You are attempting to make the argument that if I own a soap box, you have some right to use that soap box. Nothing could be further from the truth. Further, my refusing to allow you to use my soap box in no way infringes upon your right to speak under any reasonable definition of free speech.
Can the employee freely express their opinions and ideas? Yes they can. Can they use another person’s private property to do so without permission from the owner and expect no sanctions? Of course not. Their right to express themselves is not curtailed in any way by an employer expecting their employees respect their place of business and not use it for the dissemination of ideas the owner may object to. They are free to express those ideas in a friendly or public forum but they do not have the right to use my soap box without my permission.
A reasonable definition is one that takes into account the central political significance of free speech - free flow of opinions and ideas in the society.
Ok, lets say we take that in to account. Seems reasonable to me. Now, explain how the central political significance of free speech - free flow of opinions and ideas in the society give you the right to use my soap box without my permission.
Nope. I am arguing that I have more freedom of speech if there are soapboxes available to me, and no freedom of speech at all if I am systematically denied access to soapboxes.
If most soap boxes end up being privately owned, some soapbox owners might feel some sort of moral imperative to share soapboxes with everyone, and when the situation gets extreme, a society might need to give me a right to use your soapbox, or accept the fact that non-soapbox-owners just don’t enjoy as much free speech as soapbox owners do.
If we were on Mars, and you owned the only oxygen supply, you would have to admit that your right to use your property as you please interferes with my right to breathe. Any society on Mars would need to come up with some solution to this. Nationalizing all oxygen generators or allowing you to wield life-and-death power over me are just the most extreme solutions.
If you and your friends own all the soap boxes in the country, the law should require that you permit others to use them as well. Alternately, it shouldn’t permit you to achieve soap box monopoly.
and @8080256256
No one owns the sidewalk. You are free to use the sidewalk or other public space to say whatever you choose. That’s the public soap box we all have the right to use. You are not free to demand that others provide their soap box to you.
So point me to the internet equivalent of a public sidewalk.
Why would you suppose one must exist? You are arguing for the creation of a public space on a system provided to you by private actors. Website owners can create a public space if they so choose but a website is much like any other business. No one can force you to open up your business as a public space but at the same time no one can stop you from doing so either.
edit to add: these arguments are getting bizarre. Do you folk think it would be ok if I let some neo-nazis in to your home to have a rally? No? Then you already know the argument against your position.
And yet, private golf clubs are not allowed to close membership to people of colour and mail carriers are (or were) required to serve all the clients in an area, not just the most densely populated areas. When it is the public interest, it is entirely reasonable to require a private enterprise to follow some standards. Such as free speech.
If you have a blog, sure- don’t let opposing views be heard, but if you are offering a public forum, short of illegal hate speech or disruptive driving trollies, I would say it is reasonable to expect that forum not to be censored.
You wrote,
Criticism of AA is outright banned as a microaggression e.g. at the University of California and viewed as an actionable offense.
The article you then provided says nothing of the sort. In fact, it provides statements from university officials explicitly stating that such speech is not banned.
But go on, keep up the ironic playing of the Victim Card, like other conservatives love to do. You’re quite free to speak in that delusional mode here too (though I imagine you think of bbs as another hive of supposedly censorius liberals).
You are confusing anti-discrimination laws with freedom of speech. They are not the same thing. There is no shortage of public space for you to express yourselves however you would like. That being the case, arguments for special consideration which would compel a private entity to provide you additional space is unreasonable and not warranted.
And if that forum censors you, you are free to go to another one. You are not free to demand that they not censor you however they choose on the forum which they own.
edit: ok you are in fact free to demand whatever you want. Compliance with that demand is completely optional however.
UC provides criticism of AA as an example of a race-based microaggression. Its policy also states that such microaggressions can be considered as creating an impermissible hostile learning environment. And then it adds: “oh, but we are fully committed to a vigorous open debate, honestly.” Maybe you could call it an act of microcensorship.
that is like saying arguments that would compel a private entity to provide me with clean air downwind of their factory is unreasonable. There are constraints on private ownership and I would say that the right to free speech is important enough that a private entity whose ubiquitous dominance in the field of public discourse, such as FB or Youtube could very well be compelled towards some standard of free speech in the name of public interest. Not a free-for-all, but a standard at least.
I’m free to demand anything I want to demand, and individuals on the one side, and society at large through a hopefully democratic process, decide whether to grant it. 
However, I am not even trying to take your soapbox away. I am just saying that people whose only soapbox is the sidewalk in the street they live in have no meaningful freedom of speech. That is a fact, just like it is a fact that people who have no food tend to not get very far in their pursuit of happiness.
We’re not all communists just because we dislike people starving to death. I’m just saying that the debate over free speech needs to include a debate over access to soapboxes to be meaningful. Just like a debate over the right to life might need to touch on access to food now and then.
And yet, to someone from outside the American sphere on this particular discussion, this all seems very strange and chilling.
Yes, there are statements from officials saying that such speech is not banned. Just before the article makes a convincing argument saying that it would require quite some courage for untenured faculty to test that.
Sure, because in some situations, that’s exactly what it is.
Wrong again, in your typically alarmist conservative mode. It does not say “impermissable” (i.e., banned).
I know you’d love to Play the Victim effectively here, but the lies you keep telling give the lie to the act that you’re putting on.
Nope. Censorship is either banning speech or allowing it. Disagreement =/= censorship.
It’s not like that at all. If a business is polluting the air, they should be sanctioned.
You are arguing that since I have a lawn in front of my house where I can say what I want, people without lawns should be able to hold a neo-nazi rally on my lawn to promote the public interest. What about my right to have a lawn free from neo-nazis?
Or is it that if I have a really big lawn where I let some people come and hold rallies I should also be compelled to allow neo-nazi rallies in order to benefit the public good of a free exchange of ideas?
I’m sorry, but I just can’t take your position seriously.
Democracy is how we run our government. Democracy is not how we decide whether or not the neo-nazis should be allowed to hold a rally in my home.
That has been the standard for a few hundred years now and has been viewed as a meaningful outlet for the expression of ideas. But let’s be real here and admit the truth that no one in the U.S. is limited to the sidewalk. This forum is a good example of that fact.
You see, people used to be arrested and jailed for speaking in public so we passed laws to prevent that. You have taken that idea and twisted it into something dictatorial and terrible. You wish to disregard the rights of people and entities and force them to host speech which they may find objectionable. You wish to disregard the autonomy of the people and that’s not a reasonable stance to take.
I wish you were right. I wish that all we needed was that the classical version of free speech be upheld and we could all be secure with what we say.
But, lately most of our important conversations are being held online in places controlled by a private company. These private companies have way too much power to determine who gets to say what and how widely they are heard.
I’m deeply mixed about this. Cloudflare bans white nationalists, but it is deeply scary that they and they alone have to power to silence large swaths of people.
And yet, to someone from outside the American sphere on this particular discussion, this all seems very strange and chilling.
Yes, I know that being disagreed with is “chilling” to conservatives. I thought you were all such tough guys – why not “grow a pair” and go ahead and speak? You’re the ones who keep arguing for the importance of “robust” debate.
Yes, there are statements from officials saying that such speech is not banned. Just before the article makes a convincing argument saying that it would require quite some courage for untenured faculty to test that.
Again, if disagreement is so “discouraging,” try finding some courage. Maybe go to the gym more often, build up some confidence-building bulk?
Disagreement… What a strange way to spell “getting fired”.
