We effectively do not enjoy freedom of speech if we can get fired for the kinds of speech the first amendment was intended to protect. & it does get tricky. It really could undo America as we know it. I’m going to consider ways to resolve it here (thread)

As it stands, employers can, in many states, fire “without cause”. It’s a pretty insane when u think about it. It’s not “we don’t have to tell you why” per se, it’s a legally protected ability to claim there’s literally no reason. Basically makes individual claims impossible

This whole rubric has to go. We have a right to know why we’re fired & a right to make legal claims in response.Racial & sexual minorities have this ability via special cutouts, so we’re talking about equal protections here

But let’s assume giving cause is default. Are we suggesting anyone can say anything at work , short of threats/“fire!”, etc? No. I’ve overheard absolute filth~ sexually graphic~ speech in workplaces. I’ve been made really uncomfortable with advances made by coworker..

I don’t think anyone would agree someone has a “right” to speak in such ways at workplaces. Similarly, no “serious” person will tell you it’s ok to fire people for vocalizing support for Joe Biden.

That we understand a positive right to certain kinds of speech in workplaces indicates we recognize a distinction between that space & a purely private domain. I can I fact make you leave my home for any reason whatever; we all behave as tho employers have other obligations..

..including employers themselves, who spend time/resources developing HR policy delineating that obligation

Do employers have an obligation to respect & uphold the first amendment? They currently have de-facto speech policies, so they recognize an interest. They certainly recognize obligations to uphold civil rights ,which is just as~if not more~ fraught/complicated

So there’s no undue burden here. But here’s the big Q: If we recognize free speech as essential to a common good, but understand we can’t tolerate certain kinds of speech in public (workplaces) , do we formalize the distinction?

Do we effectively move pornographic speech into the category of speech we recognize as a threat to public well-being? That’s one way to resolve the issue.

This kind of speech is more like threats/abuse than any other kind of speech, in that people respond to them in universally similar ways, regardless of identity or political affiliation.

It’s also speech that is inessential to functioning body politic. We don’t need to be able to make lewd comments to coworkers in order for our system to work as intended.

No one could say as much about political speech. We can easily imagine universally intolerable speech being relegated to purely private spheres with no public or political fallout.

Aside: If this leads to ppl formalizing dating/courting a bit more as cultural side effect, I don’t think reasonable ppl would see that as bad thing

But here are the claims ppl will make about allowing all political speech: But politician/party X advocates for what I perceive to be violence against me , so I receive it as a threat.

That’s not uncomplicated. & I think there are two approaches: 1) ultimately all political speech advocates for (what it presents as) just use of force/violence. It’s a Q of why/to what end 2) Is there historical precedent for ideas Youre espousing?

This seems odd, but it’s basically “can a reasonable person distinguish between your political speech & arbitrary threats?

Can a Leftist say “Billionaires should be executed”? Can a Rightist say “This country should be for Whites only”? Both aren’t totally clear & depend on context. It’s pretty clear one camp is far more likely to be fired than the other.

But it is going to be fraught either way. There will be challenges, just like in every area of law. One way to mitigate challenges is to establish something like a much higher burden for employers to act alone in firing/disciplining employee for that kind of edgy speech

They’d have to prove they’re responding to claims they determined to be reasonable.

But look, something like this has to happen if we want to maintain this country as we know it. The fallout if we fail will not be isolated to specific workplaces or courtrooms ~ it will sprawl out & overtake public life as we know it.

By & large, a solution like this , by better formalizing a public good, would make something like firing or economically harming someone for publicly supporting a candidate or party a clear violation of the first amendment, which applies everywhere that isn’t a private domicile..

It’s absolutely in keeping with democratic ideals of founders & their texts: it squares not only an obligation to tolerate political views you don’t like, but also to restrain universally intolerable speech (overtly sexual speech, pornography, threats & false alarms) on ..

Individual shoulders, so we might form a more perfect Union. It also removes tyrannical power from a particular class, who can effectively thumb the scales in their favor as long as this is allowed to continue