Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 22, 2015 18:40:03 GMT -5
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences What does freedom of speech mean, then?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 22, 2015 18:55:23 GMT -5
Essentially, it is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. The government (or other authority) may restrict certain speech under certain circumstances, but generally does not restrict speech for content itself. Time and place allowed may be restricted but that is less a violation of the concept than regulating content.
Private organizations may restrict whatever they wish, as can most public ones. There is no freedom of speech related to anything other than governmental intrusion or punishment. Legal speech can often violate other codes of conduct, and there is no protection afforded it in those instances.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 6:03:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2015 19:15:23 GMT -5
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences What does freedom of speech mean, then? Freedom of speech means the government will not censor you or punish you for your speech. Certainly you can suffer consequences from your fellow citizens for what you say. People seem to confuse other people and government.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 22, 2015 19:17:17 GMT -5
Essentially, it is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. The government (or other authority) may restrict certain speech under certain circumstances, but generally does not restrict speech for content itself. Time and place allowed may be restricted but that is less a violation of the concept than regulating content.
Private organizations may restrict whatever they wish, as can most public ones. There is no freedom of speech related to anything other than governmental intrusion or punishment. Legal speech can often violate other codes of conduct, and there is no protection afforded it in those instances. Fair enough. On to question 2: As a private organization, are there any types of speech (not already prohibited by government) that I cannot prohibit?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 22, 2015 19:18:31 GMT -5
What does freedom of speech mean, then? Freedom of speech means the government will not censor you or punish you for your speech. Certainly you can suffer consequences from your fellow citizens for what you say. People seem to confuse other people and government. I know, hickle. This is a Socratic exercise in pinning down Tall to a viewpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 6:03:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2015 19:20:27 GMT -5
Freedom of speech means the government will not censor you or punish you for your speech. Certainly you can suffer consequences from your fellow citizens for what you say. People seem to confuse other people and government. I know, hickle. This is a Socratic exercise in pinning down Tall to a viewpoint. Good luck.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 22, 2015 19:43:29 GMT -5
Essentially, it is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. The government (or other authority) may restrict certain speech under certain circumstances, but generally does not restrict speech for content itself. Time and place allowed may be restricted but that is less a violation of the concept than regulating content.
Private organizations may restrict whatever they wish, as can most public ones. There is no freedom of speech related to anything other than governmental intrusion or punishment. Legal speech can often violate other codes of conduct, and there is no protection afforded it in those instances. Fair enough. On to question 2: As a private organization, are there any types of speech (not already prohibited by government) that I cannot prohibit? I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Yes. I am anticipating the attempted, "Gotcha!" to come....
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 22, 2015 19:47:32 GMT -5
Fair enough. On to question 2: As a private organization, are there any types of speech (not already prohibited by government) that I cannot prohibit? I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Yes. I am anticipating the attempted, "Gotcha!" to come.... LOL! Waiting for that "Gotcha!" is half the fun. One is often tempted to go fishing for one ... not that I'd ever consider doing that, of course ...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 22, 2015 19:51:31 GMT -5
I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Yes. I am anticipating the attempted, "Gotcha!" to come.... LOL! Waiting for that "Gotcha!" is half the fun. One is often tempted to go fishing for one ... not that I'd ever consider doing that, of course ... Sad, though, that one knows it will be coming before the person even acknowledges it....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2015 9:16:06 GMT -5
here is an interesting article on free speech at college. i don't think it is all that interesting. the whole argument presented boils down to this syllogism: hate speech is free speech campuses discourage hate speech therefore campuses discourage free speech the only problem with that syllogism is that the first premise is highly controversial. by presenting it as if it was a priori, they are really jumping the shark.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2015 9:16:59 GMT -5
Freedom of speech means the government will not censor you or punish you for your speech. Certainly you can suffer consequences from your fellow citizens for what you say. People seem to confuse other people and government. I know, hickle. This is a Socratic exercise in pinning down Tall to a viewpoint. he has a viewpoint. you just don't get it. that's fine. but don't make it seem like it is HIS problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2015 9:20:28 GMT -5
Fair enough. On to question 2: As a private organization, are there any types of speech (not already prohibited by government) that I cannot prohibit? I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?) i think this is precisely why the fact that free speech is not a right of members of a private institution is not seriously debated for precisely this reason. if you can be made a non-member simply for exercising that "right", then you don't have it. and that is why when i was told during the Iraq War protests that i should "love or leave" my country, my response was always the same: "i have the freedom to say what i wish here, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it." citizenship is a PUBLIC institution.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 23, 2015 12:02:21 GMT -5
I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?) i think this is precisely why the fact that free speech is not a right of members of a private institution is not seriously debated for precisely this reason. if you can be made a non-member simply for exercising that "right", then you don't have it. and that is why when i was told during the Iraq War protests that i should "love or leave" my country, my response was always the same: "i have the freedom to say what i wish here, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it." citizenship is a PUBLIC institution. You realize that Tall et. al.'s viewpoint (also mine, although mine extends further) is that free speech laws don't apply to private institutions putting the whammy on members, students, etc., and that these institutions very much can say, "I don't like your criticism of the Iraq war, hence you're no longer a student."? That's what this is about. And it is being seriously debated. As a wise man once said: if you can't figure out why it's being seriously debated, that's your problem, not ours. As for your response, tallguy, I'll be able to give you a proper follow-up later this evening.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2015 12:56:44 GMT -5
i think this is precisely why the fact that free speech is not a right of members of a private institution is not seriously debated for precisely this reason. if you can be made a non-member simply for exercising that "right", then you don't have it. and that is why when i was told during the Iraq War protests that i should "love or leave" my country, my response was always the same: "i have the freedom to say what i wish here, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it." citizenship is a PUBLIC institution. You realize that Tall et. al.'s viewpoint (also mine, although mine extends further) is that free speech laws don't apply to private institutions putting the whammy on members, students, etc., and that these institutions very much can say, "I don't like your criticism of the Iraq war, hence you're no longer a student."? That's what this is about. And it is being seriously debated. As a wise man once said: if you can't figure out why it's being seriously debated, that's your problem, not ours. As for your response, tallguy, I'll be able to give you a proper follow-up later this evening. i understand that this is a discussion about the free speech rights in public -vs- private institutions. it doesn't matter one stitch to me whether the private institutions are colleges, businesses, or santanist guilds. all the same same. so yeah, i get it. sorry to blow your "gotcha" moment. not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 23, 2015 21:42:07 GMT -5
You realize that Tall et. al.'s viewpoint (also mine, although mine extends further) is that free speech laws don't apply to private institutions putting the whammy on members, students, etc., and that these institutions very much can say, "I don't like your criticism of the Iraq war, hence you're no longer a student."? That's what this is about. And it is being seriously debated. As a wise man once said: if you can't figure out why it's being seriously debated, that's your problem, not ours. As for your response, tallguy, I'll be able to give you a proper follow-up later this evening. i understand that this is a discussion about the free speech rights in public -vs- private institutions. it doesn't matter one stitch to me whether the private institutions are colleges, businesses, or santanist guilds. all the same same. so yeah, i get it. sorry to blow your "gotcha" moment. not. So... what is your position? Are you going to break ranks with the Axis and argue that the UOK shouldn't be able to can the students for singing a racist song during a bus trip, or are you going to fall into step and agree with Tall's "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" assessment? It'd be fun to watch you and Tall go at it for once. It'd be like one head on a hydra snapping at another one. We'd all get to watch a monster fight itself.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 23, 2015 22:22:16 GMT -5
Fair enough. On to question 2: As a private organization, are there any types of speech (not already prohibited by government) that I cannot prohibit? I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Can my pro-Republican boss fire me for putting up a "Vote Democrat!" sign on my lawn? Should I face the consequences for my actions in that case? What about in the home? Can the contract for my employees stipulate that they may never say anything favourable about snow leopards, and that they must provide me with read access to their personal Facebook accounts so that I can monitor them to ensure compliance? Would the courts allow that in your opinion? Should they? What if the speech I choose to prohibit discriminates against one of the US's protected groups? Suppose I make it a requirement for entering my university that applicants must not have added their names to "nobody is illegal" petitions sent to the White House, and it so happens that 85% of all these names are Hispanic individuals. Would the courts back me if somebody complained? You're sure there are no limits as to what speech employers, universities, etc. can restrict? Yes. I am anticipating the attempted, "Gotcha!" to come.... "Gotcha!" is the term DJ uses to describe the exact moment his argument collapses, which is somehow the fault of the person(s) who probed it to the point of collapse. Incidentally, this isn't a "gotcha" exercise. It's a "pin down" exercise that may assist in potential future "gotchas", should circumstances change slightly and you decide to switch sides on the issue.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 23, 2015 22:53:42 GMT -5
i understand that this is a discussion about the free speech rights in public -vs- private institutions. it doesn't matter one stitch to me whether the private institutions are colleges, businesses, or santanist guilds. all the same same. so yeah, i get it. sorry to blow your "gotcha" moment. not. So... what is your position? Are you going to break ranks with the Axis and argue that the UOK shouldn't be able to can the students for singing a racist song during a bus trip, or are you going to fall into step and agree with Tall's "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" assessment? It'd be fun to watch you and Tall go at it for once. It'd be like one head on a hydra snapping at another one. We'd all get to watch a monster fight itself. Why should dj and I be expected to differ greatly? Both of us reach our positions on roughly the same starting basis: A belief in individual liberties subject to the provision that you do not infringe on the rights of others in asserting your own. Both of us being intelligent and logical, while insisting that the logic not be twisted or subverted by the desire to reach and justify a certain conclusion, we are going to agree often. That tends to happen when you are on the right side of an answer.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 23, 2015 23:16:05 GMT -5
I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Can my pro-Republican boss fire me for putting up a "Vote Democrat!" sign on my lawn? Should I face the consequences for my actions in that case? What about in the home? Can the contract for my employees stipulate that they may never say anything favourable about snow leopards, and that they must provide me with read access to their personal Facebook accounts so that I can monitor them to ensure compliance? Would the courts allow that in your opinion? Should they? What if the speech I choose to prohibit discriminates against one of the US's protected groups? Suppose I make it a requirement for entering my university that applicants must not have added their names to "nobody is illegal" petitions sent to the White House, and it so happens that 85% of all these names are Hispanic individuals. Would the courts back me if somebody complained? You're sure there are no limits as to what speech employers, universities, etc. can restrict? Incidentally, this isn't a "gotcha" exercise. It's a "pin down" exercise that may assist in potential future "gotchas", should circumstances change slightly and you decide to switch sides on the issue. In the first two cases, I would suggest that an employer can choose to terminate for any non-protected reason. However, both of these would be indicative of an extremely short-sighted business owner if they are willing to a productive worker over something so ridiculous and not related to the actual work. The insistence that the worker must provide access to the Facebook account may possibly stand as a condition for being hired, but likely would not stand as a justification for termination after one is already working there.
In the third case, if you establish your own university and accept no public monies in running it, I would suggest that you can require whatever you wish as a condition of admittance.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 23, 2015 23:22:42 GMT -5
Can my pro-Republican boss fire me for putting up a "Vote Democrat!" sign on my lawn? Should I face the consequences for my actions in that case? What about in the home? Can the contract for my employees stipulate that they may never say anything favourable about snow leopards, and that they must provide me with read access to their personal Facebook accounts so that I can monitor them to ensure compliance? Would the courts allow that in your opinion? Should they? What if the speech I choose to prohibit discriminates against one of the US's protected groups? Suppose I make it a requirement for entering my university that applicants must not have added their names to "nobody is illegal" petitions sent to the White House, and it so happens that 85% of all these names are Hispanic individuals. Would the courts back me if somebody complained? You're sure there are no limits as to what speech employers, universities, etc. can restrict? I will restrict my answers to the US:
Yes- your Republican boss can fire you for putting a vote democrat sign on your lawn.
Yes- your employer can stipulate your adherence to an anti-snow leopard agenda and require a password to your social media accounts.
You would be screwed if you screened your applicants for NAACP memberships.
But heard on the radio today Home Depot fired a guy that had ISIS tattooed on his inner lip- never mind that his girlfriend of 4 years ago was named ISIS. Never mind you can't generally see the inner lip of a clerk.........
Free speech in the USA only applies to government actions- private companies can do pretty much whatever the hell they want unless the law states they can't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 4:18:58 GMT -5
So... what is your position? Are you going to break ranks with the Axis and argue that the UOK shouldn't be able to can the students for singing a racist song during a bus trip, or are you going to fall into step and agree with Tall's "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" assessment? It'd be fun to watch you and Tall go at it for once. It'd be like one head on a hydra snapping at another one. We'd all get to watch a monster fight itself. Why should dj and I be expected to differ greatly? Both of us reach our positions on roughly the same starting basis: A belief in individual liberties subject to the provision that you do not infringe on the rights of others in asserting your own. Both of us being intelligent and logical, while insisting that the logic not be twisted or subverted by the desire to reach and justify a certain conclusion, we are going to agree often. That tends to happen when you are on the right side of an answer.
You appear to have it all figured out, Pau Tall. Your views actually differ quite a bit from DJ's, with this thread being one example. The rub is that you don't debate each other. You've both been here long enough to prove it's not for lack of opportunities. You deliberately avoid criticizing each other's positions, possibly to eliminate any chance of hurt feelings. Just once I'd like to see DJ's tirelessness and "definition chess" stratagem go head to head with your indefatigable self-confidence (rivaled only by Paul, which is one of the reasons you resent him so much).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 4:22:33 GMT -5
Can my pro-Republican boss fire me for putting up a "Vote Democrat!" sign on my lawn? Should I face the consequences for my actions in that case? What about in the home? Can the contract for my employees stipulate that they may never say anything favourable about snow leopards, and that they must provide me with read access to their personal Facebook accounts so that I can monitor them to ensure compliance? Would the courts allow that in your opinion? Should they? What if the speech I choose to prohibit discriminates against one of the US's protected groups? Suppose I make it a requirement for entering my university that applicants must not have added their names to "nobody is illegal" petitions sent to the White House, and it so happens that 85% of all these names are Hispanic individuals. Would the courts back me if somebody complained? You're sure there are no limits as to what speech employers, universities, etc. can restrict? Incidentally, this isn't a "gotcha" exercise. It's a "pin down" exercise that may assist in potential future "gotchas", should circumstances change slightly and you decide to switch sides on the issue. In the first two cases, I would suggest that an employer can choose to terminate for any non-protected reason. However, both of these would be indicative of an extremely short-sighted business owner if they are willing to a productive worker over something so ridiculous and not related to the actual work. The insistence that the worker must provide access to the Facebook account may possibly stand as a condition for being hired, but likely would not stand as a justification for termination after one is already working there.
In the third case, if you establish your own university and accept no public monies in running it, I would suggest that you can require whatever you wish as a condition of admittance.
OK. Good. Very specific, and I agree with you. Let's pin down this last point. What about institutions that do accept public monies in running them, such as the UOK? Do they have the right to ban individuals or refuse membership under any of the three circumstances?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 9:33:03 GMT -5
Why should dj and I be expected to differ greatly? Both of us reach our positions on roughly the same starting basis: A belief in individual liberties subject to the provision that you do not infringe on the rights of others in asserting your own. Both of us being intelligent and logical, while insisting that the logic not be twisted or subverted by the desire to reach and justify a certain conclusion, we are going to agree often. That tends to happen when you are on the right side of an answer.
You appear to have it all figured out, Pau Tall. Your views actually differ quite a bit from DJ's, with this thread being one example. The rub is that you don't debate each other. You've both been here long enough to prove it's not for lack of opportunities. You deliberately avoid criticizing each other's positions, possibly to eliminate any chance of hurt feelings. Just once I'd like to see DJ's tirelessness and "definition chess" stratagem go head to head with your indefatigable self-confidence (rivaled only by Paul, which is one of the reasons you resent him so much). It is possible that we do not differ enough on those issues where I am willing to spend the time and effort debating, maybe? It is not a worry about hurt feelings, I can assure you.
And it is not Paul's self-confidence (arrogance?) that I "resent." Hell, I'm as arrogant as they come. I've got no problem with that. It is his hypocrisy and complete willingness to suspend truth in misrepresenting the other side to try and score a point that I despise.
Off to work, but I'll be back this evening.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 11:01:06 GMT -5
Well... Here's hoping he shows up to defend his viewpoint in this thread and I get to break out the popcorn for once.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2015 14:12:47 GMT -5
Why should dj and I be expected to differ greatly? Both of us reach our positions on roughly the same starting basis: A belief in individual liberties subject to the provision that you do not infringe on the rights of others in asserting your own. Both of us being intelligent and logical, while insisting that the logic not be twisted or subverted by the desire to reach and justify a certain conclusion, we are going to agree often. That tends to happen when you are on the right side of an answer.
You appear to have it all figured out, Pau Tall. Your views actually differ quite a bit from DJ's, with this thread being one example. The rub is that you don't debate each other. You've both been here long enough to prove it's not for lack of opportunities. You deliberately avoid criticizing each other's positions, possibly to eliminate any chance of hurt feelings. Just once I'd like to see DJ's tirelessness and "definition chess" stratagem go head to head with your indefatigable self-confidence (rivaled only by Paul, which is one of the reasons you resent him so much). begging your pardon, Virgil, but YOU are actually the "definitional chess" guy. i rely on accepted meanings as defined by the compendium of accepted meanings: the dictionary. YOU (and Paul, and a few others), on the other hand, rely on your own colloquialisms, culled from God Knows Where, to define terms to suit....whatever. to suit your worldview, i guess. and, candidly, i am really sick of it, which is why i spend so much time and energy here combating it. misuse of language for political reasons is not something i am ever going to tolerate, so if you want to have that debate ENDLESSLY, just bring it. otherwise, skip it- but keep in mind that the way YOU use words is not according to standard definitions, not me. the ONE time you caught me misusing a word, i corrected it and apologized. and i will do so at every future occurrence. NEVER have you done so, Virgil. NEVER. and you never will. because you seem to think you have it all right. getting back to the actual discussion, i don't think tall and i disagree on this at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2015 14:14:24 GMT -5
I've never really concerned myself with that question so haven't examined it, but as an off-the-top-of-my-head response: As a private organization (and within the confines of that organization) I would think it doubtful. That could have been inferred from my previous post where I said they could restrict whatever they wished. They very well may want to ensure that any speech within said organization never became public knowledge. The public can inflict its own consequences on a group, as can any other associated entities.
Really though, the question seems to have little meaning if the group could simply expel a member if they chose. How much "right" is there to belong to a private organization if your viewpoint conflicts? Right? (Or did I misunderstand your question?)
Can my pro-Republican boss fire me for putting up a "Vote Democrat!" sign on my lawn? Should I face the consequences for my actions in that case? What about in the home? Can the contract for my employees stipulate that they may never say anything favourable about snow leopards, and that they must provide me with read access to their personal Facebook accounts so that I can monitor them to ensure compliance? Would the courts allow that in your opinion? Should they? What if the speech I choose to prohibit discriminates against one of the US's protected groups? Suppose I make it a requirement for entering my university that applicants must not have added their names to "nobody is illegal" petitions sent to the White House, and it so happens that 85% of all these names are Hispanic individuals. Would the courts back me if somebody complained? You're sure there are no limits as to what speech employers, universities, etc. can restrict? Yes. I am anticipating the attempted, "Gotcha!" to come.... "Gotcha!" is the term DJ uses to describe the exact moment his argument collapses, which is somehow the fault of the person(s) who probed it to the point of collapse. Incidentally, this isn't a "gotcha" exercise. It's a "pin down" exercise that may assist in potential future "gotchas", should circumstances change slightly and you decide to switch sides on the issue. no. GOTCHA! is the term i use to describe when YOU make a straw man argument, and declare victory on a subject that i am not even debating.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2015 14:16:32 GMT -5
Well... Here's hoping he shows up to defend his viewpoint in this thread and I get to break out the popcorn for once. i have been on vacation for 2 weeks. i don't even know what you are talking about, right now, but if i have time, i will go discover it. in the mean time, put down the popcorn, and have some more nutritious food. you will be waiting a while. maybe forever, if i discover you are making one of your ridiculous straw man arguments.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2015 14:18:41 GMT -5
i understand that this is a discussion about the free speech rights in public -vs- private institutions. it doesn't matter one stitch to me whether the private institutions are colleges, businesses, or santanist guilds. all the same same. so yeah, i get it. sorry to blow your "gotcha" moment. not. So... what is your position? Are you going to break ranks with the Axis and argue that the UOK shouldn't be able to can the students for singing a racist song during a bus trip, or are you going to fall into step and agree with Tall's "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" assessment? It'd be fun to watch you and Tall go at it for once. It'd be like one head on a hydra snapping at another one. We'd all get to watch a monster fight itself. i have already stated my position at least once. private institutions have no free speech rights whatsoever. public institutions do. how is that not completely clear?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 20:28:14 GMT -5
You appear to have it all figured out, Pau Tall. Your views actually differ quite a bit from DJ's, with this thread being one example. The rub is that you don't debate each other. You've both been here long enough to prove it's not for lack of opportunities. You deliberately avoid criticizing each other's positions, possibly to eliminate any chance of hurt feelings. Just once I'd like to see DJ's tirelessness and "definition chess" stratagem go head to head with your indefatigable self-confidence (rivaled only by Paul, which is one of the reasons you resent him so much). getting back to the actual discussion, i don't think tall and i disagree on this at all. I didn't think we were very far apart either, and was actually wondering what Virgil saw that I didn't.
As a general rule, though, it is true that you and I don't really debate much. The first (and most obvious) reason is that we are usually at at least a fairly high level of agreement. The other (and this is more for Virgil's benefit) is that I don't get the same enjoyment from the discussion process as DJ does. If I get heavily involved in a discussion, it is generally more to combat what I see as wrong-headed thinking. And there is ALWAYS someone FAR more wrong (than DJ would ever be) to focus on.
To borrow a phrase, 'All that is necessary for idiocy to triumph is for smart men to say nothing.' There will always be those who agree with you, and those who disagree with you. My concern is that those in the middle not be persuaded the other way because the nonsense and bullsh** is louder or more pervasive.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 20:41:19 GMT -5
In the first two cases, I would suggest that an employer can choose to terminate for any non-protected reason. However, both of these would be indicative of an extremely short-sighted business owner if they are willing to a productive worker over something so ridiculous and not related to the actual work. The insistence that the worker must provide access to the Facebook account may possibly stand as a condition for being hired, but likely would not stand as a justification for termination after one is already working there.
In the third case, if you establish your own university and accept no public monies in running it, I would suggest that you can require whatever you wish as a condition of admittance.
OK. Good. Very specific, and I agree with you.Let's pin down this last point. What about institutions that do accept public monies in running them, such as the UOK? Do they have the right to ban individuals or refuse membership under any of the three circumstances? I'm not sure why you would be surprised. Didn't I say ten pages ago that I pretty much agreed with your take on the matter?
As an aside, and in the interest of clarity, can we agree on an abbreviation for the school? This was at the University of Oklahoma. They actually go by OU when abbreviated. If I see something non-standard like UOK I'm thinking something like University of Kentucky (even though they actually go by UK.) It would be clearer. Thanks.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 20:52:21 GMT -5
So... what is your position? Are you going to break ranks with the Axis and argue that the UOK shouldn't be able to can the students for singing a racist song during a bus trip, or are you going to fall into step and agree with Tall's "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" assessment? It'd be fun to watch you and Tall go at it for once. It'd be like one head on a hydra snapping at another one. We'd all get to watch a monster fight itself. i have already stated my position at least once. private institutions have no free speech rights whatsoever. public institutions do. how is that not completely clear? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that only public institutions have limitations on what speech they can restrict?
|
|