Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

skylercollins t1_iz6nlsb wrote

Oh cool, more intrusion on free speech and free association.

−42

Sariel007 OP t1_iz71x7e wrote

Lol, if you have to straight up lie to trick people into applying for your company or to vote for you then you really need to re-evaluate your life choices.

10

skylercollins t1_iz7hz8m wrote

Then expose the companies that do that. Don't attack free speech and think you're doing a good and noble thing. You're not.

−9

hammonjj t1_iz76q9q wrote

And how exactly is this an infringement on free speech?

7

skylercollins t1_iz7hto0 wrote

Compelled speech is an infringement on free speech.

−6

Paradachshund t1_iz7onxh wrote

What's your take on warning labels? For example, overdose warnings on medications.

9

skylercollins t1_iz8b3qn wrote

Same thing. If the manufacturer and prescriber want to avoid liability for harming you then they will include overdose warnings as a matter of prudence.

0

Paradachshund t1_iz8fxo3 wrote

So if I'm following your philosophy, and let me know if I'm not understanding you, companies should be held liable if they fail to disclose a salary range of their own volition, and it should be something you could sue them over. Is that right?

2

skylercollins t1_iz9jcus wrote

No, you're not following me. Not disclosing a salary range does not bring actionable harm to anybody, not like ingesting poison or injuring yourself.

Duh.

1

Paradachshund t1_iza346u wrote

So is the line causing bodily harm to another party? That's where free speech should end?

1

skylercollins t1_izbar5k wrote

The line is aggression or the threat of aggression (the initiation of force against a person or property).

Telling a business they have to disclose a salary in their job listing is telling him that you're going to throw them in prison if they don't. All laws are backed up with force. Always. That's an initiation of force against non-force. I don't know about you, but that violates my most fundamental of principles.

1

Paradachshund t1_izbjhrw wrote

Is it true that the penalty is prison? And who goes to prison in the salary example? Wouldn't it be the company who's liable rather than an individual?

1

skylercollins t1_izbmffd wrote

Every law ends in prison, or death. Don't support laws that you wouldn't kill for. End of story.

1

Gullible-Medium123 t1_iz7o76h wrote

Do you consider other accurate labeling requirements to be free speech intrusions as well? (I'm not being snarky, I'm earnestly trying to better understand your perspective here.)

Like packaged food manufacturers being required to include ingredients and nutrition information; car manufacturers reporting miles per gallon according to a standardized test; property owners who wish to enforce access restrictions on their property having to post notice of such restriction ("no trespassing"); data collection companies having to let you know how they intend to use your data (privacy policy and terms of service); news services having at least a nominal duty to the truth; and so on?

6

skylercollins t1_iz8ayru wrote

>Do you consider other accurate labeling requirements to be free speech intrusions as well?

Yes, until it crosses the line and becomes fraud.

>Like packaged food manufacturers being required to include ingredients and nutrition information; car manufacturers reporting miles per gallon according to a standardized test;

Absolutely.

>property owners who wish to enforce access restrictions on their property having to post notice of such restriction ("no trespassing");

This should not be required but it is wise to do in order to avoid legal liability in the harm they bring to trespassers. "I didn't know I was trespassing because there was no indication I was on private property" should be a valid offense when suing somebody for harming you.

>news services having at least a nominal duty to the truth; and so on?

Absolutely.

Lying, defamation, hate speech, all of it are free speech and should be legally protected. Cancel culture can go where the law shouldn't.

2

Gullible-Medium123 t1_iz8bu5k wrote

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to explain in more detail.

So far I quite disagree, but I don't think I've run into your particular stance before. I will keep an open mind as I research further.

1

skylercollins t1_iz9ji8a wrote

It's just the principled free speech stance taken to its logical conclusion. Wherever you disagree, apply that disagreement consistently across the board and you'll probably reach some very distasteful conclusions, at least I hope you would, assuming you're a kind and decent person.

0