I am constantly amazed at the public’s overgeneralization of
what First Amendment free speech. They
seem to think it gives you the right to say whatever you want without
consequence.
·
Comment on Twitter, free speech, and
harassment. A commenter said that
because we have freedom of speech, Twitter can’t prohibit harassing speech on
its service. As a private organization,
Twitter can restrict any speech they want.
They may face public backlash (which is also free speech), but it would
not violate First Amendment free speech.
·
A sports reporter made a comment on one of his
social media feeds that supported a very controversial military event from
World War II. He was fired. Supporters claimed that his free speech rights
were violated by the broadcaster. Not
true. It is true that he has the free
speech right to make the statement and be free from criminal or civil
prosecution. But that is where it
ends. As a private organization, the
broadcaster has the freedom not to employ him. His employment contract could
add additional rights or limitations, but that is not free speech that is
contract law. Different thing all together.
I am not a constitutional law expert, but the basics are not
that complicated.
First Amendment free speech gives you the right to say
whatever you want on your own property or on public property. There are some
very restricted limitations based on safety (shouting “fire” in a theater,
making direct and immediate threats “I am going to punch you right now, right
here”, or speaking in a way that interferes with other peoples’ rights such as
creating a disturbance). But you have
the right to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, agist, bigoted jackass as you
want. The government cannot prosecute
you criminally or civilly.
But on private property, the owner also has rights. They have the right not to allow you on their
premises. They have the right not to do
business with you. They have the right
not to employ you. None of this violates your First Amendment free speech
rights. Twitter’s service is private
property so they can exclude users who post speech they don’t like. The
broadcaster’s company is private (even publicly traded corporations) so they
can exclude people from employment due to their speech. This is a whole different thing.
In places like Europe, there are hate speech laws which
constrain this right. In more
authoritarian countries they have lots of additional constraints (e.g. the
great censorship wall of China). But in
the US, we have what I think is the most free of free speech rights. But that doesn’t mean that speech is without
consequence.
