zlacker

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+(OP)
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+r
Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution.

In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue".

The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.

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

>>burrow+Gs
So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively initiating or assisting such attacks?

(Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral principles you're applying here.)

>>a13692+8A
Government ought to have a force monopoly.

Government ought to be “small” (functionally and structurally limited).

Government ought to defend the natural rights of its citizens from physical force initiated by criminals and international aggressors.

A government that does not fulfill these duties is evil. The Constitution clearly prevents the government from using guns to break my free speech. Does it also require the government to use its guns to protect my free speech from criminals? Ethically, this is the government’s duty. If the government isn’t doing this, it lacks a legitimate purpose.

Private entities do not have a duty to protect man’s natural rights. But, it is immoral for them to violate a man’s natural rights. Amazon didn’t violate anyone’s natural rights by cancelling a private contract because of public comments.

>>burrow+Gs
You can disagree on who is obligated to defend what kinds of speech, but do you agree with the parent's point - that the grandparent conflated an amendment with a moral principle?

>>burrow+Gs
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+OV2
> 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?

>>jsheve+wU2
Yes.

> 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.

Refers to the free speech natural right.

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

Refers to an amendment.

The amendment protects the natural right from state aggression. However, the right can be violated in ways not “made illegal” by the amendment.

>>burrow+sX2
I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency). I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'. Both are invented concepts. In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

Edit: In some cases 'ought to have' is nothing more than 'want to have'.

>>jsheve+NZ2
> I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency).

Agreed. Describe your thought process for deciding whether someone’s natural rights have been violated.

> I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'.

Group A uses the ‘ought to have’ framework to rationalize co-opting the state in their conspiracy to plunder group B.

> Both are invented concepts.

All concepts are invented. I choose to use concepts that most accurately map “non-invented” reality.

> In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

I agree with this analysis, but it’s not how I arrive at the ethical imperative to protect natural rights.