Tolerating and respecting opinions - free speech

Freedom doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and leave with it. I too sometimes think all kind of monstrosities and obscenities expecially when i'm angry but that doesn't mean i can speak them right out. The reason is because i could hurt someone' s sensibility. Then there's a difference between being a public figure and a commoner... as a politician or an important businnessmen you should be aware that people are often upon you, and will harshly judge everything you say. This could be the case of sterling... so knowing it before, you must also accept the consequences of your language.

 

Not interested in silencing anyone, just trying to differentiate between respecting your right to say something and respecting what you say.

 

To do what?

 

With the advent of social media for the first time in history everyone has a megaphone at their disposal. Are we to expect everyone to behave like the white house spokesman? Are we going to encourage an open dialogue between all of humanity the likes that has never been seen before? Or do we silence those with whom we disagree until everyone has been silenced?

 

A man started whining that old men, like him, should not be prohibited from having a loving physical relationship with adolescent boys of 13 or 14 years. Now, in your world I should discuss this with him? I should try and show him his error. Not going to happen. I should argue with leftists over why Venezuela, Cuba, the former USSR, Cambodia, France, or China is not a good model for the U.S.? Why? It would be like inviting those Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on your door in to discuss religion, wouldn't it? It would be totally pointless.

I should be able to say whatever I want with government interference. But, if you want to stand up and say I'm an idiot, that's your right. If my boss wants to say I have to find another job, that's his right. If my wife locks the door to the bedroom, that's her right. Do you really want everyone else's rights subordinate to your right to be obnoxious? If you had a business and half your employees were black would you tolerate a White Supremacist loon in your employee?

 

Interesting question, sir. It appears that there are significant numbers here that would prefer the latter but only because they don't think there view would ever be silenced.

 

Glad someone gets it.

 

I really went out of my way in the OP to explain that this is a behavioral problem not a legal one. Yea when you threaten the president, yell fire in a theatre, you should face consequences. I would caution against shutting anyone down who isn't causing real physical harm though. No one should care about a tasteless joke.

 

yes but you don't get to decide what people should care about.

If you work in the public sphere and the public doesn't like what you have to say they have a right to let your employer know about it. If your ideas rise to the level of having customers leave your employer then you will be fired. if it doesn't then you are safe. You see crying about your right to say it doesn't mean anything when it comes to how those who react to it. It should be clear that you are not ever and never have been safe from consequences and nor should you be. In a free society you are able to say what you want and people are free to react to it. Boycotts and protests work when a majority agree.

- - - Updated - - -

no you are claiming people exercising their right to speak and influences as tyranny when in fact you are the one trying to silence them.

 

Why should threatening the President by speech only be an offense? Threats coupled with some steps to carry out the threat are different. Shouting fire in a theater shouldn't be illegal either unless their is a clear intent to provoke a panic.

The government has from day one hated the First Amendment.

But, I was at a business meeting at a family owned Bed and Breakfast in the mountains. One of the guys I worked with told the group a crude joke. The family who owned the B&B were obviously shocked. The wife and daughter immediately left the dining room, the husband hesitated and the stormed out. Now, that certainly should not be illegal. And, it certainly should not be ignored or tolerated.

 

Saying something at a business meeting is one thing, saying something outside of work is another.

 

I'll fine tune your argument because the question is inartfully drawn. There is no question about a defending a right to say and think whatever he chooses in the privacy of his own home, but whether there is a right to do so without any negative social, personal, or professional consequences.

By and large, I agree with the general crux here, that we are treading into some very toxic waters if employers apply 'morals' clauses to our political, ideological or sociological speech. If we decide that unpopular or controversial speech outside the workplace, should lead to the kind of economic risks inherent in termination of employment that will impact the economic security of families and children, we will end up with a lot of folks who cannot march, cannot protest, cannot blog, or pass a petition. In a time where Dems and Pubs divide the entirety of media attention, and most any notion beyond the scope of their political platforms is inevitably dead on arrival, communities need access to 'far-out' thinkers and ideas most.

Its best for the community to express its displeasure with outrageous speech in less dire ways. Don't sit next to bigots at church. Disinvite them from your golf foursome. Tell them exactly what you think of their nastiness. Shun them in the breakroom. But let's not lock them up in our prisons, deny them any governmental entitlement, sue or censor them or fire them from their gainful employment. for the most part, I want an employer when confronted with such controversies, to stand up for their employees rights to their own values, their own expressions of their values on their own time as part of their corporate ethic. Employees or members of management expressing their individual opinions in their private time, represents the very best in our traditions and it should be honored by the businesses and leaders that employ them.

Now that that is all about generics. The Serling scenario involved a contract that he signed and there was no possible way that his conduct could ever have failed to compromise on the economic security of that team and franchise as long as he stayed. He was a public figure and I just can't imagine a team or its fans in an industry so full of blacks and other ethnic minoritiesat the base level, could swallow this much bacteria infected bile and mucus and not die of aspiration pneumonia. There have to be limits involving public figures.

But we have to ask ourselves how pervasive do we want these 'morals' clauses to be in employment or management. Employers will grow to like them a lot be it offers grounds to terminate whenever any embarrassment might have to be endured or an opinion expressed that threatens their 5 year plan. I can imagine that having a chilling impact when a major employer in a community wants the city to rezone some property or get a tax loophole through the city council an exemption to the new minimum wage being debated in the state legislature. What, pray tell, are the limits to the corporate values, they expect employees to adhere to in private behavior? Does an pro-choice car sticker embarrass the owners of a coffee shop in Mississippi?

That makes me very nervous.

 

maybe we should invite them to discuss it on this forum?

 

I realize that. And you think that people should be free to say whatever they want in any venue. If I were at a meeting of stamp collectors and some nitwit had told a disgusting and tasteless joke that embarrassed our hosts, I would not ignore it. You would. Okay. I understand that. The problem is, you insisting that everyone should ignore it.

At work or not at work isn't the issue.

 

What I meant by that is that if I have two candidates and all things with them are equal except one is a communist, I wouldn't hire the commie. i.e. I would include their political stance in my calculation. It would of course be one of many factors.

 

Not insisting, suggesting.

 

I believe simply promoting hatred is a moral sin and cannot be compatible with promoting the general welfare.

Otherwise, our First Amendment is very clear on the limitations of powers that can be delegated to our representatives to the general government.