The Free Speech Myth

[simple simon]

so many seem to have misconceptions about free speech

seems weekly there is a news story about someone saying or writing something stupid and being fired ...... inevitably folks will come out of the woodwork complain that this persons free speech rights have been violated

'it's not fair they were fired' they say ..... 'what about free speech' they ask

trouble is they dont seem to realize how free speech works .... the right to free speech only applies when the government tries to intervene with you communicating your views ........ your employer has every right to fire you if you say something stupid

now i know most here will say ..... 'well duh' ...... but you know as well as i do there are always those that love to cry foul when there is no foul

do you think it is ok for employees to have consequences for what they say ?

[tivodan1116]

I am afraid that you are the one who does not understand how free speech works.


Freedom of speech is, or should be, a human right, not just a right granted by government - there are no such things as rights granted by government. The government, by virtue of the social contract, has powers to infringe upon some of our rights. We have decided that our basic right to free speech is not to be one of them.

Now that we've dispensed with that bit of confusion, I'll address the issue more closely.

Broadcasters should not be fired for what they say. Radio hosts in particular have come under fire for saying things that are perceived to be racist or otherwise "wrong". This is the most absurd situation ever, because people have an ultimate voice - they can turn off their radio if they do not like what they are hearing.

Am I saying that broadcasters should be able to say whatever they want over the airwaves? Absolutely I am.

[simple simon]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Broadcasters should not be fired for what they say. Radio hosts in particular have come under fire for saying things that are perceived to be racist or otherwise "wrong". This is the most absurd situation ever, because people have an ultimate voice - they can turn off their radio if they do not like what they are hearing.

and if enough people turn off the radio .... that station starts to lose money .... wouldnt it just make sense for the station manager to fire that host and hire someone that makes people tune in and not turn off ?

Am I saying that broadcasters should be able to say whatever they want over the airwaves? Absolutely I am.

no way ...... the employer has the ultimate say ....... 'he with the gold makes the rules'

[Charlatan]

Braodcasters have obligations to the public, to not offend them or cause them grief. If a story harms or causes people grief, it shouldn't be aired therefore, so by them saying these true things they are breaking the law. That means the law is not truthful, or that the truth is not lawful.

Let's look at it like this, you say something. You are protected in saying that as freedom of speach, sure, but you have said it, therefore you are liable. Should a broadcasting person not say it, they would be fired. If they say it they are fired. So they got one choice, to offend or get into trouble themselves. Choice left to me I wouldn't lose my job, I would let the company get called and held accountable for the news that comes via the public. People report a story and it then should get screened, but oftern people take the buying power of the story into account. Now money to the braodcaster speaks volumes, so they would definatley choose to offend and get paid too. They are breaking the law, but it is the truth. They are criminals for doing the 'right' thing. Any crime morally correct - in that culture - shouldn't be a offence, so the law is at fault if they are prosecuted, because the law says they may speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in some places, and they are testifying as to what has happened, so the broadcaster is in the right while offending the public.

Sometimes people can't help but be subject to the media, so they are not in control. People can't choose what gets aired, but they do in a way by what they buy and watch, so the public is choosing what may offend it by the weight of their 'vote'. The public is therefore to blame, in a way. If some broadcaster wants to take a gamble with a comment, it is relevant to the story being told, as they are supposed to interpret it for the public. Broadcasters are members of the public too, so they also know what is taboo and not. The fact that the legal system is lagging behind is not their fault, as we all know what we want.

[JLrep]

Quote by: Charlatan Braodcasters have obligations to the public, to not offend them or cause them grief.

This is only true for broadcasts that are for entertainment purposes. It is absolutely untrue for news and personal opinion broadcasts.

[simple simon]

Quote by: JLrep This is only true for broadcasts that are for entertainment purposes. It is absolutely untrue for news and personal opinion broadcasts.

so you believe Don Imus should not have been fired ? ..... after all .. he read news and offered personal opinion

[JLrep]

Quote by: simple simon so you believe Don Imus should not have been fired ? ..... after all .. he read news and offered personal opinion

I don't know enough about that particular case to say for sure. The Wikipedia page for his show suggests that it's mostly for comedy, in which case offending his listeners is likely against his intended purpose.

[lsbskins1]

As a philosophical point, it is true that the government does not grant rights. A right is something imutable. But when it comes down to brass tacks, you can not excercise the right if the government does not legally protect that right. To protect it, it must define it, so on the practical level, you have no ability to exercise a right that is not secured. A woman living in Saudia Arabia may philosophically have the right to drive a car, but if she exercises the right, she will be sanctioned by the state. So, though having the right, she has no practical ability to exercise it. In that fashion, citizens are dependent on the state for the exercising of their rights. Just a practical truth. Some of you people need to learn to integrate that truth into your reasoning.

That being said, freedom of speech does not equal freedom to say anything, anywhere, any time. A radio station can fire someone for saying something they feel will cost them revenue. That is the market at work. If you ran a Christian broadcasting station and hired a DJ who proceeded to anounce every morning that Jesus was a punk who got what he had coming to him, you could and should fire him. If this same DJ wanted to write a book saying the same thing, found a publisher willing to print it and stores willing to sell it, there would be no justification for banning the publication. That is the essence of freedom of speech. The idea or the concept is free to compete in the marketplace, but no market is bound to support every conceivable idea.

[lsbskins1]

Just as a next day, realized I should add this, thought continuation: The people have the right to act on the market through the law. It is a part of a free market. So, if the people demand a law that says no market can exclude someone because of the color of their skin or a law that says no market can employ children, they are free to do that as well. The law is the mechanism that secures all of our rights and enforces all of the limitations free citizens see fit to impose. It is a delecate ballance, to be sure, but one that is necessary and good. Perfect? Not even close. But people run it, so it can't be perfect.

[Athena]

Quote by: simple simon so many seem to have misconceptions about free speech seems weekly there is a news story about someone saying or writing something stupid and being fired ...... inevitably folks will come out of the woodwork complain that this persons free speech rights have been violated 'it's not fair they were fired' they say ..... 'what about free speech' they ask trouble is they dont seem to realize how free speech works .... the right to free speech only applies when the government tries to intervene with you communicating your views ........ your employer has every right to fire you if you say something stupid now i know most here will say ..... 'well duh' ...... but you know as well as i do there are always those that love to cry foul when there is no foul do you think it is ok for employees to have consequences for what they say ?

Freedom of speech was a socially inforced reality when we had liberal education and public education taught the principles of democracy. It was not enforced by government, but by a culture that understood both virtues, and the importance of freedom of speech to our liberty.

We have dramatically changed our culture in a most unfortunate way with education for technology, which leads people think everything has a right or wrong answer, and at the same time is amoral. We are in such a mess! Part of this is not knowing what virtues have to do with not being in this mess. Not understanding only highly moral people can have liberty, and that that morality is determined secularly.

No one should be fired for what s/he says. We also shouldn't pick our noses in a restaruant, or pee on the table cloth, or cuss on most jobs. These social rules do not need laws and law enforcers, because we are social animals, and as such, unless we are suffering a serious mental disorder, we conduct ourselves in socially appropriate ways. Now if someone has no self control and can not conduct him/her self in a socially approrpriate way, then being fired is about more than a petty infraction that is as unfortunately as farting at the wrong time.

[Athena]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Just as a next day, realized I should add this, thought continuation: The people have the right to act on the market through the law. It is a part of a free market. So, if the people demand a law that says no market can exclude someone because of the color of their skin or a law that says no market can employ children, they are free to do that as well. The law is the mechanism that secures all of our rights and enforces all of the limitations free citizens see fit to impose. It is a delecate ballance, to be sure, but one that is necessary and good. Perfect? Not even close. But people run it, so it can't be perfect.

No way can people regulate everything with laws and have liberty! What many of you are trying to regulate with laws, needs to managed through culture, not laws.

Volconvo, began pretty offensive for awhile, because the rules were not enforced. People were viciously attacking each other, and for sure it brought out the worst in me. It can be fun to burn people. There was social status in burning people, like scoring a touch down in football. If this becomes a power stuggle between moderators who try to elimate the anti social behavior and the posters, things get ugly, and injustices follow. No one learns anything. However, if together the people agree on a set of values that should be followed, they will enforce these values in social way. This method, heightens learning, as what is objectionable is discussed. This is why I repeatedly object to actions taken that inhibit freedom of speech. It is the learning from discussion that is all important to democracy and liberty.

What kind of people do we want to be? How do we want people to feel when they come here and read what we say? What are our social rules and why? And if someone new violates this code of conduct, who is responsible for teaching the code, and socializing the new comer? EVERYONE, that is democracy and it works very well, because it is compatible with our nature as social animals.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Athena No way can people regulate everything with laws and have liberty! What many of you trying to regulate with laws, needs to managed through culture, not laws.

Well, that is a good theory on paper if your mind is mired in utopian ideals, but not so practical when it comes to being, oh - say... black in Mississippi in the civil rights era. The "culture" of the time said it was just fine to treat blacks as inferior and refuse to allow them the same basic rights as whites. Liberty is secured through law. See the above posts!

[Winter wind]

do you think it is ok for employees to have consequences for what they say ?

It really depends. It isn't alright for an employer to fire someone because they draw attention to illegal acts made by the company (called the whistle blower act). However, if you are, say, working for a politician, and go to a reporter and say the politician secretly wants to negotiate on a bill. That's compromising a policy.

Freedom of speech may not be a right, but it is expected of any employer.

[Athena]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I am afraid that you are the one who does not understand how free speech works. Freedom of speech is, or should be, a human right, not just a right granted by government - there are no such things as rights granted by government. The government, by virtue of the social contract, has powers to infringe upon some of our rights. We have decided that our basic right to free speech is not to be one of them. Now that we've dispensed with that bit of confusion, I'll address the issue more closely. Broadcasters should not be fired for what they say. Radio hosts in particular have come under fire for saying things that are perceived to be racist or otherwise "wrong". This is the most absurd situation ever, because people have an ultimate voice - they can turn off their radio if they do not like what they are hearing. Am I saying that broadcasters should be able to say whatever they want over the airwaves? Absolutely I am.

People who think they know absolute truth, can be absolutely dangerous.
Those who have freedom of speech, must also understand the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. When we first discovered AIDS we weren't sure how it was spread and some infected people were treated very badly. In ignorance we spead the idea that it was a homosexual disease, caused by God to punish homosexuals, and we kept selling contaminated blood, and spreading the disease, and were slow in noticing hetersexual people were speading the disease. When we speak, we better darn well consider the consequences of our words. We need to understand the laws of nature (how people will react to our words), the power of our words, and therefore, the responsibility we have when have freedom of speech.

We need to defend our democracy and our liberty, in the classroom, and modify the idea that freedom of speech is an absolute freedom.. Not because a boss, or the government, or a moderator will penalize us, but because of the law of nature, and that bad things follow, when we do something bad.

The War of the Worlds is an episode of the American radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air, which was performed as a Halloween special on October 30, 1938 and aired over the CBS Radio network. Directed by Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells' classic novel The War of the Worlds. The first half of the 60 minute broadcast was presented as a series of news bulletins, and suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. There was public outcry against the episode, but it launched Welles to great fame. There is controversy about whether people panicked in the streets, and a series of urban legends have grown up around the production which suggest that major disturbances took place. Welles' adaptation is arguably the most well-known radio dramatic production in history. It was one of the Radio Project's first studies.

Wikipedia

[Athena]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well, that is a good theory on paper if your mind is mired in utopian ideals, but not so practical when it comes to being, oh - say... black in Mississippi in the civil rights era. The "culture" of the time said it was just fine to treat blacks as inferior and refuse to allow them the same basic rights as whites. Liberty is secured through law. See the above posts!

I am sure you believe you are being logically, but can we check that logic? Liberty is not secured by law. White southerns lost their liberty and so have people all over the country.

This problem with the South applying the principles of democracy only to their own race, is one of education. This was addressed soon after the Civil War. Southern education promoted aristocracy, not democracy, while in the North public education promoted democracy. The solution than and now is education for democracy, not an autocratic government that turns citizens into subjects.

[Athena]

Quote by: simple simon and if enough people turn off the radio .... that station starts to lose money .... wouldnt it just make sense for the station manager to fire that host and hire someone that makes people tune in and not turn off ? no way ...... the employer has the ultimate say ....... 'he with the gold makes the rules'

Firing someone for being unpopular and causing a bussiness verture to loose money is very different from firing someone for saying the wrong thing.

The employer does not have the ultimate right. No one has ultimate rights, because when we violate the laws of nature and do the wrong thing, things go bad. Our failure to teach for democracy, has devastated our democracy and liberty. We now think Christians have a sole right to God and morals, and understand not the concepts on which democracy is based. We must relearn what the laws of nature are, and our responsibility as citizens to live within the laws of nature. If the employer, or say owners of forums, believe they have the ultimate right to do as they please, they harm our democracy and liberty.

That is, if we do not all understand and practice the principles of democracy, we destroy it. How do I get this point across? We defend our liberty, by knowing and practicing the principles of democracy. Those who are not conscious of this, and hold they do have the ultimate right to do as they please, are pissing in their own swimming pool. That is, in the long run, they destroy not only the liberty of those beneath them, but also their own, and no matter how much money we spend on weapons, our liberty and freedom is not protected.

[Stizzles]

If the employer, or say owners of forums, believe they have the ultimate right to do as they please, they harm our democracy and liberty.

Yes, but the decision to broadcast or store information through systems that you own belongs to you. It is when you deny people their ability to make such decisions that you truly to violence to liberty.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan Freedom of speech is, or should be, a human right, not just a right granted by government - there are no such things as rights granted by government.

Operative phrase -- "or should be,"

Human rights exist only if a particular government allows them to exist.

Quote by: tivodan Broadcasters should not be fired for what they say. Radio hosts in particular have come under fire for saying things that are perceived to be racist or otherwise "wrong". This is the most absurd situation ever, because people have an ultimate voice - they can turn off their radio if they do not like what they are hearing.

Nonsense... if I run... say... a Christian radio station, and sell advertising as such, and a DJ starts preaching atheism, I have every right in the world to fire them. Their "speech" is in direct opposition to the clearly defined job we hired them to do. It's no different than if I hired you to sell shoes and then you spent your time setting the shoe displays on fire. That's not the job you were hired to do.

Quote by: simple simon so you believe Don Imus should not have been fired ? ..... after all .. he read news and offered personal opinion

Imagine that, instead of Don Imus, they'd originally hired his half-brother, Jon Imus. But unlike Don, Jon is just plain dead boring as a DJ. No one listens and advertisers refuse to buy time. The station can certainly fire him, right? Failure to perform his job in a satisfactory manner. Same with brother Don. And although Imus could say that his outrageous conduct was exactly why the station had hired him, the station could also argue that there was a line where conduct that was too outrageous became injurious to the welfare of business and that Imus had an obligation not to cross that line. And if his speech harms the business, he can certainly be fired for it. He can't burn the inventory.

.

[SoylentGreen]

simple simon do you think it is ok for employees to have consequences for what they say ?

The imaginary example of a broadcaster given is interesting. But in todays world there is more than one way to broadcast . The net offers ample oppurtunity for any one to broadcast a view and how does that effect employer / employee relationship and the freedom of speech.

Instead of a hypothetical example , here is a real life example

AGAINST THE CURRENT: THE WAREHOUSE: WHERE EVERYONE GETS A CRAP JOB!

Working at The Warehouse, New Zealand's version of Wal-Mart is not exactly an enriching experience. At the place 'where everyone gets a bargain' the wages are low and the work is monotonous. The Warehouse posted a $115.5 million profit this year. But employees who don't buy the management propaganda about The Warehouse being a great place to work with plenty of 'career opportunities' get short shrift from the company that claims on its website that it supports its 'terrific team of people'. Deena Pawson from Whangarei got the sack from The Warehouse after posting some uncomplimentary comments about her employer on her Bedo page. She said that 'work sux' and working to midnight was 'gay like the management'. 'Gay' is popular slang for something that is rubbish or hopeless. What Deena didn't know was that her boss was reading her Bedo page and promptly sacked her for 'serious misconduct'. We'd like to know why her boss was reading her page in the first place. We say, well done Deena for speaking out against your crap job!

[xyzer]

Full free speech is not guaranteed by the US laws and constitution..it is protected!. By that I mean one can't yell fire in a public enclosure causing panic and fatalities without encountering some type sanction.? Nor can one directly slander or demean someone else unfairly without penalty or at least allowing the person damaged to go to court and seek redress. Of course many leftist, antiwar protestors call our president a murderer and get away with it?

I think our society has come too far down the road of political correctness. Anything one says can be interpreted as possibly ijurious to some person, group or victim class. It doesn't seem to matter if its jocular or intentionally demeaning.. For example the term 'nappy headed hos" and the joke i"if Obama wins the presidency it wont be a Whitehouse"? Lately such joking banter in TV, Radio and even public appearances has been punished in what I would term a violation of the First Amendment!.

What bothers me with this dangerous trend is that there a millions of us with different sensivities and feelings, who can disapprove of other persons comments and its a dangerous thing to punish innocent kidding, and joking? It's insane to allow easily offended cranks to influence a censorship of speechZ? The word 'nigger', for example is absolutely forbidden in general society but is commonly used in the ghetto? A picture of a noose(lynching knot0 on a piece of rope is shameful and punishable even if used as a spoof? And on and on?