> If you earnestly believe there's no important distinction between employees of a multinational corporation and a guest in your private home then I don't think there's any more possible room for discussion.
There are important distinctions between these two concepts, but not for the sake of the argument here. Freedom of speech is about the relationship between citizens and their government -- not citizens and each other. Google is simply a corp owned by citizens -- who have rights, over the property (the company) they collectively own. These citizens are free (within rule of law) to set the rules in their house -- just like I am free (within rule of law) to set the rules in my house.
Citizens have freedom of association -- I am not forced to house people I don't want to house. I can kick people out of my house for being disruptive, threatening me, or otherwise disagreeing with my rules. Google, as a private business, owned by citizens, should not be forced to employ disruptive people. Again -- there are laws surrounding this -- Google can't do whatever they want -- but I would hope we could agree that Google should be allowed to fire disruptive employees.
> I am curious though, in what specific context would you "defend to the death" my right to free speech? It seems strange to be willing to offer your life for something with so many terms and conditions applied.
This is a simplification of the necessity of free speech. And that this is a principle worth shedding blood over. It's a summary of a great many liberal guiding principles that founded this country (America). I would think this is common knowledge, but I keep forgetting that it is a principle that must be re-taught to each generation of Americans.
The right to free speech is about preventing from the government from throwing you in jail or having you murdered for saying something unpopular -- as happens in places like Russia or China. Our constitutional guarantee of free speech is meaningless if the government is allowed to pick and choose the persons to whom they apply. This applies to all opinions, even those we despise -- because once we allow the censoring of some opinion we have opened the door to the eventual censoring of dissent -- which inevitably leads to authoritarianism etc... Without freedom speech, we have nothing. To me, this is a principle and a right that is worth fighting wars over, worth dying for.
Freedom of speech means free exchange of ideas. We're here in HN talking freely, we're listening to each other -- and tolerating each others ideas, even if we don't agree with them. This is a good thing, as the alternative usually leads to people in the outgroup being jailed, and/or mobs, weapons and all sorts of violence.
This is why we defend things like “peoples rights to say racist shit”... because it's a form of self-defense. If I want to be able to hold my own opinions without fear of government reprisal, then I have to grant you that same freedom and protection. I need to fight not just for my right to free speech, but yours -- or the freedom is meaningless. We have to tolerate each other, or we lose everything.
That said: all speech isn't free. There are necessary limits on free speech. You can't falsely accuse others of crimes. You can't libel or defame others falsely. You can't incite to riot or insurrection. You can't cause false panic. You can't lie to the police or report false disasters. There are consequences for speech -- you can't just say whatever you want and expect the rest of us citizens to accommodate you. No one has to accommodate you -- we simply agree tolerate each others beliefs.
I defend a way of life that protects your ability to have opinions I disagree with, without fear of government reprisal. What your fellow citizens and neighbors think of you however, is largely between you and them after that point.
Google is not a government. Google is a company that is collectively owned by citizens. Google has rights as well, because the shareholders/owners have rights as citizens, just like you -- and so people can't just run around their company saying whatever they want without fear or consequences. Any more than you can run around my house saying whatever you want. I say this, having no love of Google. But if Google can't defend it's right to remove disruptive employees, then it's only a matter of time before I lose the ability to throw people out of my house, eventually leading to things like forced quartering of soldiers, etc.
The statement "defend to the death" etc means that I'm willing to fight a war and potentially die over this way of life. I would hope that those here whose views I disagree with but am tolerating would also be willing to give their lives for my rights as well. And to those here who call a belief like this virtue signaling -- well I feel sad for you and those who would be forced to live in the kind of world you propose building.
At this point, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
You're arguing the US freedom of speech law, the others are arguing the principle the law is based on. The quote in your profile usually refers to the principle, which is why everyone seems to be confused.
There are important distinctions between these two concepts, but not for the sake of the argument here. Freedom of speech is about the relationship between citizens and their government -- not citizens and each other. Google is simply a corp owned by citizens -- who have rights, over the property (the company) they collectively own. These citizens are free (within rule of law) to set the rules in their house -- just like I am free (within rule of law) to set the rules in my house.
Citizens have freedom of association -- I am not forced to house people I don't want to house. I can kick people out of my house for being disruptive, threatening me, or otherwise disagreeing with my rules. Google, as a private business, owned by citizens, should not be forced to employ disruptive people. Again -- there are laws surrounding this -- Google can't do whatever they want -- but I would hope we could agree that Google should be allowed to fire disruptive employees.
> I am curious though, in what specific context would you "defend to the death" my right to free speech? It seems strange to be willing to offer your life for something with so many terms and conditions applied.
This is a simplification of the necessity of free speech. And that this is a principle worth shedding blood over. It's a summary of a great many liberal guiding principles that founded this country (America). I would think this is common knowledge, but I keep forgetting that it is a principle that must be re-taught to each generation of Americans.
The right to free speech is about preventing from the government from throwing you in jail or having you murdered for saying something unpopular -- as happens in places like Russia or China. Our constitutional guarantee of free speech is meaningless if the government is allowed to pick and choose the persons to whom they apply. This applies to all opinions, even those we despise -- because once we allow the censoring of some opinion we have opened the door to the eventual censoring of dissent -- which inevitably leads to authoritarianism etc... Without freedom speech, we have nothing. To me, this is a principle and a right that is worth fighting wars over, worth dying for.
Freedom of speech means free exchange of ideas. We're here in HN talking freely, we're listening to each other -- and tolerating each others ideas, even if we don't agree with them. This is a good thing, as the alternative usually leads to people in the outgroup being jailed, and/or mobs, weapons and all sorts of violence.
This is why we defend things like “peoples rights to say racist shit”... because it's a form of self-defense. If I want to be able to hold my own opinions without fear of government reprisal, then I have to grant you that same freedom and protection. I need to fight not just for my right to free speech, but yours -- or the freedom is meaningless. We have to tolerate each other, or we lose everything.
That said: all speech isn't free. There are necessary limits on free speech. You can't falsely accuse others of crimes. You can't libel or defame others falsely. You can't incite to riot or insurrection. You can't cause false panic. You can't lie to the police or report false disasters. There are consequences for speech -- you can't just say whatever you want and expect the rest of us citizens to accommodate you. No one has to accommodate you -- we simply agree tolerate each others beliefs.
I defend a way of life that protects your ability to have opinions I disagree with, without fear of government reprisal. What your fellow citizens and neighbors think of you however, is largely between you and them after that point.
Google is not a government. Google is a company that is collectively owned by citizens. Google has rights as well, because the shareholders/owners have rights as citizens, just like you -- and so people can't just run around their company saying whatever they want without fear or consequences. Any more than you can run around my house saying whatever you want. I say this, having no love of Google. But if Google can't defend it's right to remove disruptive employees, then it's only a matter of time before I lose the ability to throw people out of my house, eventually leading to things like forced quartering of soldiers, etc.
The statement "defend to the death" etc means that I'm willing to fight a war and potentially die over this way of life. I would hope that those here whose views I disagree with but am tolerating would also be willing to give their lives for my rights as well. And to those here who call a belief like this virtue signaling -- well I feel sad for you and those who would be forced to live in the kind of world you propose building.
At this point, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.