[cshenoy]

Harvard is a private institution. The US government does not (and cannot) control the actions of Harvard. The first amendment protects our rights to say what we like but that guarantee does not extend to your place of employment. There is no irony or double standard in that.

[xmonkee]

Penguin India is also a private institution. The book isn't banned, simply withdrawn by Penguin for what are likely commercial reasons.

[protomyth]

"what are likely commercial reasons"

Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.

A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.

[einhverfr]

> A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.

But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.

[protomyth]

There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity. Its one thing to realize your wrong and correct, that happens all the time with outside critics. Its another thing to have the outside critics use a broken law system to force you to change against your will.

"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"

An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.

I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.

[einhverfr]

> There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity.

And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.

For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.

[protomyth]

> And which of these is a local community?

You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?

The article says a book was published then a group of people used threats made possible by a broken law system to get the book censored.

[venomsnake]

Self censorship is much worse than state imposed one IMO. The later can be formed, the former creates meek and obedient societies.

[protomyth]

"formed" did you mean reformed?

Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].

However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.

I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.

(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)

1) played for effect in "Silver Lining Playbook"

[chimeracoder]

So I take it that you also opposed Reddit's decision to ban clothed pictures of teenage girls, as well as teenage hentai, which was due to the threat of a slanderous smear campaign from Something Awful users[0]?

(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).

[0] http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/126893-s...

[protomyth]

see my response to einhverfr for further clarification. I have no opinion or desire to learn about this situation to form an opinion.

[sizzle]

I'm using this line in the future

[protomyth]

I'm not really into researching anything that contains "teenage hentai", sorry.

[sn41]

There is. I, as a free speech supporter in India, think that it is ridiculous that you are not allowed free speech in a place where you spend majority of your waking hours.

Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.

Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.

[elnate]

Question as an outsider: How does this interact with your right not to be discriminated against in the workplace based on religion or political views?