YouGov: 72% of Americans hate free speech, 9% like it

[Anti-Neocon]

I think this is an ongoing poll, but on Huffington Post they asked a question like "Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?"

The fact that such a high percentage wants to actually criminalize such a behavior is a sign of how little regard people have for basic rights.

At least we have no "hate speech" laws yet but that could be coming soon too, and the people will welcome and support it.

[DamianTV]

Funny how the Corporations will claim to have the Right to Free Speech while doing everything in their power to not protect the Right of Free Speech of anyone that disagrees with them.

Its like Corporations have become the Modern Royalty of the US.

[Anti-Neocon]

This is basic free speech. Do you think it should be illegal for corporations to send e-mails out to encourage people to vote a certain way?

[susano]

This is basic free speech. Do you think it should be illegal for corporations to send e-mails out to encourage people to vote a certain way?

People aren't thinking when they, in a reactionary way, answer this:

"Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?"

The wording makes it sound like, "Should companies be able to force their workers how to vote, under threat of being fired?" It doesn't say say anything about suggesting, campaigning for, persuading, etc, it says TELL, as in an order.

Huffington Post. Consider the source.

[Cutlerzzz]

People aren't thinking when they, in a reactionary way, answer this:

"Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?"

The wording makes it sound like, "Should companies be able to force their workers how to vote, under threat of being fired?" It doesn't say say anything about suggesting, campaigning for, persuading, etc, it says TELL, as in an order.

Huffington Post. Consider the source.

Nobody has the right to work for any company. If a company tells an employee to vote a certain way or be fired that is their right.

[susano]

Nobody has the right to work for any company. If a company tells an employee to vote a certain way or be fired that is their right.


Bullshit.

[Cutlerzzz]

Bullshit.

There is no aggression involved and employment is entirely voluntary. It is their right.

Do you want to throw people in the rape cage for it?

[susano]

Nobody has the right to work for any company. If a company tells an employee to vote a certain way or be fired that is their right.

Seriously, that is one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard and evidence that you have some screwed ideas about what "private property" (e.g., the business) means. By your reasoning, the boss can tell the secretary to blow him once a day because, erm, private property.

[Origanalist]

Nobody has the right to work for any company. If a company tells an employee to vote a certain way or be fired that is their right.

Said company isn't going to last too long.

[Cutlerzzz]

Seriously, that is one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard and evidence that you have some screwed ideas about what "private property" (e.g., the business) means. By your reasoning, the boss can tell the secretary to blow him once a day because, erm, private property.

Yes, a boss can ask a secretary to blow him. As a matter of fact the owner has the right to ask or pay anyone for a blowjob.

[Cutlerzzz]

Said company isn't going to last too long.

Nobody would work there and people would boycott their products. The market would prevent this from actually happening in real life.

[Tod]

Nobody would work there and people would boycott their products. The market would prevent this from actually happening in real life.

Ideally, that would happen, but realistically, no. Almost no one would stop buying Pepsi after hearing that a company officer ordered a subordinate to provide oral sex or be fired. They just don't care that much.

[Cutlerzzz]

Realistically, if that was done by Pepsi there would be an internal investigation and the perpetrator would be fired because it's not his company.

[susano]

Yes, a boss can ask a secretary to blow him. As a matter of fact the owner has the right to ask or pay anyone for a blowjob.

Uh, no. When you hire someone you aren't purchasing a slave that you own and can tell what to do and control every aspect of their life. You hire a secretary for secretarial duties. Not blow jobs, toilet cleaning, controlling her vote, etc. I don't know where you're getting these screwy ideas. Let me repeat: an employee is not your property to do with as you please.

It's this kind of idiotic shit that gives libertarians a bad name.

[susano]

Realistically, if that was done by Pepsi there would be an internal investigation and the perpetrator would be fired because it's not his company.

Dycorp was involved in human trafficking. Selling human beings. They're still in business and getting contracts. Wally World had hourly workers clock out and work for nothing and nobody boycotted Wally World. This isn't like Ed the hardware store owner molesting kids and getting run out of town on a rail. These are big corporations that get away with atrocious shit and, like Tod says, people don't care.

[fr33]

Uh, no. When you hire someone you aren't purchasing a slave that you own and can tell what to do and control every aspect of their life. You hire a secretary for secretarial duties. Not blow jobs, toilet cleaning, controlling her vote, etc. I don't know where you're getting these screwy ideas. Let me repeat: an employee is not your property to do with as you please.

It's this kind of idiotic shit that gives libertarians a bad name.

Neither you or Cutlerzzz has described it as slavery. If she's free to leave and go elsewhere, she's not a slave.

[Christian Liberty]

Nobody has the right to work for any company. If a company tells an employee to vote a certain way or be fired that is their right.


Bullshit.


There is no aggression involved and employment is entirely voluntary. It is their right.

Do you want to throw people in the rape cage for it?


Seriously, that is one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard and evidence that you have some screwed ideas about what "private property" (e.g., the business) means. By your reasoning, the boss can tell the secretary to blow him once a day because, erm, private property.

Hmmm... This is tricky because the entire issue of "voting" is essentially a referrendum on aggression. I could almost argue that voting for certain candidates under certain conditions might be inherently aggressive.

In this case, I'll simply say that this isn't a problem the government should not be involved in. Government would do a better job fixing this problem by abolishing themselves, and thus, voting.

As for that last example, the employer could make that a condition for employment if he wanted to, and any sane employee would refuse. Unless they wanted to do that, obviously.

[AlexAmore]

The tricky part is if the company is incorporated it becomes a legal entity that bows to the whims of government. Think of incorporating like selling your soul to the devil for liability protection in exchange for your freedom. So can the government limit free speech here? Well a corporation has opted to play in the government's playground...

[CPUd]

- people may technically have a choice where they work, but they are not always in a practical position to abandon their income and go spend 6-18 months trying to get another job.

- a company that does this would essentially be buying votes.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Uh, no. When you hire someone you aren't purchasing a slave that you own and can tell what to do and control every aspect of their life. You hire a secretary for secretarial duties. Not blow jobs, toilet cleaning, controlling her vote, etc. I don't know where you're getting these screwy ideas. Let me repeat: an employee is not your property to do with as you please.

It's this kind of idiotic shit that gives libertarians a bad name.

The only one talking about slavery is you. If you don't want to give sex for money, you can quit and walk away. That's not an option in real slavery. Your trivialization of slavery and rape offends me!

[rp08orbust]

It is the free speech rights of the individuals making up a corporation's management to "tell" employees to vote a certain way. It is the free speech rights of the employees to vote for whoever they want (or not vote at all) and lie about it to their boss. Provided, of course, that how or whether they would vote was not part of their employment contract.

[RM918]

Why would this matter? Just lie and say you voted for who they told you to vote for, there's no way they can check.

[acptulsa]

This is basic free speech. Do you think it should be illegal for corporations to send e-mails out to encourage people to vote a certain way?

It may be basic free speech, but a corporation is not a person. And as far as I'm concerned, people have a point when they say they're willing to deny corporations Constitutional rights.

You can't throw a corporation in jail if it breaks the law. Why should it have the right to not self-incriminate? The people who make it up? Yes. But they are not the corporation. And the corporation has no rights as far as I'm concerned. Screw it.

Should a corporation have the right to tell its employees who to vote for? Not under the Constitution--at least not as far as I'm concerned. Does that deny a thing the right to free speech? Who cares? If a car horn malfunctions and begins honking incessantly, are you violating its Constitutional rights when you pull the wires?

[Anti-Neocon]

The companies aren't forcing anyone to vote for anyone!

They're just sending e-mails out suggesting they do so.

This is an issue of free speech no matter what you may think otherwise. It's ridiculous that the word "slavery" has come up. Advocating for criminalizing such speech is not just your run of the mill entry-level statism; it's hardcore.

[acptulsa]

This is an issue of free speech no matter what you may think otherwise.

I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is this: A corporation is a thing and it has no Constitutional rights. Not any more than your car.

If you want to say the officers of the company have a right to free speech, I'll agree. If you want to say a thing can have a right to free speech on some basis other than by Constitutional guarantee, I'll discuss it with you. But if you want me to say I think the Constitution guarantees a corporation the same rights it guarantees a human, you're going to have a very, very long wait.

You asked for my opinion. You have it. A thing is not an American human citizen. To hell with it.

[Anti-Neocon]

I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is this: A corporation is a thing and it has no Constitutional rights. Not any more than your car.

If you want to say the officers of the company have a right to free speech, I'll agree. If you want to say a thing can have a right to free speech on some basis other than by Constitutional guarantee, I'll discuss it with you. But if you want me to say I think the Constitution guarantees a corporation the same rights it guarantees a human, you're going to have a very, very long wait.

A thing is not an American human citizen. To hell with it.
Who is writing the e-mail and sending it? A human. The people within the corporation can go and send an e-mail to whatever mailing list they choose. This is much different than a corporation interacting with the outside world, expected to be seen as a human. This is people within a corporation interacting with each other. If they are exerting pressure/forcing the vote then yes that is wrong, but most of the time that is not what is happening.

[acptulsa]

Who is writing the e-mail and sending it? A human. The people within the corporation can go and send an e-mail to whatever mailing list they choose. This is much different than a corporation interacting with the outside world, expected to be seen as a human. This is people within a corporation interacting with each other. If they are exerting pressure/forcing the vote then yes that is wrong, but most of the time that is not what is happening.

What does that have to do with, 'Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?'

Like I said, an American citizen has the right to free speech. The Company does not. I have no problem with, 'I, as the person in charge of this company, suggest you vote for Joe Blow.' I have a real problem with, 'The XYZ Company directs you to vote for Joe Blow.' Why wouldn't I? Why shouldn't I?

That last has nothing to do with the Constitutional guarantee of free speech because The XYZ Company is not a U.S. citizen. Citizens are humans, not things.

[Anti Federalist]

Indentured Servitude is the phrase you were looking for.

[susano]

The companies aren't forcing anyone to vote for anyone!

They're just sending e-mails out suggesting they do so.

This is an issue of free speech no matter what you may think otherwise. It's ridiculous that the word "slavery" has come up. Advocating for criminalizing such speech is not just your run of the mill entry-level statism; it's hardcore.

I answered your OP in post #4. That was followed by another post asserting that employers have the right to ORDER their employees how to vote, to which I engaged, refuting that assertion. So, things went in a different direction, as things will. Often times the thread drift is more interesting than whatever is presented in the OP. This is one of those times. Your question is kind of a no brainer. It was a poorly phrased question (in the poll). Sure, a corporation or company can campaign for and suggest employees vote for a candidate. What I'm amazed at is that there are people who so misunderstand the notion of private property rights that they think an employer has the right to demand blow jobs. I mean, really, isn't that more interesting and in need of addressing? It's like a fatal error in the program and if it stands, everything else after it gets exponentially more fucked up. It's once of those things that needs to be wacked as soon as you encounter it. So much derp, so little time, but there it is.

[brandon]

Corporations dont talk.

[acptulsa]

Corporations dont talk.

If what they say is true, and money talks, then corporations communicate with Congress. Loudly and clearly.

[jonhowe]

Nobody would work there and people would boycott their products. The market would prevent this from actually happening in real life.

lolololol


Seriously? Boycott? People are buying slave labor products at Wal Mart every day!

[JohnM]

"Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?"

I think the fact that (to the best of my knowledge), no state has yet passed a law that would make it illegal for companies to do so tells us everything we need to know.




What???!!! Jefferson advocated such a law? Well, who'd have thunk it? ;)

[Cutlerzzz]

lolololol


Seriously? Boycott? People are buying slave labor products at Wal Mart every day!

Citation please.

[angelatc]

Seriously, that is one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard and evidence that you have some screwed ideas about what "private property" (e.g., the business) means. By your reasoning, the boss can tell the secretary to blow him once a day because, erm, private property.


He's sort of right. It's his money, he can buy whatever labor he wants with it in Libertarianville. Where do you get the "right" to a blow job free work environment? The state. Derp.

[angelatc]

What does that have to do with, 'Should it be illegal for companies to tell their employees to vote for a political candidate?'

Like I said, an American citizen has the right to free speech. The Company does not..

So in your ugly little vision of limited freedom, where people who own businesses lose the right to speak as a group simply because they own a business, that group of people can' meet in a boardroom to draft an an email to their employees telling them that Candidate A wants to shut their industry down while Candidate B wants to make sure their industry gets the support and cooperation of the government.

Real nice, your freedom.

Totally undermines our right to assemble, but whatever. As we don't have too much freedom, you feel safe. I get it.