The First Amendment is useless.

[Man of Ethics]

So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Firing Employees for Off-Duty Conduct and Speech - DuBoff Law Group

You’ve probably seen the viral video of the white woman calling the police on a black man birding in Central Park who asked her to leash her dog (in accordance with park rules). The woman’s employer quickly fired her, issuing a public statement that it had done so after an internal review of the...

www.dubofflaw.com

A few states, including California and New York, have laws prohibiting private employers from firing employees for legal, off-duty speech or conduct that doesn’t conflict with the employer’s business-related interests.

Conservatives must work to strengthen these protections.

 

[dblack]

Firing Employees for Off-Duty Conduct and Speech - DuBoff Law Group

You’ve probably seen the viral video of the white woman calling the police on a black man birding in Central Park who asked her to leash her dog (in accordance with park rules). The woman’s employer quickly fired her, issuing a public statement that it had done so after an internal review of the...

www.dubofflaw.com

A few states, including California and New York, have laws prohibiting private employers from firing employees for legal, off-duty speech or conduct that doesn’t conflict with the employer’s business-related interests.

You're making progressives very happy. They love this kind of shit.

 

[Man of Ethics]

You're making progressives very happy. They love this kind of shit.

I am a Classical Liberal.

 

[dblack]

You're making progressives very happy. They love this kind of shit.

I am a Classical Liberal.

LOL - well, you're very bad at it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.


The First Amendment was passed in 1789. It provided Freedom of Worship, Speech, Press, and Association for all free people. Sadly, American Slaves had neither Rights nor Freedom. Russian and East European serfs also had few Rights and little Freedom. Fortunately, for more then a Century, every free person was free to express unpopular views.


During XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, the economy and tools of production were simple. Most people were self-employed in craft and agriculture. Tools of communication were simple as well. Most political groups could own a small printing press. Even if some group would have attempted to "cancel" their political opponents by coercing every business to boycott them, they would not have been successful.


By the beginning of the XXth Century, means of Production and Communication became much more sophisticated and interconnected. Many workers came to depend on their employees for their very livelihood. During the Red Scare of 1917 -- 1920, and more so during McCarthyism 1947 -- 1957, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were blacklisted for expressing Communist or Socialist views. This was the first instance of Authoritarian rule within the framework of the First Amendment.


For some time after 1957, America remained a Free Society. Very few people were fired for their political opinions, and they generally could find another job. They were fired for really offensive speech. For instance on August 6, 1965, disc jockey Bob Dayton was fired for joking on air about the 20th anniversary of bombing of Hiroshima.


During late 1980s and 1990s, Political Correctness came into force. Thousands of people were fired by universities and Liberal companies for disagreeing with Progressives. America ceased to be a Free Society, and became Authoritarian.


Authoritarianism of 1990s and 2000s was much milder then Totalitarianism of 2020s. During 2000s, I had some conversations with people who have publicly expressed Politically Incorrect views. They told me that they would never apply for a job in a Liberal company since they would not be hired. Nevertheless, they did find jobs with companies that valued Freedom.

Totalitarian Cancel Culture of 2020s is much worse then Political Correctness of the past decades. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and careers for slightest offense against Progressives. Many of those who lose jobs are blacklisted. Even though many companies would like to hire these people, these companies are coerced by other businesses into not hiring them. Any company which falls out of line is boycotted by all other companies. Social Media censors speech which offends Progressives. When Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and Apple, almost every American company was afraid to work with Parler. The First Amendment did not prevent American Society from becoming Totalitarian. To a degree, the First Amendment Freedom of Association enables Totalitarianism.


Is there a possibility that the tide of Totalitarianism will turn back? Honestly, it is very unlikely. I am not optimistic about Conservatives organising fast enough to resist Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, anyone who values Freedom should take every practical legal step to oppose Totalitarianism. Maybe there is a chance.

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

2) Conservatives should help individuals and companies targeted by Progressive mobs.

3) In small Conservative counties, some businesses may help by firing Progressive workers. Boycotting businesses owned by Progressives or employing them may also be effective. This would be an effective pushback against Progressives. This would also encourage them to support part 1) -- greater employee protections.

The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given that almost every Conservative has written or said something for which they are likely to lose their career, Conservatives should support greater protections for employees from arbitrary firing. Simple self-interest.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment or ‘progressives.’

As already correctly noted: the First Amendment and doctrine of free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or entities.

That private citizens condemn the racist remarks of a conservative talk show host does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

That private social media refuse to accommodate rightwing hate speech does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

That a private company refuses to do business in a state whose Republican lawmakers enact measures hostile to the right to vote does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

There is no such thing as ‘cancel culture’ – it’s a myth contrived by conservatives; it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that private citizens, in the context of private society, determine through debate and discourse what types of speech are appropriate and what types of speech are not, free from interference from the government or the courts.

Private citizens engaging in this debate and discourse is the foundation of a free and democratic society.

 

[Man of Ethics]

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

So get these nig***s out of my goddamn store. Whites only.

Right?

 

[XponentialChaos]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The first amendment is not useless.

 

[dblack]

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

So get these nig***s out of my goddamn store. Whites only.

Right?

Long as you don't mind getting canceled.

 

[harmonica]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

 

[Toro]

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

To be fair, it was liberals who started the stupidity. They turned religious freedom into the "freedom" to force other people to accommodate your religion. Now Trumpsters have joined their campaign to do the same thing to freedom of speech. They want to turn freedom of speech into the "freedom" to force others to accommodate their speech. The cruel irony is that appending this additional perk actually undermines the original freedom.

agreed. The list of stupid things liberals do is endless

 

[XponentialChaos]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[sartre play]

Swearing at people & calling them names for having a different point of view is not healthy. Free speech, should be sharing your point of view, not demonizing others with different views. We have descended to the gutter in dealing with each other.

 

[dblack]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

And it's worse than a simple misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

 

[Rigby5]

So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.

There is no legal basis at all for the War on Drugs, and it does is make government criminal.

 

[XponentialChaos]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”

 

[bripat9643]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.