Britain. And they would struggle even with what it meant just within government, as the Alien and Sedition acts would attest.

But I find it difficult to believe that the intent was that "Freedom of Speech" would be protected only as long as plausible deniability could be established that the government wasn't responsible for quashing it. Agents provocateurs and "astroturf groups" have a history that far predates the coinage of the terms.

DrownedAmmet:

KissingSunlight:

DrownedAmmet:
True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaults

OK. Obviously, someone was able to successfully derail this thread. So, let's try to get it back On Topic. In case you guys forgot, it is about corporate restrictions on speech.

I didnt forget, I just didn't want to let those statements stand.
But okay, let's talk about speech. It's not hypocritical to criticise corporations to punish their employees for their speech. The corporations have the right to employ whoever they want, and I have the right to call them cowards for punishing someone for calling our shitty president a white supremacist. Speech is doing great in this country because we all can say what we want, and that includes criticising other people's speech. The most hypocritical thing to me is to claim someone is attacking one's right to speech when they are attacking the speech itself
there, I solved it

This pretty much. People often seem to forget that you can object for reasons other than free speech. Free speech or no, if someone fired someone for say supporting gay rights then I'd think they're a massive asshole for being against gay rights

Callate:

Souplex:
People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

The Constitution:
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.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

The idea of Freedom of Speech does not begin and end with the First Amendment, even in the United States.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights were undoubtedly concerned both with what was feasible for a young and uncertain conglomeration of colonies to enforce and with not emulating the overreach they had experienced as a holding of the Britain. And they would struggle even with what it meant just within government, as the Alien and Sedition acts would attest.

But I find it difficult to believe that the intent was that "Freedom of Speech" would be protected only as long as plausible deniability could be established that the government wasn't responsible for quashing it. Agents provocateurs and "astroturf groups" have a history that far predates the coinage of the terms.

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

Drathnoxis:
This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

EternallyBored:

Drathnoxis:
This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences? Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so. Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

KissingSunlight:
Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences?

Depends on the corporate interference involved. Is a corporation having someone following you around and blowing an air horn anytime you open your mouth? That would be a pretty easy case to get, at the very least, a restraining order from a judge. Is the corporation telling you that you don't get to use their personal property to espouse your ideas from? You're not going to get shit and for good reason; you, me, all people, and all corporations have the right to kick guests off of our property if they break the standards that we established when they entered. If someone shows up at a party at your house and starts doing nothing but screaming racist obscenities towards your other guests, you would immediately show them the door. A corporation has those exact same rights for their property.

KissingSunlight:

Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so.

This sounds like you're complaining that the contract has terms to it... You don't have a right to be employed at any particular company or even at all. If this is something you are really upset about, why aren't you against companies stipulating restrictions on the amount that you earn while working there (aka a salary)? I mean if I refuse to sign a contract regarding my free market worth, I wouldn't be employed there either.

KissingSunlight:

Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

It doesn't matter. Those internet platforms are private property of the individual or group that owns, operates, and pays for them. If you want a platform that has an agreement which matches your exact wishes, you can either create one yourself or sign a contract with someone to create one.

DrownedAmmet:

Gordon_4:

infohippie:

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

Damned right you do. I only pointed out Ghandi was assassinated because it seemed pertinent to differentiate dying of old age and just being old when you die. Fascinating man, bit strange but very fascinating.

KissingSunlight:

EternallyBored:

Drathnoxis:
This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences? Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so. Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

My post was mostly about how the ability to enter into a contract is enshrined as a fundamental right in a free capitalist society, specifically in the US at least, and that changing that in any major way is probably about as easy as changing public speech laws. So Drathnoxis complaint, while it has its merits, is at least as complex a topic as free speech protecting us from the government.

Basically, what I mean, is that the right to restrict bahvior through mutual contract agreement is at least as hard to change on a governmental level as any sort of other change to rights, it's possible to offer certain protections or regulations if what one party is demanding is too onerous, like how you can't actually enter in to a contract that would require grievous bodily harm or force you to say things that are dangerous to public safety, and a contract can be unenforceable for various reasons like the aforementioned whistleblower protections.

The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.

Your last line about public Internet forums and codes of conduct is a whole different thing that gets into services versus products and is more about legal ass covering than formalized contract law, like for example, the conduct clauses in a professional sports stars contract, or an NDA in an actor's contract. Public codes of conduct are on shaky ground legally kind of like EULA's without court precedence it's unknown exactly how far something like a website could take a code of conduct.

EternallyBored:

The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you wanted me to go on.

Basically, as you said, corporations have so much power because of their money and NDAs take away one of the few options people have to redress the balance. One of the common ways I've heard of NDAs being used is that a major corporation will wrong an individual through massive negligence, and the individual will sue them. The corporation will then offer to settle out of court with an NDA being one of the terms. The individual is then left with the option of a long, drawn out legal battle they can't afford with an entity that has unlimited funds or a bit of money for their silence. Most people will take the money, but that isn't justice. The company isn't receiving appropriate retribution for their crimes, the legal precedents are never being set because it doesn't make it through court, and the public is never notified about the transgressions because of the NDA. That last point is the worst thing because the public should be entitled to know about that sort of thing, but nobody who knows is allowed to tell them. So the companies are allowed to go along, trampling whoever get in the way under their feet and never even have to worry about their reputation being tried in the court of public opinion.

I'm not a fan of use of NDAs in employment contracts either. I can see some value to them in certain cases, but it goes along with signing away your right to intellectual property you create (even in your spare time) and non competition clauses to really erode your rights as an individual and ensure that nobody is able to get out from under the thumb of a major corporation.

Edit: Also wasn't this thread in the WW? I could have swore it was.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here