Your Constitutional right to let society know you’re a jackass

40 thoughts on Your Constitutional right to let society know you’re a jackass

1. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.

   What? I don’t remember anywhere that the founding fathers wrote “People should be able to say stupid things without fear of scorn or ridicule.” All this time I mistakenly thought that my free speech rights were about protecting me from the government punishing me because they don’t like what I’m saying. Now I know; if someone says something mean to me about something I’ve said, they’re violating my free speech!

   Wait… what if I say something mean to someone about something mean that they’ve said to me about something mean I’ve said?

2. Rocker:

   Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.

   Um, no. I don’t think the right of free speech “as our Founding Fathers intended” ever came with the promise of freedom from the discomforts of “non-agreement.”

   Nor should it, as that would render the core idea of Free Speech moot.

3. Whaat?? I was certain it was the USian founders who came up with,
   “If you can’t say anything nice, shut up and let me talk.”

4. The complete and utter inability for people to understand the First Amendment protections of “free speech” drive me mad.

   The First Amendment protects you from government restriction on your expression. The media is not the government.

   And it’s free from restrictions, not consequences. Expecting other people to react the way you want them to to your free speech means that you’re not respecting their right to exercise their own.

5. Voltaire and the founding fathers would agree that my scorn for hateful comments is also my first amendment constitutional right. That was kind of the point of free speech. Why don’t people recognize that I’m not criticizing your right to say something hateful? I’m criticizing the hate that underlies it. They are not the same thing.

6. I was going to crack another joke about bigots whining that freedom of speech means freedom from negative responses… except it looks like the author actually went and made that claim.

   Want to make bigoted, incendiary comments? Expect to be told to go fuck yourself. Freedom of speech means eveyone gets to run their mouths.

7. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement

   I’m glad I’m not the only one who read that and thought “Um, no? That’s not at all what the founding fathers meant!”

   I mean, you can rant all day about how much you hate one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters, but if you run a Purple People Eatery and the purple people eaters decide to boycott you, well, the government isn’t going to force them to patronize your establishment. Now if the government itself came along and told you that you needed to shut up or they’d take away your business and give it to some non-bigot, then your first amendment right would have been violated.

8. well I guess what he’s arguing is that the force of the blowback from the media that some people receive when they voice their opinions publicly, that the reaction to what they’re saying might make them think twice about saying those things and thus limit their freedom of speech.

   for example if there are certain things you can’t say for fear of loosing your job, I think it’s pretty safe to say this is an encroachment on free speech because loosing your job is a pretty coercive threat.

9. I’m always shocked when a person realizes that the First Amendment was never designed to stifle criticism. If anything, it was designed to promote criticism. He fundamentally gtes it wrong with “we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.” Uh, no John Rocker. If anything, the First Amendment was created to make MORE scorn and ridicule – and make sure you couldn’t get locked up for it. But yes – scorn and ridicule are, frankly, at the heart of free speech. Things like this make my constitutional law-lovin’ heart break. Ugh.

10. btw above I’m not talking about bigot trolls writing in newspapers or blogs having their free speech violated by public scorn or whatever, because these people continue to write and probably end up feeling validated by it.

    what I mean is that there is a case to be made that hypothetically if saying certain ideas is going to make you a target for violence or seriously affect your well being then maybe that’s a violation of free speech. Even if it’s not the government that’s responsible.

11. for example if there are certain things you can’t say for fear of loosing your job, I think it’s pretty safe to say this is an encroachment on free speech because loosing your job is a pretty coercive threat.

    Disagree. While it is a coercive threat, it is not a coercive threat by the government (unless you work for it). The government cannot restrict your right to speech, but you still have to face the consequences of the things you say to everybody else in the world.

12. Hahaha. John fucking Rocker?

    He’s just put out because people got pissed at him for his No. 7 train comments.

13. the reaction to what they’re saying might make them think twice about saying those things

    Thinking twice before saying stupid things is a good thing.

14. true, but oh man id be awesome to not have to get viciously attacked every time you said something somebody didn’t like…

15. You have no free speech rights vis-a-vis a private employer, at least in the US. Plus, employment at will means you can be fired for any reason.

16. what I mean is that there is a case to be made that hypothetically if saying certain ideas is going to make you a target for violence or seriously affect your well being then maybe that’s a violation of free speech. Even if it’s not the government that’s responsible.

    While it can certainly be a restriction on free speech in the general sense, he was talking about the Founding Fathers which by implication is referring more specifically to the First Amendment. That is just about government intervention.

    Also as a more general principle: Freedom of speech is also the freedom for others to express scorn for your speech.

17. oh man id be awesome to not have to get viciously attacked every time you said something somebody didn’t like…

    If we can rip to shreds the arguments of the racists, the misogynists, the hateful…unfortunately that means that they can do their best to do the same to ours.

18. Just goes to show how many people were not paying attention in high school civics class *eyeroll*. I am constantly amused at how the armchair internet Constitutional scholar fails to grasp the basic meaning of the First Amendment.

19. The government cannot restrict your right to speech, but you still have to face the consequences of the things you say to everybody else in the world.

    Even that’s not, strictly speaking, true. There are a number of exceptions to the Free Speech right. You can’t threaten people, you can’t produce and distribute child pornography, you can’t commit libel or slander, you can’t incite riots, or intentionally create dangerous situations (the whole, “yelling fire in a crowded theater” situation).

    Even if John Rocker was right that we’re supposed to be free from scorn when we speak, it’s just not true that we can say anything we want at any time we want without consequence.

    It makes the title of the piece all the more amusing to me, since the sort of “free speech” he’s talking about truly is mythic.

20. Voltaire didn’t even say it. It’s a common misattribution.

21. I think I agree with chiara. Yes, the First Amendment restricts only the government. But chiara’s point is that you don’t have to be the government to silence another person. As a feminist, I reject the Libertarian notion that the only source of constraint is the government.

    From there, John Rocker COULD be correct that someone’s freedoms are being impinged even if the government is staying out of it. He just doesn’t happen to have a good example of the problem at hand.

22. Freedom of speech is also the freedom for others to express scorn for your speech.

    B-b-but you’re denying my right to speak if you say that you don’t like what I say!!!

    It’s only a matter of time before the USA becomes a totalitarian state.

23. I think I agree with chiara. Yes, the First Amendment restricts only the government. But chiara’s point is that you don’t have to be the government to silence another person. As a feminist, I reject the Libertarian notion that the only source of constraint is the government.

    No one here is arguing that the only source of constraint is the government, though. People are arguing that (a) the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says something very specific, and it’s about government encroachment on speech and not about people disagreeing with you, and (b) disagreeing with someone, even vociferously, is not the same as limiting their right to speak.

24. While I agree with your point (I mean, who on this website isn’t going to), this:

    Who’s the number-one most likely demographic to whine about constraints on free speech*? Assholes who ran their racist, sexist, homophobic mouths and got slapped down by society because of it.

    is really stupid. Yes, I get that you were being arch, and I appreciate your footnote, but from the perspective of someone who routinely has to defend my 1st Amendment rights against honest-to-goodness government intrustion (and not because our wonderful, universally just society disapproves of racism/sexism/homophobia) it just comes across as missing the point. There are too many feminists who sincerely believe free speech is a neccesary casualty of eliminating sexism/racism whatever, and who tend to forget how often minorities have been the victims of the abuses they’re cheerily opening the door to, for this to be a neutral statement.

25. intrusion*

26. For what it’s worth, this guy was a loudmouth asshat when we was just playing baseball… showed rudeness and disrespected to the media, fans, and colleagues all the time. In a way, some continuity is reassuring in life…

27. The whole point of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was to allow people to call an asshole an asshole. To hurt the fee-fees, and undercut the support, of powerful people who behave badly. The founders of the United States included several people who were brilliant at ridiculing, lampooning, shaming and shutting down people whose politics they disagreed with. In fact, ridiculing and heaping scorn on the likes of John Rocker is an important US political tradition.

28. what I mean is that there is a case to be made that hypothetically if saying certain ideas is going to make you a target for violence or seriously affect your well being then maybe that’s a violation of free speech. Even if it’s not the government that’s responsible.

    Yes, things other than government make it true that no one has the absolute right to say anything they want. You can’t go to work and start screaming about how terrible your company is. That is in part because capitalism is an inherently coercive system. In another situation, like if you start screaming at your friend about how terrible they are, it’s just because actions have consequences and if you act like a jerk people will respond in ways you may not like (like not being your friend anymore). Everyone has some degree of power, and unless you have literally all the power in a given relationship (actually impossible), you can’t have complete free speech–that is, speech that will have exactly the effect you wish it would. When people try to avoid consequences for saying crappy things with a “free speech” argument, they are basically trying to grab more power in their relationship to us, demanding that we react the way they want us to (i.e. sit down, shut up, and continue to support their dominant place in an oppressive hierarchy).

29. solution, never publicly speak.

30. that’s some serious face-palm right there.

31. Stupidity and bigotry of the linked article aside, there is an interesting point buried in it: media is makes choices on behalf of an awful lot of people about which information gets attention and which doesn’t.

    This tidbit of information has zero relationship to free speech, and zero to do with facing the consequences of running your mouth. Certainly, in this case I am glad the information came to light, because helps uncover downright illegal activity in the company that now might get the attention and support it deserves.

    It is an interesting thought, nonetheless.

32. You can’t go to work and start screaming about how terrible your company is. That is in part because capitalism is an inherently coercive system. In another situation, like if you start screaming at your friend about how terrible they are, it’s just because actions have consequences and if you act like a jerk people will respond in ways you may not like (like not being your friend anymore)

    Because friendship is an inherently coercive system. Down with the bro-geoisie!

    Certainly, in this case I am glad the information came to light, because helps uncover downright illegal activity in the company that now might get the attention and support it deserves.

    Did I miss something about this whole issue? Where’s the illegal activity?

33. While negative reactions to free speech are well… free speech, I do think that the sheer volume/intensity of reaction often crosses the line into bullying, reckless endangerment (Spike Lee’s address tweet) and down right mob mentality.

34. Did I miss something about this whole issue? Where’s the illegal activity?

    Still really curious about this (genuinely not snark).

35. Because friendship is an inherently coercive system. Down with the bro-geoisie!

    My point was that ALL human relationships include power dynamics, and that people who believe in the possibility of absolute “free speech” do not understand human power dynamics very well. Often, these people have a lot of power in our current system, and that is why they think “free speech” is possible. THEY have the ability to say most things they want to and have people react how they would like them to, most of the time. So when they say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and people don’t react the way they want, they feel shocked and disempowered. They’re not used to not being in charge, basically.

    So yes, friendships include power dynamics. A boss/worker relationship generally includes the power dynamic of one person being able to take away another person’s home, food, and healthcare. So the power dynamic is much more coercive, given the extent of the power one party has over the other.

36. A boss/worker relationship generally includes the power dynamic of one person being able to take away another person’s home, food, and healthcare. So the power dynamic is much more coercive, given the extent of the power one party has over the other.

    well when you figure out a system that works better and doesnt cause mass genocide let us know

37. While I did LOL at “down with the bro-geoisie!”, I think your comments re: power dynamics and free speech are really interesting, Ashley. I’ve never seen it put that way before, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

38. well when you figure out a system that works better and doesnt cause mass genocide let us know

    You assume the current economic system doesn’t cause mass genocide, and that no alternate economic systems are currently in use and not causing mass genocide, and that there is no way to peacefully move toward an economic system less coercion and more freedom, and probably that communism as practiced in totalitarian nations in the 20th century is the only possible alternative to largely unregulated capitalism as it is currently practiced. Those are all assumptions I would challenge.

39. that’s all very well but we’re talking about people’s lives here. sure it would be nice to try a system that is friendlier to its workers but IMO we have to look at the past and look how it’s turned out every single time it’s tried.

    In the academic sense it’s all very well, but when you put it into practice it does not go well. people are very corruptible and a large amount of people are driven only by greed and egotism and complete disregard for other people. people like us on this website like to think that we’re not like that but give us money and power… we might well turn into conservatives. Have you seen Doctor Jegavo, the newer one?

40. An interesting little side light going on in a recent case in Australia. A man was fired for telling his boss to “get fucked”. He went to Fairwork Australia, which said he had to be reinstated, because swearing was accepted in his specific workplace Therefore, it wasn’t such an awful thing to do. So, the effect of swearing at your boss, was seen to be context based.

Comments are currently closed.