tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post1968589605406610633..comments2023-10-30T01:52:04.961-07:00Comments on Miniver Cheevy: Free speech (n.)Jonathan Kormanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06249159323930786199noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-11170239337025529622017-05-22T17:32:50.108-07:002017-05-22T17:32:50.108-07:00As noted elsewhere Free Speech must include the po...As noted elsewhere Free Speech must include the possibility of rotten tomatoes being thrown at the speaker. Venues where rotten tomatoes are inappropriate or forbidden have the right to limit free speech. J'Carlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-83372497175591085372017-02-20T14:56:07.444-08:002017-02-20T14:56:07.444-08:00Aye. There is a difference between speaking that i...Aye. There is a difference between speaking that is directly relevant to one's profession and speaking which is not.Jonathan Kormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249159323930786199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-74754949569050161772017-02-02T12:00:17.655-08:002017-02-02T12:00:17.655-08:00I think the bright line is whether the speaker is ...I think the bright line is whether the speaker is wearing the uniform either figuratively or literally. If one is introduced as VP of X X can be justifyably concerned with the content of the speech. On a soapbox in sweats, no. <br />This comes under the consequences resulting from offensive speech. If the listener can boycot X as a result of the VP's speech, X has an interest. If the only consequence is a punch in the face, X has no interest. J'Carlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-69234233927376655252016-12-16T22:38:38.182-08:002016-12-16T22:38:38.182-08:00The Leebo can indeed claim that this is a violatio...The Leebo can indeed claim that this is a violation of the principle of free speech. I can see no bright line identifying what speech is odious enough to allow for employers to police employee's speech outside of their work domain that does not present opportunity for mischief.<br /><br />See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo" rel="nofollow">Trumbo, Dalton</a>Jonathan Kormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249159323930786199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-14918061768219315192016-12-16T12:35:47.036-08:002016-12-16T12:35:47.036-08:00"If there are things you cannot say because i..."If there are things you cannot say because it might cost you professional opportunities in work unrelated to what you said... then that is no less coercive than a law."<br /><br />This sentence needs parsing. It deserves to be gamed out.<br /><br />Scenario: a Leebo of Leebotown expresses in public a hatred for the Weebles of Weebleville; in specific, the Leebo loudly advocates for forced sterilization of Weebles, whom the Leebo continuously calls by a derisive, Weeble-specific, and generally-agreed-upon-as-insulting epithet.<br /><br />This Leebo works in a field in which the Leebo will never interact with Weebles or design or work on anything that impacts Weebles.<br /><br />That said, the odious nature of the Leebo's utterances leads prospective employers to refuse the Leebo employment, since they fear that hiring the Leebo could be read as a tacit endorsement of the Leebo's sentiments*.<br /><br />Question: does the Leebo have cause to invoke violation of protection of free speech?<br /><br />* Or, for that matter, because all of the prospective employers think that the Leebo's statements are odious and wrongheaded.<br /><br />Confession: I'd hoped to come up with more scenarios, but just concocting this one wore me out.Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09692813641984410796noreply@blogger.com