[FeepingCreature]

Freedom of Speech means Freedom from (some) Consequences.

The constitutional right to Freedom of Speech means, at the least, Freedom from legal Consequences. If it does not mean that, then it does not mean anything. The same argument then extends to the informal meaning of free speech.

[ashtonkem]

Being fired isn’t a legal consequence.

[FeepingCreature]

And Freedom of Speech isn't just the First Amendment.

[ashtonkem]

Sure.

The issue is that you’re implicitly trying to find a way to say that these people’s speech should be protected, while the free association rights of their bosses and colleagues should not be. There is no principled way to consider racist trolling free speech, but not also those calling for their firing to also be considered free speech.

I think Popehat says this best.

> Private consequences are something else. Speech is designed to invoke private and social consequences, whether the speech is "venti mocha no whip, please," or "I love you," or "fuck off."1 The private and social consequences of your speech — whether they come from a barista, or your spouse, or people online, or people at whom you shout on the street — represent the free speech and freedom of association of others.

> But speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens

> Finally, I should note that one social consequence is employment-related. In many American jurisdictions, employment is "at will" unless the parties have a contract that says otherwise; an employer can fire an employee for any reason not prohibited by law. Private employers can generally fire private employees based on their extra-curricular speech. That's private action, not government action; it's an exercise of such free association and free speech by private entities as the law allows. Employers may face social consequences — particularly in a social media age — for exercising that right in a way that angers the public, which is in turn the public's free speech right.

[Chris2048]

> the free association rights of their bosses and colleagues should not be

I'm not sure "free association" applies to employment. If someone chooses not to have any friends that aren't the same race as themselves, racist as that might be, it's not illegal.

But if they start a business they cannot filter either customers or employees based on race; in that sense they aren't free to choose who to associate in a business sense.

> There is no principled way to consider racist trolling free speech, but not also those calling for their firing to also be considered free speech.

I wouldn't say firing someone is merely an "expression" of speech, it's also the ending of an actual contract.

[ashtonkem]

> I'm not sure "free association" applies to employment. If someone chooses not to have any friends that aren't the same race as themselves, racist as that might be, it's not illegal.

> But if they start a business they cannot filter either customers or employees based on race; in that sense they aren't free to choose who to associate in a business sense.

This is not an argument that businesses don’t have free association rights; this is an argument that they have limits that the state has a compelling interest in.

This argument is like saying that we don’t have free speech rights because there are laws against incitement. It’s obviously silly; “free” never meant “without any limits whatsoever” in either case.

Furthermore, while I agree it wouldn’t be legal to make employment decisions based on protected characteristics, forcing businesses to keep nazis on the payroll against their will strikes me as both absurd and a socially undesirable outcome.

> I wouldn't say firing someone is merely an "expression" of speech, it's also the ending of an actual contract.

Given the nature of at will employment, this actually weakens your argument.

I’d also consider terminating someone for their behavior to be a matter of free association, not free speech. I thought I’d made that clear.

[Chris2048]

It's an argument that "free association" wrt a business is nothing like personal FA.

You don't FA with coworkers because you don't (generally) get to decide who to work with, except in the sense of quitting.

[FeepingCreature]

> The issue is that you’re implicitly trying to find a way to say that these people’s speech should be protected, while the free association rights of their bosses and colleagues should not be.

Yes, that is what I am saying - I personally value right to choice of business association lower than right to speech.

> There is no principled way to consider racist trolling free speech, but not also those calling for their firing to also be considered free speech.

You can call for anyone's firing. That too is protected speech. Of course, firing is not speech.

Re Popehat, there is a difference between legal obligation and moral obligation.

[ashtonkem]

I find the idea of being forced to associate with someone whose speech I find repugnant because you value their speech over my free association rights disconcerting.

[FeepingCreature]

Yeah well I find the idea of being fired over speech outside the workplace corrosive to democratic society.