http://techliberation.com/2009/11/10/restricting-speech-governments-censor-companies-annoy/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 22:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/11/10/restricting-speech-governments-censor-companies-annoy/comment-page-1/#comment-63772 Private Enterprise, Moore’s Law & Accessibility Innovation Are Empowering the Disabled — Technology Liberation Front Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:47:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=23245#comment-63772 <p>[...] in summer 2008 but only recently seems to have really hit critical mass. By many accounts, and my own personal experience over the last few months (having lost the use of my left hand due to cartilege damage), Dragon 10 [...]</p> [...] in summer 2008 but only recently seems to have really hit critical mass. By many accounts, and my own personal experience over the last few months (having lost the use of my left hand due to cartilege damage), Dragon 10 [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/11/10/restricting-speech-governments-censor-companies-annoy/comment-page-1/#comment-65341 sneeje Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:35:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=23245#comment-65341 <p>Great point, I get very frustrated when people use the "first amendment" battle cry in response to corporate actions. I am no fan of the corporate entity, but if, for example, an airline decides that it doesn't like the expressions on the t-shirt you're wearing, they have every right to ask them to leave the plane. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice on their part, and they should be required to refund the customer's money.<br><br>People also seem to believe that freedom of speech means freedom from "consequences of that speech." People will react to your expressions and those reactions (assuming they are not representatives of the government) are equally protected--that means they can refuse to serve you, ask you to leave their property, take actions you won't like that are allowed within the scope of contracts they have with you, etc.</p> Great point, I get very frustrated when people use the “first amendment” battle cry in response to corporate actions. I am no fan of the corporate entity, but if, for example, an airline decides that it doesn't like the expressions on the t-shirt you're wearing, they have every right to ask them to leave the plane. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice on their part, and they should be required to refund the customer's money.

People also seem to believe that freedom of speech means freedom from “consequences of that speech.” People will react to your expressions and those reactions (assuming they are not representatives of the government) are equally protected–that means they can refuse to serve you, ask you to leave their property, take actions you won't like that are allowed within the scope of contracts they have with you, etc.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/11/10/restricting-speech-governments-censor-companies-annoy/comment-page-1/#comment-63427 sneeje Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:35:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=23245#comment-63427 <p>Great point, I get very frustrated when people use the "first amendment" battle cry in response to corporate actions. I am no fan of the corporate entity, but if, for example, an airline decides that it doesn't like the expressions on the t-shirt you're wearing, they have every right to ask them to leave the plane. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice on their part, and they should be required to refund the customer's money.<br><br>People also seem to believe that freedom of speech means freedom from "consequences of that speech." People will react to your expressions and those reactions (assuming they are not representatives of the government) are equally protected--that means they can refuse to serve you, ask you to leave their property, take actions you won't like that are allowed within the scope of contracts they have with you, etc.</p> Great point, I get very frustrated when people use the “first amendment” battle cry in response to corporate actions. I am no fan of the corporate entity, but if, for example, an airline decides that it doesn't like the expressions on the t-shirt you're wearing, they have every right to ask them to leave the plane. That doesn't mean it would be a smart choice on their part, and they should be required to refund the customer's money.

People also seem to believe that freedom of speech means freedom from “consequences of that speech.” People will react to your expressions and those reactions (assuming they are not representatives of the government) are equally protected–that means they can refuse to serve you, ask you to leave their property, take actions you won't like that are allowed within the scope of contracts they have with you, etc.

]]>