Harvard is a private institution. The US government does not (and cannot) control the actions of Harvard. The first amendment protects our rights to say what we like but that guarantee does not extend to your place of employment. There is no irony or double standard in that.
Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.
A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.
There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity. Its one thing to realize your wrong and correct, that happens all the time with outside critics. Its another thing to have the outside critics use a broken law system to force you to change against your will.
"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"
An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.
I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.
There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity.
And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.
For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.
You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?
Are we members of communities? Are states "outside entities" any more than employers are? Why or why not? Does it matter if there is a general sense of ownership over the state?
Let's put it another way: Suppose the State of Ohio issues a charter to the New Saigon Initiaitve (name pulled out of thin air) to set up an incorporated, not for profit municipality with full self-governance with all the powers the state can lawfully delegate. Let's say that the charter specifies that all residents shall have an equal share of ownership and an equal say in the running of New Saigon. Suppose New Saigon starts banning books. Suppose the penalty for possessing a banned book is $500 and abatement by destroying or sending the book away, or being exiled from the town (but given an opportunity to sell your residence at market prices).
1. How is this different from a city doing it?
2. How is this different from an employer doing it?
(Just a clarification on your example, I have no argument to make whether private entities should have restrictions placed on them.)
The New Saigon initiative would be deemed by courts to have sufficient nexus with State power such that they act as an extension of state themselves. Such institutions and charter aren't uncommon in US. Most school districts are governed usually by kind of law you outlined. Under settled law, public schools act as arm of government, thus have same restriction on them as any other governmental entity has.
And before you come up with more contrived example, one has to keep in mind that laws are enforced by judges, who can usually see past complicated structure to determine what would be extension of government and what would not be.
Right, but "by courts" means "by our courts." It doesn't suppose that a different system might have different boundaries, right?
Here in Indonesia, for example, there's no civil marriage. A marriage is not legally valid unless it is also a religious marriage. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate in the States, but I would be annoyed if Americans were to say that had to be changed.
This all matters a great deal because we are talking about cross-cultural critiques here and the argument over whether it is a problem that India doesn't draw the same lines as the US.
We I say outside entities, I mean anyone outside the yourself or the organization affected. Anyone using lawsuits which have the court and backed by power of force of arms in a way to force the death of free speech is wrong and separate from the rest of us. Its more Animal Farm then community.
some_guy_there broke down your example better than I can.
Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].
However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.
I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.
(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)
So I take it that you also opposed Reddit's decision to ban clothed pictures of teenage girls, as well as teenage hentai, which was due to the threat of a slanderous smear campaign from Something Awful users[0]?
(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).
There is. I, as a free speech supporter in India, think that it is ridiculous that you are not allowed free speech in a place where you spend majority of your waking hours.
Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.
Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.
Comments
Harvard is a private institution. The US government does not (and cannot) control the actions of Harvard. The first amendment protects our rights to say what we like but that guarantee does not extend to your place of employment. There is no irony or double standard in that.
Penguin India is also a private institution. The book isn't banned, simply withdrawn by Penguin for what are likely commercial reasons.
"what are likely commercial reasons"
Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.
A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.
There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity. Its one thing to realize your wrong and correct, that happens all the time with outside critics. Its another thing to have the outside critics use a broken law system to force you to change against your will.
"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"
An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.
I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.
And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.
For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.
You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?
The article says a book was published then a group of people used threats made possible by a broken law system to get the book censored.
Are we members of communities? Are states "outside entities" any more than employers are? Why or why not? Does it matter if there is a general sense of ownership over the state?
Let's put it another way: Suppose the State of Ohio issues a charter to the New Saigon Initiaitve (name pulled out of thin air) to set up an incorporated, not for profit municipality with full self-governance with all the powers the state can lawfully delegate. Let's say that the charter specifies that all residents shall have an equal share of ownership and an equal say in the running of New Saigon. Suppose New Saigon starts banning books. Suppose the penalty for possessing a banned book is $500 and abatement by destroying or sending the book away, or being exiled from the town (but given an opportunity to sell your residence at market prices).
1. How is this different from a city doing it?
2. How is this different from an employer doing it?
(Just a clarification on your example, I have no argument to make whether private entities should have restrictions placed on them.)
The New Saigon initiative would be deemed by courts to have sufficient nexus with State power such that they act as an extension of state themselves. Such institutions and charter aren't uncommon in US. Most school districts are governed usually by kind of law you outlined. Under settled law, public schools act as arm of government, thus have same restriction on them as any other governmental entity has.
And before you come up with more contrived example, one has to keep in mind that laws are enforced by judges, who can usually see past complicated structure to determine what would be extension of government and what would not be.
Right, but "by courts" means "by our courts." It doesn't suppose that a different system might have different boundaries, right?
Here in Indonesia, for example, there's no civil marriage. A marriage is not legally valid unless it is also a religious marriage. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate in the States, but I would be annoyed if Americans were to say that had to be changed.
This all matters a great deal because we are talking about cross-cultural critiques here and the argument over whether it is a problem that India doesn't draw the same lines as the US.
We I say outside entities, I mean anyone outside the yourself or the organization affected. Anyone using lawsuits which have the court and backed by power of force of arms in a way to force the death of free speech is wrong and separate from the rest of us. Its more Animal Farm then community.
some_guy_there broke down your example better than I can.
Self censorship is much worse than state imposed one IMO. The later can be formed, the former creates meek and obedient societies.
"formed" did you mean reformed?
Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].
However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.
I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.
(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)
1) played for effect in "Silver Lining Playbook"
So I take it that you also opposed Reddit's decision to ban clothed pictures of teenage girls, as well as teenage hentai, which was due to the threat of a slanderous smear campaign from Something Awful users[0]?
(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).
[0] http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/126893-s...
see my response to einhverfr for further clarification. I have no opinion or desire to learn about this situation to form an opinion.
I'm using this line in the future
I'm not really into researching anything that contains "teenage hentai", sorry.
There is. I, as a free speech supporter in India, think that it is ridiculous that you are not allowed free speech in a place where you spend majority of your waking hours.
Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.
Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.
Question as an outsider: How does this interact with your right not to be discriminated against in the workplace based on religion or political views?