this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
793 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32362 readers
358 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It very much is relevant. Both in the it didn't exist in Athens, and doesn't exist today as you opine it to be.
I’ll try and simplify it a bit for you since you seem to be struggling.
Has the term “free speech” ever been used to refer to anything other than the 1st amendment?
And I'll repeat it for you.
There is no RIGHT to free speech... outside of the first amendment. Which only pertains to government influence. There is no RIGHT to it in any other case. At what point where is what I said wrong? Implying that Whole Foods is doing something wrong here for enforcing a fair dress policy, while turning around and talking about Amazon lobbying the government is disingenuous as fuck. You yourself could lobby the government as well. If there's no innate right to free speech otherwise. Your "free speech" (which doesn't exist anyway) doesn't outweigh someones right to their owned property (in this case the Whole Foods).
Will you answer the question?
Sure, I never said that concept doesn't exist outside of government. Just that there is no right to it anywhere except given through government mandate and on governments behalf.
The original statement was
Which implies that the worker has a right to "free speech" at work but is abused by some other class of person making up bullshit rules... which they don't. Instead it's a right that granted by the Government for public (actually public) functions. Further it's not a bullshit rule since it's a rule that was agreed upon when the worker joined the company... And I would be willing to bet that the management (or other class that is under the "thee" reference) themselves adhere to as well. Especially since it went to court and was found to be applied equally across the board.
There is a reason I quoted "right" in that post you know... Or did you skip that to make a pedantic argument?
No, the original basis of my first point was that you falsely equated the concept of free speech to only ever be about the first amendment when that clearly is not the case and you even admit it yourself. And you’ve just been fighting a strawman ever since.