Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To : MRO
From : Boraxman
Date : Thu May 22 2025 10:01 pm
-=> MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
MR> @MSGID: <
[email protected]>
MR> @REPLY: <
[email protected]>
MR> Re: Re: Most memorable modern
MR> By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed May 21 2025 10:55 pm
> Rights can only really exist by limiting other people. The first amendment,
> if you actually read it, does not grant anyone a right.
MR> i can't READ!
MR>
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
MR> "First Amendment
MR> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
MR> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
MR> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
MR> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read the Second Amendment. Again, it says that a right cannot be
infringed. It prohibits an action.
They understood that in order for "rights" to exist, you must prevent
people from infringing them. Only this can make a "right" real.
Declaration of rights alone are meaningless. The Soviet Union is a
good example of this. They too declared that people had Freedom of
Speech, even more enthusiastically than the US Constituion, but it did
NOT prevent the state from infringing on that right. So the US had
freedom of speech, and the Soviet Union didn't.
The men who wrote the First Amendment understood this, which is why it
is written as a prohibition of infringment, and not a declaration of
right to Free Speech.
> The problem is that if private companies can 'punish' you, then you lose
> your freedom. You do NOT have freedom of speech, if your employer can take
> retribution and fire you for what you say outside of work.
MR> we have freedom of speech from our govt. i wont be arrested for
MR> wearing my kkk robes. it depends on the state, but some are at will
MR> which means the employer can toss you for any reason as long as it's
MR> not a protected reason like age/sex/religion,etc.
Firstly, I think there could be a legitimate case to arrest someone
for being in an organisation. I do not consider banning a violent
organisation to be an infringment of Free Speech. This is why I
thought the KKK example was not apropos. It is not an infringment of
Free Speech, for example, to arrest someone for being in a crime
syndicate.
Free Speech was understood to be important before the First Amendment
was drafted. Its philosophical roots came from a realisation that
society needs Free Speech, because the right to Free Speech allows
pathological ideas to be challenged. This is the misunderstanding I
think. It has been turned into "individual rights", but the purpose
wasn't keeping the government out of your life. Free Speech has a
*social* utility, which they understood because they saw the ill
effects of religious and monarchical power structures that shielded
themselves from challenge.
The government was, during the founding of the United States, the only
real entity which could effectively remove Free Speech. The Church
and State were seperate, and the State couldn't endorse a religion, so
the Church was limited too. At that time, business could censor, yes,
but they could not remove Free Speech. Censorship is not necessarily
and infringement of Free Speech.
My argument is that today, the employment situation has changed, which
has created a new threat. The *intent* of the First Amendment,
allowing exchange of ideas, is effectively null and void if private
companies can do what the state cant. Especially if they collude,
which they do. In order to re-establish Free Speech, this new threat
to infringement must be removed to restore the original intent of a
Free Nation.
>The KKK example
> is stupid, as this is not typical of what gets people fired. Should you be
MR> how dare you call my example stupid. how dare you.
The reason I said this was because the actual real-world issue has
little to nothing to do with the KKK. Throughout the Western world,
people are being fired and arrested for their ideas, and this almost
never has anything to do with the KKK. As I said before, there could
be a case for firing someone because they are a member of the KKK to
be justified and not an infringement of speech, if the KKK is an
organisation that commits violent crimes.
> I believe that private companies should not have the right to fire, and that
> America's weakness is it prioritises the right of Capital over Free Speech.
MR> that's your belief and in my country you have a right to that belief.
MR> you can even lobby to have a law created. i think private companies
MR> should be able to fire people for whatever as long as it's not a
MR> protected class of person.
In Australia, you cannot fire someone for protected characteristics
(not class), ie, you can't do it due to their race, religion,
ethnicity. I think that belief, ideology and politics, ie, ones
beliefs and opinions should be protected as well. For us Australians,
its a minor amendment to an existing protection, but I suspect it is
absent in order to be able to destroy political undesirables.
If you have already accepted that there are exceptions being able to
freely fire people, why are you reluctant to include an individuals
beliefs and statements as protected?? You've already accepted that
right is not absolute, which I agree with.
> business. Again, a weakness in Capitalism, in that it allows political
> infiltration by supporting companies having "views".
MR> every type of establishment has infiltrators. the KKK did.
MR> greenpeace, the masons, anything big. they get in there and redirect
MR> the focus. ---
By prohibiting people being fired for their speech you neuter to some
degree this effect. This is precisely why you need laws to protect
people from being fired for their speech! If an organisation DOES
infiltrate, then people are able to discuss this and point it out.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
