zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position.

Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech.

>>jeswin+fi
You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else.

Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

>>Adrian+Gi
That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.

>>a13692+PF
Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free speech isn’t violated.

>>burrow+VK
Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right. To take this view might arbitrarily limit one's ability to analyze the nature and impact of the censorship being done by social media.

>>jsheve+3e3
> Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right.

I agree. Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22873029

What is your framework for analyzing natural rights violations?