Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

It's a private institution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_System_of_Higher_...; "Legally, the universities remain separate and private entities, operating under their own charters, governed by independent boards of trustees, and with assets under their own ownership and control, thereby retaining much of the freedom and individuality of private institutions, both administratively and academically."

There is no "right of freedom speech" there. They're not a government actor to which the First Amendment applies.

(Even if you work for the government, you can be fired for telling your boss to fuck off, or putting up "Muslims are evil" comics on your cubicle wall. It's not an unlimited right even there; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos and https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1608/pickering-... apply.)

View on HN

So there is no freedom for anyone dependent on their wages.

Doesn't sound like a freedom at all.

There aren't really any absolute freedoms.

I can't decide my religion's core tenet is murder, nor can I artistically express myself via a mass shooting.

Similarly, I can't libel people as free speech, nor use a megaphone outside your house at 3am in most places. I can't demand a strip club accommodate a requirement I wear modest clothing as a dancer. etc. etc. etc.

>Similarly, I can't libel people as free speech, nor use a megaphone outside your house at 3am in most places. I can't demand a strip club accommodate a requirement I wear modest clothing as a dancer. etc. etc. etc.

You can do any of these things as long as you can afford to deal with the consequences.

Do you see this bit of silly gotcha as adding to the conversation?

That's no freedom at all, the same freedom of a dog on a leash. You can do what you want as long I'm pleased.

When our freedoms conflict with each other, we have to reconcile that. I have a right not to be libeled, not to be defrauded, and not to be murdered. You may not like that these rights place limits on your rights to free expression, but that's the trade-off of living in a functioning society instead of alone on a deserted island.

The institution is free to employ her or not too, they have that right.

Now the reasons they might choose fire her could be something they can't do, but generally those are pretty limited.

Your employer doesn't hire you to promote your freedoms. They hire you to serve a purpose. For private enterprise that's to make money.

If you want freedom in the workplace, then that exists in the form of democratic workplaces, like worker co-ops. Joining or starting one is certainly possible if that's something you value.

Employment with this specific organization isn't a right, it's a contract between two parties. She's free to associate with employers who will take her and her racist views.

Freedom of Speech as an ideal predates the First Amendment by millennia and is not limited to government actions.

It's completely valid to opine that her employer violated her rights to free expression, even if the First Amendment doesn't apply in this case.

We're discussing a lawsuit, where the legal setup of the United States is going to be the deciding factor.

(The millennia-long discussions of things like freedom of speech tend to similarly wind up having to balance different conflicting freedoms, too.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com