Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by denton-scratch 1620 days ago
The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals.

And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
2 comments
AnthonyMouse 1620 days ago
It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere.

And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.

link
denton-scratch 1620 days ago
> It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech

You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.

link
AnthonyMouse 1620 days ago
> Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.

If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work.

If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.

link
denton-scratch 1620 days ago
> If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

You make your point well.

However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

I mean, I can set up whatever "principles" I like, and start accusing others of violating them. That's not like violating the terms of a law or agreement. It's a different use of the word "violate".

link
AnthonyMouse 1620 days ago
> However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Often summarized as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

Kind of used it on purpose because vegans would want to apply it to animals and then there would be a debate about whether it should be etc., when that doesn't really matter here -- the vegan libertarian is perfectly entitled to consider factory farms a violation of the principle and use that to condemn them and refuse to patronize them.

> That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

We're getting caught up on the semantics of the word "violate." Someone could just as easily accuse the company of not supporting free speech and end up in the same place.

link
bcrosby95 1620 days ago
The federal laws, much less the constitution, are the bare minimum in the USA. For example, most states have at least one statute saying companies can't fire employees over some forms of political speech.

So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.

link