It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
> "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences"
This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
Of course people are allowed to say MAGA-phobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
I'm not certain what MAGA-phobic could mean etymologically, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, such as an irrational fear of people transitioning sex. Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear that one might be persecuted for their religious affiliation or sexuality, among other things.
You haven't attempted to do that. You asked us to imagine a rational fear of queer people, but there isn't one. You've simply asserted a dogma without substantiating it.
Are you trying to flip the table against them? because I agree with all of that. If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
> If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
This used to be the biggest argument against hiring women into all-male teams. Nowadays it's the biggest argument against hiring men into all-female teams.
Yes, the first amendment is restricted to that, but you proposed some statement would be supportive of freedom of speech. But instead it is contradictory to the definition.
Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.
No, because "revoking your visa" is a thing the GOVERNMENT does to someone. Revoking someone's Visa for their speech is explicitly what the 1st is about!
Whereas, your PRIVATE employer deciding they don't want to pay you money because you are an asshole (whether that's because you hate LGBTQ people, or aggressively defend their rights with your speech) is THEIR first amendment rights.
The 1st is about: Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Limiting a private company's ability to fire you for your speech is against their 1st amendment rights! Indeed, several attempts to build a civil rights framework in the US failed judicial review for this exact reason, and the one we eventually got had to make great efforts to justify that it's limited "protected class" framework was acceptable. I predict it gets overturned.
The inverse is also true: The government CAN limit the speech of people in their government jobs. Teachers can legally be prevented from saying things as teachers, without it being an infringement on their speech rights.
Trump is obviously attacking free-speech, but the attacks have been going on by both sides. The examples I gave are _very_ prevalent and common, and not coming from the Trump camp. Very few people seem to actually believe in free speech, when it comes to protecting their political rivals... which is the only place the principle actually much matters.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.