Law - Free Speech - Conundrum - Quandary

[bitchstewie]

You've answered your own question.

If you allegedly post a bunch of antisemitic filth in your own name you can't really be surprised if your employer finds out and decides they may not want to be your employer any more.

Not sure what the quandary is about that.

[QJumper]

Biggy Stardust said:

It came at a cost therefore it is not free.

The cost was others freedom to speak in opposition, and to freely take action to protect their own interests. What you seem to want is for her to be able to speak freely, without cost or consequence, but that can only come by restricting the freeedom of others.

Freedom of speech is a legal concept, which is something she was afforded. It does not imply either freedom or protection from social or professional consequences.

[Sporky]

Biggy Stardust said:

It came at a cost therefore it is not free.

Your definition requires companies to employ people with public views that are completely opposed to their own values. That is an odd concept.

[smn159]

Captain-Gatso said:

they are mostly Liberal Lefty Wokes from NYC - Washington or California under 45 years of age

Did you report them?

[Zeeky]

QJumper said:

Freedom of speech is a legal concept, which is something she was afforded. It does not imply either freedom or protection from social or professional consequences.

How does that view fit with Article 10 of the ECHR?

[monthou]

Zeeky said:

QJumper said:

Freedom of speech is a legal concept, which is something she was afforded. It does not imply either freedom or protection from social or professional consequences.

How does that view fit with Article 10 of the ECHR?

Where's the conflict?

ECHR said:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the
licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity
or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of
information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.

[bitchstewie]

Clearly this is why we need to leave the ECHR.

So people are free to be racist.

[Seasonal Hero]

Biggy Stardust said:

It came at a cost therefore it is not free.

She is free to say what she wants.

The consequences are the result of that freedom.

I’m free to burgle your house. Can’t really complain if I get nicked though.

Chat st, get banged as the yoof say.

[Silvanus]

Seasonal Hero said:

Biggy Stardust said:

It came at a cost therefore it is not free.

She is free to say what she wants.

The consequences are the result of that freedom.

I’m free to burgle your house. Can’t really complain if I get nicked though.

Chat st, get banged as the yoof say.

The same PHer fail to understand it every time a similar topic comes up

[Seasonal Hero]

It’s mad the people honestly think freedom of speech is absolute.

[chrispmartha]

Biggy Stardust said:

Silvanus said:

She has freedom of speech

It came at a cost therefore it is not free.

Freedom doesn’t mean you can do anything you want without ‘cost’

Or are you really trying to equate freedom with the word free as in the monetary meaning of the word?

[QJumper]

Zeeky said:

QJumper said:

Freedom of speech is a legal concept, which is something she was afforded. It does not imply either freedom or protection from social or professional consequences.

How does that view fit with Article 10 of the ECHR?

It fits fine.

Where do you think there's any conflict?

[Biggy Stardust]

chrispmartha said:

Freedom doesn’t mean you can do anything you want without ‘cost’

Or are you really trying to equate freedom with the word free as in the monetary meaning of the word?

I accept she got what she deserved & should have known better. I'm merely being pedantic by saying that this is the real world rather than a world with free speech and those claiming that free speech can come with consequences are speaking with forked tongues.

[Seasonal Hero]

Uh?


It’s literally a fact. Absolute freedom of speech exists only in the realm of fantasy.

[chrispmartha]

Biggy Stardust said:

chrispmartha said:

Freedom doesn’t mean you can do anything you want without ‘cost’

Or are you really trying to equate freedom with the word free as in the monetary meaning of the word?

I accept she got what she deserved & should have known better. I'm merely being pedantic by saying that this is the real world rather than a world with free speech and those claiming that free speech can come with consequences are speaking with forked tongues.

That doesn't make sense.

We do live in the real world, so in the real world freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

So what's your point?

[Biggy Stardust]

chrispmartha said:

That doesn't make sense.

We do live in the real world, so in the real world freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

So what's your point?

You didn't understand the first time so I won't bother a second time.

[monthou]

Biggy Stardust said:

I accept she got what she deserved & should have known better. I'm merely being pedantic by saying that this is the real world rather than a world with free speech and those claiming that free speech can come with consequences are speaking with forked tongues.

You want to be able to say anything to anyone with no consequences?
That's your idea of what free speech is?

[Biggy Stardust]

monthou said:

You want to be able to say anything to anyone with no consequences?
That's your idea of what free speech is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say stuff people don't like without getting attacked.

I accept that there need to be restrictions (national security, defamation, sedition, etc) but the restrictions should be the minimum necessary & 'offence' shouldn't be grounds for it.

Many who claim to support freedom of speech just mean FoS for stuff they like. I don't support that.

[Seasonal Hero]

Should I be able to call a black man a ‘n*****’’?

[monthou]

Biggy Stardust said:

monthou said:

You want to be able to say anything to anyone with no consequences?
That's your idea of what free speech is?

Freedom of speech means freedom to say stuff people don't like without getting attacked.

I accept that there need to be restrictions (national security, defamation, sedition, etc) but the restrictions should be the minimum necessary & 'offence' shouldn't be grounds for it.

Many who claim to support freedom of speech just mean FoS for stuff they like. I don't support that.

She hasn't been attacked.
Her employer has seemingly decided - or is possibly in the process of deciding - that her exercising her freedom of speech as she has is incompatible with her employment.
Should she be able to say whatever she wants without consequence?