Maybe you should explain why it is not applicable, rather than persist in loquacious but insubstantial contradiction. I am stating an opinion of how a company that claims to greatly value free speech should operate. To simply state that I am wrong without any reasoning behind it is a waste of everyone's time.
You know there is more to free speech than some words in the American constitution, right? A company can absolutely curtail someone's freedom of speech, it just isn't against the law for them to do so (usually).
So save your indignation for when someone suggests otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with expecting public companies to uphold the ideal of free speech even though they aren't legally compelled to uphold the right of free speech. Companies can certainly violate free speech principles.
> any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech
I don't follow what you're trying to say here? A private company can do as it pleases because an employee's speech could conflict with its business interests. In some cases, other federal, state, or local laws offer additional protections to the employee (ex California provides very strong protections for employee political speech).
The idea is that the government isn't allowed to restrict your speech, but it also can't force you to interact with someone you don't want to. If you say things that offend people, the consequences are your problem to deal with.
It's a common misconception that free speech has no legal limits, and that it affects private companies. Neither of these are true. Hate speech is not protected, and companies certainly aren't obligated to enable it.
To be fair, there is also no legal protection for "protecting free speech" in a general sense. The first amendment only prevents the GOVERNMENT from limiting your free speech. Companies limit free speech all the time (think NDA), and they are often within their rights. Maybe this is a technicality, but many on this thread would do well to know it.
The court isn't arguing that the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, it's arguing that censorship isn't speech. The core is: "[there is no] freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say".
And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. The companies are using the twisted logic that there is a first amendment right to restrict free speech.
I think, when companies say they support ‘free speech’ they are adopting the stance that they will not punish their users for actions that the US government protects under the first amendment.
You're correct in the sense that it is not a Constitutional issue when a company chooses to do this; but that doesn't mean it's not limiting the act of free speech.
Yes it does when it comes to free speech. What gives you the impression that it doesn't? I mean it might not be good for your stocks, but companies have most of the same free speech rights that a regular person has.
This is a strawman retort. The principle is far broader than that, it is about respect for the exchange of ideas. When a private company serves a public function, you can absolutely make an argument that an opinionated enforcement of speech restrictions infringes on the right to speak. The line is drawn between the right to speak vs the freedom not to listen. When you make that decision for others, freedom of speech is threatened.
> People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else.
Corporations such as -- to pick an example completely at random -- the New York Times?
One of the many, many problems with advocating limiting corporate speech is that virtually everything larger than complaining on a blog or tacking a sign to an electrical pole is done by a corporate organization. If the New York Times can say what it pleases using its vast financial resources and nationwide distribution networks, it's very hard to argue coherently that, say, General Electric can't.
Except they generally can't. See limits on who they can hire and what speech they can engage in. So we already limit the powers of companies to protect the rights of people even though we could have just told the people work/shop/go somewhere else. Why doesn't that logic also extend to speech?
In the US, companies get 1st amendment protections as if they were people, but don't get any of the liability due to SEction 230 of the communications decency act.
Giving companies 1st amendment rights was ridiculous, but then giving them protections beyond the 1st amendment that no normal person gets was giving them too much power to control speech in society.
reply