We value free speech very highly in this country, but it isn’t an absolute. There are limits to free speech.
There’s also a distinction in American law between restrictions the government can place on speech, and restrictions other people can place on speech. So, while the government might not be able to fire somebody for being a communist, a private firm could.
We’ve recently seen many serious attacks on free speech — mostly from the woke left. People lose their jobs and their livelihoods because they dare to say something the woke mob disagrees with.
(For the record, in the past we’ve seen similar threats from the right.)
For some inexplicable reason, we’ve allowed this to happen without challenge.
I think it’s fairly obvious that there is a range of opinions people should be able to express without fear of retaliation, and there are other opinions that are unacceptable in civilized society. For example, it’s no longer acceptable to advocate slavery.
The problem we’re struggling with is how to define the boundaries. What opinions are acceptable, and what are unacceptable?
If you listen to the woke mob, anything they’ve decided to reject in the last five minutes is a hanging offense. This is clearly madness. It puts whoever can make a stink on Twitter in the driver’s seat.
Still, there needs to be some sort of standard. It needs to be relatively objective, and it needs to respect free speech as well as evolving standards of decency. There are things that were acceptable to say in 1720 that are no longer acceptable.
Here’s an idea for how to do that.
Let’s say we pick a group of people who are believed to be representatives of decent society.
- Supreme Court justices (federal and state)
- Senators
- Governors
- Tenured professors at major universities
Imagine that we establish a rule that if you say something that is consistent with what 2 or 3 of those folks have said in the past five years, you’re in the clear. You can’t be fired for expressing such a view.
In time, everyone in the culture would learn to understand and respect that as the acceptable bounds of free speech.
There would have to be some tinkering here. For example, even if three Senators say that Google is a horrible stain on America, Google should still be able to fire employees who say that. So the lawyers will have to adjust things a bit.
But I think that something along these general lines could be adopted as a standard for free speech. It respects the voice of the people — since they elect governors and Senators — and it would define what “reasonable speech” means, and provide a safe haven for it. It would also place a limit on unreasonable speech, and allow for evolving standards of decency.
QUOTE: (For the record, in the past we’ve seen similar threats from the right.)
Agreed. Yet, I’d suggest this isn’t in the distant “past”. It was fairly recently that Tucker Carlson’s reckless speech caused actual harm to NYT reporters. As well, it wasn’t so long ago Laura Ingram uttered her “shut up and dripple” edict on national TV (with millions watching) to those who held opposing political views.
QUOTE: If you listen to the woke mob, anything they’ve decided to reject in the last five minutes is a hanging offense. This is clearly madness. It puts whoever can make a stink on Twitter in the driver’s seat.
Wouldn’t Trump and some of his millions of Twitter followers also be guilty of such behavior? Given his presidential bully pulpit and frequent Twitter rants, he seems to be in the driver’s seat quite often. Who could have guessed First Lady Melania’s “Be Best” campaign wouldn’t work on him?
QUOTE: Imagine that we establish a rule that if you say something that is consistent with what 2 or 3 of those folks have said in the past five years, you’re in the clear. You can’t be fired for expressing such a view.
The problem is there isn’t a consistent standard within the categories you identified. For instance, politicians on the right speak differently than those on the left. So, who decides who gets to be the appropriate model within such a diverse group? Or, does it not matter? As long as they fit into one of those categories, whatever they say is fair game ? What happens if people want to model speech like Rep. Steve King, Governor Sarah Palin, University President Jerry Falwell, Jr., Senator Bernie Sanders or Judge Aaron Persky? Would it be acceptable to give a pass to people if they modeled some of their speech?
Looks like the “mob” is at it again. Seems a doctor in Arizona was fired after a viral tweet about Covid and hospital conditions there. Who could have imagined a doctor would be at risk of losing his job for telling the truth about matters of public health…especially after being personally thanked by President-elect Biden for his service? The “mob” is out of control!
https://www.newsweek.com/cleavon-gilman-covid-doctor-fired-viral-virus-tweets-yuma-regional-medical-center-1554099
Honestly, I think part of the problem is referring to these sorts of things as “telling the truth.” He’s giving his perspective / opinion, which might or might not be the truth. The more important thing is that he’s qualified to have an opinion.
Back when I took CPR, they assured us that if we followed our training and didn’t go beyond it — i.e., try to do things we weren’t trained to do — we were protected from being sued. (I’m sure you recall those sad stories from a few decades ago where Good Samaritans were sued by the people they saved.)
A doctor should certainly have the freedom to share his opinion on things within his area of expertise.
QUOTE: Honestly, I think part of the problem is referring to these sorts of things as “telling the truth.” He’s giving his perspective / opinion, which might or might not be the truth
The number of beds available in ICU is a knowable thing and typically a doctor who works in the health system in question would know such.