Whose Free Speech Rights have been violated?

[Rigby5]

{...

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

...}

[...

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he’d have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.


...}


Freedom of speech is not a privilege created by government. It is a pre-existing, essential, individual right that any valid government had better enforce, or else that government does not deserve to exist.

 

[forkup]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

Define arbitrary? For instance, I work in the petrochemical industry. As you can imagine being under the influence isn't a good thing when working in high-risk environments. In your example, you mentioned smoking pot. Although I wouldn't be fired for doing so, I would be put on the non-active list. That is not arbitrary. Neither is being fired for saying something offensive.

I'm personally not easily insulted and I would not fire somebody for something like that. On the other hand, the right does exist.

Also, you keep on using the word "cancelling". What do you mean by that? Is it being fired? Is it being kicked off Twitter? Is it being called an asshole by someone like me? Is it all of the above?

As I mentioned before. I support the right of everybody to say whatever they please. I also support the inverse. Namely the right for people to respond to what you say.

 

[forkup]

{...

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

...}

[...

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he’d have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.


...}


Freedom of speech is not a privilege created by government. It is a pre-existing, essential, individual right that any valid government had better enforce, or else that government does not deserve to exist.

Seems to me that the government is enforcing freedom of speech. It defends an individuals right to speak and other peoples right to react to that speech.

As far as I can tell this whole "cancel" narrative is about defending people's right to speak but condemning other peoples right to respond to that speech.

 

[NightFox]

Case 1: Sometime in 1936, Ivan Kuznetsov was drunk and joked about Stalin with his friends. Two of his "friends" denounced him and in 1937 he was sentenced to 5 years hard labor.


Case 2: Sometime in 2020, John Smith smoked marijuana and told a politically incorrect joke to his friend over Zoom. His "friend" doxxed him and in 2021 he was cancelled, fired, and blacklisted.

Stalin's government was clearly involved in Kuznetsov's imprisonment. Which government department denied Smith any free speech rights?

You have it backwards.
Smith has a right to freedom of political expression, so was under the protection of laws that say the employer should be sued.
Stalin had passed sedition laws making it illegal to joke about his as being a threat to the security of the country, so what happened to Kuznetsov was perfectly legal.

No. Again, our freedom of speech protects from interference in our speech by government. Not individuals or businesses. You really should educate yourself.

FYI:
Rights don't come from government; they're endowed by virtue of our humanity or if you prefer are "endowed by their creator".

Government either protects those rights (to a variable degree), obstruct those rights (to a variable degree) or some combination of the two.

Thus an argument can be made that in both instances cited by the OP, the subjects right to free speech has been violated.

 

[BULLDOG]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

I'm guessing you don't know about "right to work" states.

 

[Rigby5]

{...

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

...}

[...

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he’d have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.


...}


Freedom of speech is not a privilege created by government. It is a pre-existing, essential, individual right that any valid government had better enforce, or else that government does not deserve to exist.

Seems to me that the government is enforcing freedom of speech. It defends an individuals right to speak and other peoples right to react to that speech.

As far as I can tell this whole "cancel" narrative is about defending people's right to speak but condemning other peoples right to respond to that speech.

It is clearly inherently illegal to censor based on your own personal disagreement, to discriminate in a business open to the public, and it is inherently illegal to fire people whose political opinions you do not agree with.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. Again, our freedom of speech protects from interference in our speech by government. Not individuals or businesses. You really should educate yourself.

Freedom of speech is not the sole prerogative of hookers and prostitutes.
A man in a suited and tied profession needs to say whatever he wants without fear of being fired for his political opinions.

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities – such as an employer/employee relationship.

A conservative employee fired because of his hateful, racist comments has not had his freedom of speech ‘violated’ by the employer.

If government were to enact a law making it illegal to engage in racist hate speech, where citizens would be subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Wrong.
Free speech has NEVER been just relating to government.
It has never been legal to fire people based on their expression of political beliefs.
An employer can tell people to not bring up politics during work hours so that it does not reduce productivity, but that is all. If a person expresses political beliefs off works, they can not be fired for it, and never could.
That has always been illegal and always protected.

You're an idiot, and don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Rigby5]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

I'm guessing you don't know about "right to work" states.

Right to work laws means you can't be forced to join a union in a closed shop.
It does not mean the employer can illegally discriminate against employees or customers, for any reason beyond it if harms business.
For example, a restaurant can discriminate on how you are dressed based on it harming business from other customers leaving.
But they can not refuse to wait on someone due to a political message on a shirt or hat.

 

[BULLDOG]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

I'm guessing you don't know about "right to work" states.

Right to work laws means you can't be forced to join a union in a closed shop.
It does not mean the employer can illegally discriminate against employees or customers, for any reason beyond it if harms business.
For example, a restaurant can discriminate on how you are dressed based on it harming business from other customers leaving.
But they can not refuse to wait on someone due to a political message on a shirt or hat.

Educate yourself dumb ass.

 

[Rigby5]

No. Again, our freedom of speech protects from interference in our speech by government. Not individuals or businesses. You really should educate yourself.

Freedom of speech is not the sole prerogative of hookers and prostitutes.
A man in a suited and tied profession needs to say whatever he wants without fear of being fired for his political opinions.

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities – such as an employer/employee relationship.

A conservative employee fired because of his hateful, racist comments has not had his freedom of speech ‘violated’ by the employer.

If government were to enact a law making it illegal to engage in racist hate speech, where citizens would be subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Wrong.
Free speech has NEVER been just relating to government.
It has never been legal to fire people based on their expression of political beliefs.
An employer can tell people to not bring up politics during work hours so that it does not reduce productivity, but that is all. If a person expresses political beliefs off works, they can not be fired for it, and never could.
That has always been illegal and always protected.

You're an idiot, and don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
Rights are inherent and do NOT come from government.
General rights like privacy, freedom of speech, etc., do NOT require specific legislation.
They are covered by general legislation, like Disorderly Conduct, Assault, etc.
The Bill of Rights is NOT the source of rights.
That was just a set of additional guarantees on federal restrictions.

We do not look a the legislation to determine what rights exists.
What we do by looking at what legislation to protect rights exists, is determine the validity of the government.
When legislation is lacking over basic inherent rights, then we know it is time to change governments.

 

[forkup]

{...

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

...}

[...

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he’d have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.


...}


Freedom of speech is not a privilege created by government. It is a pre-existing, essential, individual right that any valid government had better enforce, or else that government does not deserve to exist.

Seems to me that the government is enforcing freedom of speech. It defends an individuals right to speak and other peoples right to react to that speech.

As far as I can tell this whole "cancel" narrative is about defending people's right to speak but condemning other peoples right to respond to that speech.

It is clearly inherently illegal to censor based on your own personal disagreement, to discriminate in a business open to the public, and it is inherently illegal to fire people whose political opinions you do not agree with.

Who's censoring?

You can speak your mind. But if you use Twitter to do so their terms of service apply. They have the right to deny you their platform. They created it, they invested in it, they administer it.

Companies discriminate all the time. They call it job interviews. Try to be an ex-felon and apply for a job. Chances are you won't get a high-profile job. Try calling your prospective boss ugly during a job interview. Guess what, you probably won't get the job. All jobs I ever had included me signing on to the company policy. Guess what? I could get fired for not adhering to it.

This is what I'm saying. You want people to speak their mind AND you want to limit people's ability to respond to that. That is way more a form of censorship than twitter ENFORCING their terms of service that the people using it SIGNED, in order to make use of the platform.

 

[Rigby5]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

I'm guessing you don't know about "right to work" states.

Right to work laws means you can't be forced to join a union in a closed shop.
It does not mean the employer can illegally discriminate against employees or customers, for any reason beyond it if harms business.
For example, a restaurant can discriminate on how you are dressed based on it harming business from other customers leaving.
But they can not refuse to wait on someone due to a political message on a shirt or hat.

Educate yourself dumb ass.

If rights were not inherent and before government, then we would not have the right or authority to create government.
Any government that allows political censorship or discrimination is simply defective.
It is not and never can be legal.

 

[NightFox]

Rights are inherent and do NOT come from government.

Exactly, once people start believing that rights come from government that's the point that government becomes arbiter of morality which history clearly demonstrates is INCREDIBLY dangerous.

"The people" should be the moral compass that guides and oversees the denizens of government, not the other way around.

IMHO too many people these days confuse moral questions (like "where do rights come from?") with legal questions (opinions written on pieces of paper) and thus end up with politicians as the arbiters of morality....

 

[justinacolmena]

I wonder if we can all agree on that.

No. We cannot.

, guns,

Must be legal.

Right to work laws means you can't be forced to join a union in a closed shop.

Open up the shops. Stop stealing and extorting our tools from us.

For example, a restaurant can discriminate on how you are dressed based on it harming business from other customers leaving.

The customers can decide whether to leave a tip or not. Otherwise I'm hitting up the grocery store and going for a cook-out or a picnic.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. Again, our freedom of speech protects from interference in our speech by government. Not individuals or businesses. You really should educate yourself.

Freedom of speech is not the sole prerogative of hookers and prostitutes.
A man in a suited and tied profession needs to say whatever he wants without fear of being fired for his political opinions.

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities – such as an employer/employee relationship.

A conservative employee fired because of his hateful, racist comments has not had his freedom of speech ‘violated’ by the employer.

If government were to enact a law making it illegal to engage in racist hate speech, where citizens would be subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Wrong.
Free speech has NEVER been just relating to government.
It has never been legal to fire people based on their expression of political beliefs.
An employer can tell people to not bring up politics during work hours so that it does not reduce productivity, but that is all. If a person expresses political beliefs off works, they can not be fired for it, and never could.
That has always been illegal and always protected.

You're an idiot, and don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
Rights are inherent and do NOT come from government.
General rights like privacy, freedom of speech, etc., do NOT require specific legislation.
They are covered by general legislation, like Disorderly Conduct, Assault, etc.
The Bill of Rights is NOT the source of rights.
That was just a set of additional guarantees on federal restrictions.

We do not look a the legislation to determine what rights exists.
What we do by looking at what legislation to protect rights exists, is determine the validity of the government.
When legislation is lacking over basic inherent rights, then we know it is time to change governments.

If you say so. If rights aren't granted by the government, why do you expect the government to secure them? I have no interest in convincing you of anything, so you are free to believe what you will, no matter how wrong you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

As for being fired and blacklisted. While I agree that being an asshole isn't illegal and neither is smoking pot in a lot of places. But getting fired because you're an asshole or smoke pot isn't illegal either. And an employer has a right to hire and fire who he wants if the employee does something that violates company policy.

Hopefully Conservatives will support protection for workers against arbitrary firing. Most of those cancelled by Progressives are not guilty of actual bigotry.

I'm guessing you don't know about "right to work" states.

Right to work laws means you can't be forced to join a union in a closed shop.
It does not mean the employer can illegally discriminate against employees or customers, for any reason beyond it if harms business.
For example, a restaurant can discriminate on how you are dressed based on it harming business from other customers leaving.
But they can not refuse to wait on someone due to a political message on a shirt or hat.

Educate yourself dumb ass.

If rights were not inherent and before government, then we would not have the right or authority to create government.
Any government that allows political censorship or discrimination is simply defective.
It is not and never can be legal.

Does China have freedom of speech? Who exactly is in charge of granting or denying their freedom of speech?

 

[bripat9643]

Case 1: Sometime in 1936, Ivan Kuznetsov was drunk and joked about Stalin with his friends. Two of his "friends" denounced him and in 1937 he was sentenced to 5 years hard labor.


Case 2: Sometime in 2020, John Smith smoked marijuana and told a politically incorrect joke to his friend over Zoom. His "friend" doxxed him and in 2021 he was cancelled, fired, and blacklisted.

Stalin's government was clearly involved in Kuznetsov's imprisonment. Which government department denied Smith any free speech rights?

In the later case the US government denied them because Facebook, twitter and youTube are government protected monopolies.

 

[BULLDOG]

Case 1: Sometime in 1936, Ivan Kuznetsov was drunk and joked about Stalin with his friends. Two of his "friends" denounced him and in 1937 he was sentenced to 5 years hard labor.


Case 2: Sometime in 2020, John Smith smoked marijuana and told a politically incorrect joke to his friend over Zoom. His "friend" doxxed him and in 2021 he was cancelled, fired, and blacklisted.

Stalin's government was clearly involved in Kuznetsov's imprisonment. Which government department denied Smith any free speech rights?

In the later case the US government denied them because Facebook, twitter and youTube are government protected monopolies.

Government protected monopolies? Elaborate?

 

[Man of Ethics]

Case 1: Sometime in 1936, Ivan Kuznetsov was drunk and joked about Stalin with his friends. Two of his "friends" denounced him and in 1937 he was sentenced to 5 years hard labor.

I apologize. That is not what happened. Ivan Kuznetsov was a literature student. On 10 February 1937, he attended an event dedicated to 100th anniversary of one of the greatest Russian poets Alexander Pushkin.

After the anniversary, Ivan Kuznetsov mentioned the fact that more people at the event praised Stalin then talked about Pushkin. In USA 2022, everyone understands what Cancel Culture does to anyone who makes a tone-deaf comment.

Case 2: Sometime in 2020, John Smith smoked marijuana and told a politically incorrect joke to his friend over Zoom. His "friend" doxxed him and in 2021 he was cancelled, fired, and blacklisted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Case 1: Sometime in 1936, Ivan Kuznetsov was drunk and joked about Stalin with his friends. Two of his "friends" denounced him and in 1937 he was sentenced to 5 years hard labor.


Case 2: Sometime in 2020, John Smith smoked marijuana and told a politically incorrect joke to his friend over Zoom. His "friend" doxxed him and in 2021 he was cancelled, fired, and blacklisted.

Only case one.

Why? Because freedom of speech is ONLY from the government.
Ivan made a joke about a person in the government and the government then locked him up for saying something. Meaning the government infringed on his right to free speech

In case 2, John lost his job, but NOT from the government. You don't have a right to say whatever you want to your boss. Your boss can fire you for saying something he deems inappropriate.

Rights came first in the Magna Carta. They were designed to give POWER to (very rich) people, this power had been in the hands of the Monarch. The English Bill of Rights was the same, transferring some power from the Monarch to the people. Same with the US Bill of Rights. They took power the English Monarch had had, and gave it to the people and then protected it constitutionally.
(That I'm the only one who's voted for only Ivan so far shows just how ignorant people are about rights)