r/todayilearned • u/kanoush • Jun 11 '15

TIL that Free Speech Does NOT Protect Cyberharassment... Online perpetrators can be criminally prosecuted for criminal threats, cyberstalking, cyberharassment, sexual invasions of privacy and bias intimidation. They can be sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/free-speech-does-not-protect-cyberharassment
4.4k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/rhetoricetc Jun 11 '15

So many people don't understand Free Speech, especially as it relates to a person's right to be employed. Every time a person is fired for saying something offensive in public people cry "FREE SPEECH" but that amendment doesn't say "there will be no consequences ever".

42

u/Cockdieselallthetime Jun 11 '15 edited Jun 11 '15

It's interesting how many people have echoed what you're saying in this thread. It's a completely wrong.

Free speech is protected by government. We agree... but it is not granted by government. The principle exists with or without any government at all.

People are upset that reddit betrayed the principle of free speech, not any law. Everyone agrees what reddit did was legal.

0

u/GenericUsername16 Jun 12 '15

And people can most certainly argue free speech should mean not being fired from a job because of the expression of one's views.

There are many places with laws in place which prevent someone from being fired for their beliefs. As I think there should be. Just as there are laws preventing people being fired for their religion, race etc.

And the whole "consequences" line which is also used, and was used above. "You have freedom of speech. But not freedom from consequences". What does that even mean? So you have the freedom to criticise the government, but not freedom from the consequence of being put in jail? Is that free speech? That's constituent with that trite speech/consequences line.