There are ethical complexities when something is largely government funded, something reflected (albeit imperfectly) in US law. However, the sharp US distinction between public and private speech doesn't exist in the UK or Australia. People in those places (especially the latter) either have free speech or they don't; whether the employe…
There are ethical complexities when something is largely government funded, something reflected (albeit imperfectly) in US law. However, the sharp US distinction between public and private speech doesn't exist in the UK or Australia. People in those places (especially the latter) either have free speech or they don't; whether the employer is private or public doesn't matter. Australia's Fair Work Act machinery will then gear up to protect someone sacked for their views (Ridd, Folau, and, I suspect, the ABC journalist mentioned in my piece).
And Jordan Peterson's quip (if it's his) is correct. My argument for freedom of speech isn't based on "the marketplace of ideas" or "the truth will out". It's based on my belief that no-one can be trusted to tell other people what they can or can't say: not governments, not companies, not tech platforms, not employers, not NGOs, not universities.
"... the sharp US distinction between public and private speech doesn't exist in the UK or Australia." This is something that we (in the US) need to better appreciate, and note it is a distinct difference across the "same Anglophone" culture. It makes "free" speech especially tricky to sort out when and where it can or "should" be allowed, and to what extent.
With my US bias, I still want "the marketplace of ideas" and "the truth will out" criteria to be part of the answer. But I also accept that "just who do you think you are?!" to tell me what to think, etc. is part of this "natural right".
In turn, it can bump up against property rights, which are also not universal and are sometimes constrained/ restricted "for the public good". An employee saying something counter to or offensive to his employer may be infringing on the employer's property in some cases, and not in others. Today even the employer's right to "his" job (which is not the employee's job), that he is the one paying for, is no longer as absolute as some of us might think it should or could be.
One of the unstated assumptions behind free speech is that everyone will have (in the final analysis) some venue where it can be exercised and not restricted. It may end up being a soap box* on a public street corner, rather than a newspaper, book, blog comment, or guest speakership. I guess this is part of the bias in the US that is less restrictive than in the UK and Australia? In those places a policeman might come along and take you and your soap box away? [setting aside calls for incitement, etc.]
"... that no-one can be trusted to tell other people ..." I believe I understand the flavor in which you say this, and yet we also recognize we have to trust what other people say in some contexts. I trust Helen to be truthful about legal, political, and literary issues to the best of her ability. She has already indicated I am justified in being more skeptical about something she might say related to IT. I trusted my teachers and professors in school/ college to convey their honest perception of the knowledge they were paid to convey. We treat many sources of information with various levels of trust and mistrust, but could not function without belief in some of what we are told.
Helen, thank you once again for this Substack opportunity to comment about meaningful ideas and learn from you and others herein. Amazing where even a topic of feminism and cancellation can lead us.
There are ethical complexities when something is largely government funded, something reflected (albeit imperfectly) in US law. However, the sharp US distinction between public and private speech doesn't exist in the UK or Australia. People in those places (especially the latter) either have free speech or they don't; whether the employer is private or public doesn't matter. Australia's Fair Work Act machinery will then gear up to protect someone sacked for their views (Ridd, Folau, and, I suspect, the ABC journalist mentioned in my piece).
And Jordan Peterson's quip (if it's his) is correct. My argument for freedom of speech isn't based on "the marketplace of ideas" or "the truth will out". It's based on my belief that no-one can be trusted to tell other people what they can or can't say: not governments, not companies, not tech platforms, not employers, not NGOs, not universities.
"... the sharp US distinction between public and private speech doesn't exist in the UK or Australia." This is something that we (in the US) need to better appreciate, and note it is a distinct difference across the "same Anglophone" culture. It makes "free" speech especially tricky to sort out when and where it can or "should" be allowed, and to what extent.
With my US bias, I still want "the marketplace of ideas" and "the truth will out" criteria to be part of the answer. But I also accept that "just who do you think you are?!" to tell me what to think, etc. is part of this "natural right".
In turn, it can bump up against property rights, which are also not universal and are sometimes constrained/ restricted "for the public good". An employee saying something counter to or offensive to his employer may be infringing on the employer's property in some cases, and not in others. Today even the employer's right to "his" job (which is not the employee's job), that he is the one paying for, is no longer as absolute as some of us might think it should or could be.
One of the unstated assumptions behind free speech is that everyone will have (in the final analysis) some venue where it can be exercised and not restricted. It may end up being a soap box* on a public street corner, rather than a newspaper, book, blog comment, or guest speakership. I guess this is part of the bias in the US that is less restrictive than in the UK and Australia? In those places a policeman might come along and take you and your soap box away? [setting aside calls for incitement, etc.]
"... that no-one can be trusted to tell other people ..." I believe I understand the flavor in which you say this, and yet we also recognize we have to trust what other people say in some contexts. I trust Helen to be truthful about legal, political, and literary issues to the best of her ability. She has already indicated I am justified in being more skeptical about something she might say related to IT. I trusted my teachers and professors in school/ college to convey their honest perception of the knowledge they were paid to convey. We treat many sources of information with various levels of trust and mistrust, but could not function without belief in some of what we are told.
Helen, thank you once again for this Substack opportunity to comment about meaningful ideas and learn from you and others herein. Amazing where even a topic of feminism and cancellation can lead us.
I meant to add ... "even if I cannot seem to be very succinct about what I say".
And the footnote
*Hyde Park in London was famous for allowing nutters to spout off whatever they wanted. Is that still allowed? A safe space in London?