[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.

[einhverfr]

> 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"?

Are we members of communities? Are states "outside entities" any more than employers are? Why or why not? Does it matter if there is a general sense of ownership over the state?

Let's put it another way: Suppose the State of Ohio issues a charter to the New Saigon Initiaitve (name pulled out of thin air) to set up an incorporated, not for profit municipality with full self-governance with all the powers the state can lawfully delegate. Let's say that the charter specifies that all residents shall have an equal share of ownership and an equal say in the running of New Saigon. Suppose New Saigon starts banning books. Suppose the penalty for possessing a banned book is $500 and abatement by destroying or sending the book away, or being exiled from the town (but given an opportunity to sell your residence at market prices).

1. How is this different from a city doing it?

2. How is this different from an employer doing it?

[some_guy_there]

(Just a clarification on your example, I have no argument to make whether private entities should have restrictions placed on them.)

The New Saigon initiative would be deemed by courts to have sufficient nexus with State power such that they act as an extension of state themselves. Such institutions and charter aren't uncommon in US. Most school districts are governed usually by kind of law you outlined. Under settled law, public schools act as arm of government, thus have same restriction on them as any other governmental entity has.

And before you come up with more contrived example, one has to keep in mind that laws are enforced by judges, who can usually see past complicated structure to determine what would be extension of government and what would not be.

[einhverfr]

Right, but "by courts" means "by our courts." It doesn't suppose that a different system might have different boundaries, right?

Here in Indonesia, for example, there's no civil marriage. A marriage is not legally valid unless it is also a religious marriage. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate in the States, but I would be annoyed if Americans were to say that had to be changed.

This all matters a great deal because we are talking about cross-cultural critiques here and the argument over whether it is a problem that India doesn't draw the same lines as the US.

[protomyth]

We I say outside entities, I mean anyone outside the yourself or the organization affected. Anyone using lawsuits which have the court and backed by power of force of arms in a way to force the death of free speech is wrong and separate from the rest of us. Its more Animal Farm then community.

some_guy_there broke down your example better than I can.