There are two definitions of the word free that are appropriate to this discussion. Free can mean unrestricted, as in "I am a free man." It can also mean economically cheap, as in "That is a free cookie." Free speech may exist in the first sense, in the sense that you can say what you want without fear of punishment, at least sort of... That is, you won't be placed in jail. But you may get punished in other ways .
That link isn't really too important; it is just an example. Speech, even if it is unrestricted, is definitely not without economic consequences. I suppose that ultimately free speech would have no consequences, except then it would be a contradiction in itself. Since if speech had no malignant consequences, others wouldn't speak out against you and would thus not have free speech. But, at least in the economic sense, is it possible to have free speech?
That is, is it possible to say what you want, without missing out on a job opportunity or being fired, or etc. Well, not in our society, but certainly it's not impossible to see one where it would be. The second and important question is, should we strive towards such a society. A society where speech is free not only in the unrestricted sense, but also in the economic sense. Obviously, some jobs would be exempted from this, especially public offices. That is, jobs where people's opinions are what constitute a job should obviously be based on said opinions. But what about jobs in the grey area, such as university professors. Or what about conduct outside your profession affecting job status? There was a teacher that was fired for having an offensive myspace page.
This affects people greatly, many are afraid of what they put on the internet, due to colleges or future employers basing decisions on such things. Logically, I can see how some of these things make sense. After all, why shouldn't you make a decision based on all the information available. But whenever I hear such a story, I feel for the person fired/not hired. Moreover, there are some good arguments why it shouldn't be implemented as well. First, you're rewarding people who are dishonest (who feel a certain way, but don't reveal it). Moreover, this discourages free speech and discussion, and encourages conformity for the sake of conformity. After balancing it out, I think speech should be free not just in the unrestricted sense, but in the economic sense as well. This is, however, a close call for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The only way to make free speech have no economic repercussion is to control private businesses. And I for one don't think that widening free speech, which is mostly "free" enough already is worth sacrificing the capitalistic model in place.
I believe you misunderstood me, I said merely that it is better to have speech be economically free than not, I have not yet suggested any way to do so. Certainly, I agree that such drastic measures should not be taken. But that is not necessarily the only way to achieve this. I can think of at least one other way, and I didn't mention it, because it's marginally hypocritical. But, that doesn't mean there can't be more than these two ways. So, my way was simply to boycott anyone that would make such a decision. I would love it if someone thought of a third way that was neither drastic nor hypocritical.
Post a Comment