793
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
793 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32349 readers
525 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, that Oracle really was hot shit then, she must have seen the future and shared the 1st amendment with the people of Athens in the 6th century BC.
🤣Blake be like "Who is the freest speecher of all?"And Blake's Oracle be like, "Whole Foods is the freest peach of all."
Just so you know... it's not really that big of a leap to bring up the US first amendment when talking about a US company reacting to a US law with US action. Maybe you don't need to jump to ancient Athens?
I know it’s not a big leap, honestly it’s perfectly reasonable to assume. If the guy had just said “oh yeah, I had assumed he was talking about the first amendment because this is a US legal case” I’d have been like “yeah, fair enough” but he kept being a pedantic ass about it and trying to make out that I was somehow fucking stupid for thinking that the guy was talking about the broad concept of freedom of expression rather than the 1st amendment, lol
Ah yes... Athens...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates/The-Athenian-ideal-of-free-speech
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006.07.49/
So... you wanna try that again? Notice that this is gasp in relation to the government. Not private property. So yes... in the context of this thread... which is US lawsuit against a US company... This would be the first amendment.
Edit: Added missing information I meant to copy in... My bad.
If free speech existed anywhere before the 1st amendment then you can’t say that any reference to free speech is a reference to the first amendment. It may surprise you to hear that free speech is a concept which often goes beyond the first amendment, even in the US. When Elon Musk talks about “free speech” on Twitter, is he very confused about the first amendment? Or could he be talking about the concept of free expression?
He's blowing smoke up your xitter. He doesn't care about freedom of expression at all.
https://themarkup.org/investigations/2023/09/15/twitter-is-still-throttling-competitors-links-check-for-yourself
https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/18/elon-musk-says-twitter-will-no-longer-let-you-block-other-people/
Which is his right on that platform since he owns it. Just makes him a shit person. Doesn't mandate that Twitter has to have "free speech".
And sorry, you'll have to forgive me [or not, whatever]. I meant to add another link and quote to the previous comment [which I've now added] that I apparently forgot. Even in Athens they didn't have "free" speech. It was an illusion even then.
None of that is relevant to my actual point and you know it.
It very much is relevant. Both in the it didn't exist in Athens, and doesn't exist today as you opine it to be.
I’ll try and simplify it a bit for you since you seem to be struggling.
Has the term “free speech” ever been used to refer to anything other than the 1st amendment?
And I'll repeat it for you.
There is no RIGHT to free speech... outside of the first amendment. Which only pertains to government influence. There is no RIGHT to it in any other case. At what point where is what I said wrong? Implying that Whole Foods is doing something wrong here for enforcing a fair dress policy, while turning around and talking about Amazon lobbying the government is disingenuous as fuck. You yourself could lobby the government as well. If there's no innate right to free speech otherwise. Your "free speech" (which doesn't exist anyway) doesn't outweigh someones right to their owned property (in this case the Whole Foods).
Will you answer the question?
Sure, I never said that concept doesn't exist outside of government. Just that there is no right to it anywhere except given through government mandate and on governments behalf.
The original statement was
Which implies that the worker has a right to "free speech" at work but is abused by some other class of person making up bullshit rules... which they don't. Instead it's a right that granted by the Government for public (actually public) functions. Further it's not a bullshit rule since it's a rule that was agreed upon when the worker joined the company... And I would be willing to bet that the management (or other class that is under the "thee" reference) themselves adhere to as well. Especially since it went to court and was found to be applied equally across the board.
There is a reason I quoted "right" in that post you know... Or did you skip that to make a pedantic argument?
No, the original basis of my first point was that you falsely equated the concept of free speech to only ever be about the first amendment when that clearly is not the case and you even admit it yourself. And you’ve just been fighting a strawman ever since.