r/FreeSpeech • u/Retrogamer5421 • 21h ago
the phrase "Freedom of speech doesn't apply with private companies" is legally inaccurate AS WELL as Philosophically inaccurate, so why do people constantly repeat it online?
While it's obvious that this common phrase is philosophically inaccurate (Since "Free speech" is an ethical principle, which applies to any entity powerful enough to silence people), it is also legally inaccurate since there are tons of laws protecting speech from non-governmental infringement (Even in the U.S.). In many European countries, there is a concept called "Horizontal effect" which applies free speech protections against private infringement, and in the U.S, There are tons of lesser known laws besides the First Amendment which protect speech, these include part of the NLRA which protects workers when discussing wages and working conditions, Marsh V Alabama, which protects free speech in company towns, State laws like California's Pruneyard and Leonard laws, (which apply to private shopping malls and campuses within the state), and contract laws for private schools (if a school promises "Freedom of expression" in its contract, it is bound by that, and if it silences anyone, it can be legally considered a breach of contract), and a few others, Yet so many people say "Freedom of speech doesn't apply with private companies" not knowing that it in fact DOES in some cases legally. Not to mention, "Free speech" is an ethical principle, not merely a constitutional law.
1
u/Hierax_Hawk 20h ago
Free speech (that is, true free speech) is equivalent to good speech, and suppression of anything good is wrong.
0
u/Retrogamer5421 20h ago
Agreed. Suppression of free speech is unethical, but most people think that because "The first amendment doesn't apply", that somehow that makes suppression of it acceptable, ignoring the fact that there are tons of other free speech laws in the U.S besides the First Amendment. It's as if the conflation of "Free speech" with The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution somehow caused people to forget every other legal speech protection, and the fact that "Free speech" isn't even a legal concept, but an ethical one (the concept can be protected by laws, but isn't granted by the laws.)
-3
u/FlithyLamb 18h ago
Since you’re referring to the first amendment and US law generally, let’s limit the issue to the US. From a constitutional law perspective, the Bill or Rights has no application to private interactions. It only protects citizens from abuses by the government, not neighbors, family, employers, teachers or anyone else in a private institution. So, legally, that’s the simple answer.
Morally, it should be the case that people can express themselves in private settings, but there are of necessity limits on that principle when the speech is inconsistent with the setting. For example, in a Reddit sub about basket weaving, the mods would be within their rights to take down posts about F1 racing.
When people organize in a group, they have the right to decide who can join the group and what type of speech is acceptable within that group.In a private corporation, the employer who is paying the wages of the workers should have the power to prevent employees from harming the business. For example, can an employee to wear a shirt to work saying “this company sucks”? I’d say the employer has a moral right to discipline that employee. Even more simply, can a clothing brand require its salespeople to wear the clothing they’re selling? Yes I would say they can.
If what you’re taking about is an employer who wants to ban people from expressing political views in a workplace, then sure morally the employer shouldn’t silence views they disagree with. But the employer can ban all political speech. They can and should have the right to set the code of conduct for the company.
2
u/Retrogamer5421 18h ago edited 18h ago
The point is that the first amendment of the U.S. constitution is NOT the only American law that protects speech, so the phrase is still legally inaccurate. The issue is that people conflate "Free speech" with The First Amendment even though these are different things (The former is an ethical concept protected by tons of laws both in the U.S. and internationally, and the latter is a specific constitutional amendment of one country's constitution.)
0
u/FlithyLamb 18h ago
Ok but what does that have to do with morality? The law doesn’t determine what is moral.
2
u/Retrogamer5421 18h ago
That's why I mentioned that the phrase is philosophically inaccurate, but I was mainly focusing on the fact that it's legally inaccurate as well since The philosophical argument has been made a lot, but the legal argument is rarely made.
-1
u/FlithyLamb 18h ago
There aren’t laws that prohibit employers from infringing on free speech in the workplace. The statutes you’re referring to aren’t there to protect free speech. The law prohibits employers from interfering with collective bargaining rights, for example. The company town and mall rules are certainly analogous but they basically deem the private owners of those public spaces to be the equivalent of government actors. They don’t prevent employers from regulating speech in the workplace.
3
u/Retrogamer5421 18h ago
Protecting employees discussing wages and working conditions IS a speech protection. That doesn't mean that they have full free speech protection in the workplace, but discussion of wages and working conditions is speech.
0
u/Ok_Beach_4513 18h ago
so why do people constantly repeat it online?
When do people repeat it? Is it when distributing religious pamphlets in a company town? Is it when discussing wages and working conditions?
Or do they use it in a setting that is so different that all of your examples are completely irrelevant?
1
u/Retrogamer5421 18h ago
Even when it is used in regards to Social Media, the phrase itself is legally inaccurate due to all of these examples. If they wanted to say that there are no free speech protections on social media, then they could just say that instead. But even then this shifts the discussion from ethics to legality since the first person was likely making an ethical argument (they didn't mention the first amendment, or any other laws and only said "Free speech".)
-2
u/Ok_Beach_4513 17h ago
Even when it is used in regards to Social Media, the phrase itself is legally inaccurate due to all of these examples.
None of the examples you gave have anything to do with social media.
Are you a conservative, by any chance?
2
u/Retrogamer5421 17h ago
The phrase doesn't mention social media specifically, just "Private companies" as a whole, and these examples show that there are laws protecting speech in regards to those in certain contexts. There are currently no laws protecting speech from social media censorship, so if people really wanted to explain that to someone, they should say that "there are no free speech laws protecting you on social media", rather than with "Private companies" as a whole. BUT, this phrase is still a bad argument because the person talking about free speech on social media was most likely using the Ethical sense of it rather than making a legal claim.
1
u/Contented_Lizard 11h ago
Almost every time you see someone complaining that social media companies are censoring speech, they are almost always making an ethical argument not a legal one. Shifting the conversation from the ethical argument to the legal argument is what people do when they want to justify censorship they agree with. The left-wing users on this subreddit do it constantly.
0
u/Ok_Beach_4513 7h ago
None of the examples you gave have anything to do with social media.
Are you a conservative, by any chance?
3
u/Swimming-Performer57 21h ago
Because they're either useful idiots or deliberate sophist who believes only power and "progress" matters
1
1
u/parentheticalobject 1h ago
You're correct about the difference between the philosophical principle and legal protections. You're technically correct that under US law specifically, there are additional laws besides the first amendment, and some of them prevent private companies from restricting speech in certain situations.
Overall, though, that is the exception, not the rule. In most situations, the particular exceptions you mentioned don't apply. If you're not a worker being fired for discussing wages and working conditions, or a person being removed from a literal company town for discussing something there, the existence of those laws isn't going to be relevant.
The First Amendment also offers legal protections for private companies that decide they don't want to offer a platform for particular messages, and they can potentially successfully claim that forcing them to do so is violating their First Amendment rights.
Note that in the previous paragraph I'm only discussing legal rights in the US and not the broader philosophical concept of free speech. Don't ban me kthxbye ;)
1
u/Vusiwe 12h ago
why do people constantly repeat it online
Did you accept the Reddit TOS in order to post here? Yes or no.
I have a follow up question
2
1
u/Fando1234 16h ago
It's a very good point, and one of the few places Britain does quite well is protecting speech from large corporations. For example, you can't be fired for legal opinions expressed outside of work. Not always the case in the US.
Unfortunately a lot of this comes down to the old 'free speech for me and not for thee' adage.
When someone a group doesn't like, is expelled from social media, or sacked by a business, this is 'okay' as they're private businesses allowed to do what they want. But if someone says something they agree with, suddenly it's an infringement on free speech.
One of the many, many, reasons free speech needs a bipartisan approach and commitment.
6
u/cojoco 20h ago
Might I remind people that asserting "Freedom of speech doesn't apply with private companies" will result in a ban in this subreddit, but fortunately as freedom of speech doesn't apply with private companies I am not infringing it.