Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

These ruling feels absurd and is an indication the NLRB is going too far. Speech should not be limited in this way.

We limit corporate-related speech all of the time. You're not allowed to threaten employees with termination for not enduring illegal activity, for example. You're also not allowed to advertise in certain ways in certain industries: a great example would be the ban on cigarette ads on TV, or the strict regulation around pharmaceutical ads.

Whether or not you agree with these decisions, restricting corporate speech is a very common and accepted practice. His speech isn't limited, FWIW - he's allowed to say it, but the company he works for may suffer operational or economic consequences for it. He won't personally go to jail for it.

Oh, and if you perhaps think that maybe corporate speech shouldn’t be limited: for an extreme example, while personally lying is protected speech, do you think that businesses should be able to lie in advertising or in-store displays about the price, quality, or terms of the items they sell?

I’m pretty much a “free speech absolutist” but if businesses are allowed the same freedom of expression as individuals, our modern system of commerce would break down because it would become game-theory-optimal to lie constantly, much in the way that has already happened in politics.

Yeah, people seem to think that being an employer carries no responsibility at all for the well being of your employees, along with an entitlement to defraud them by lying to them about the law.

Well of course, they might be the boss someday!

> We limit corporate-related speech all of the time. You're not allowed to threaten employees with termination for not enduring illegal activity, for example. You're also not allowed to advertise in certain ways in certain industries: a great example would be the ban on cigarette ads on TV, or the strict regulation around pharmaceutical ads.

Yes, you’re not allowed to do things that violate the law. That applies to individuals as much as corporations, though. But that is quite different from restricting someone from expressing an opinion.

> His speech isn't limited, FWIW - he's allowed to say it, but the company he works for may suffer operational or economic consequences for it. He won't personally go to jail for it.

The problem is not that the company may suffer “operational or economic consequences”. That could be true regardless of what he said, or whether he said anything at all. The problem is that the government is punishing the company for his publicly expressing an opinion. Even if you disagree with his opinion or find it distasteful, that should disturb anyone who values free speech.

> The problem is not that the company may suffer “operational or economic consequences”. That could be true regardless of what he said, or whether he said anything at all. The problem is that the government is punishing the company for his publicly expressing an opinion.

This is a good point. The problem is not that the company may suffer consequences, the problem is that the company is suffering consequences.

If you read the ruling you can see the judge explained that some of what Jassy said was opinion and some was not. If you want to call the ruling problematic you could try engaging with the specific arguments the judge laid out and refute them rather than refuting the strawman that opinion is not allowed.

This is a good point. Rather than responding to what somebody posts it is best to refute something else that they could have posted, but did not post

'It would be a shame if you were to join a union and something terrible happened...'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com