Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ Sep 12 2014 05:18am)
The digital society has done much for the exchange of ideas. Whereas people once were closed and secluded in their ideology, the internet has allowed individuals to explore political and social notions to a much greater extent in a much larger forum. This, of course, comes with minor risks, such as a growing sentiment of intolerance, but I think we can all agree that the exchange of ideas is a perfectly health and necessary aspect of democratic society.
With that said, people have suffered monetary hardship for expressing themselves on the internet (or even in private to be leaked to the internet without their consent), and in some nations people have been imprisoned for expressing "hateful" opinions.
I think America has a duty to lead the fight in protection of the working class by passing a law. This law would protect every individual from overreaching government and large corporations. Keep in mind I have no experience in writing laws, this is just a general idea.
Freedom of Opinion Act
1. Government officials may not make a statement about a citizen's opinion. It is inappropriate for government officials to state opinions on these matters when speaking as a representative of the United States. (For instance, the American Government would not be allowed to denounce videos that allegedly incite attacks on US Embassies)
1.a. Government officials may make statement about the opinions of citizens when not speaking as a representative of the United States government. (So, the President can denounce the video on a Talk Show, but cannot at a White House Press Conference)
2. Business institutions may not terminate an employment contract solely based on incidences out of work that involve the expression of opinion. (For instance, employers wouldn't be able to fire you for liking a white nationalist group on Facebook, saying hateful things on the internet or something of that nature)
2.a. A business may terminate an employment contract if it can adequately demonstrate excessive or long lasting monetary damages due to the speech. (So, if a business loses excessive patronage and revenue after the incident, the employee may be fired after the business demonstrates that they suffered damages as a result)
3. Employment contracts may not contain language aimed at restricting an employee's speech outside of the workplace. (Employment conditions that forbid you from expressing your opinion are anti-democratic)
3.a. Employment contracts may contain language aimed at restringing an employee's speech in the workplace. (This is pretty self explanatory, you're not a democratic actor while at work, but an employee)
4. Employers may not terminate an employment contract based on alleged criminal behavior. (If a man is seen beating his wife, he may not be fired until...)
4.a. Employers may terminate an employment contract if an individual is found guilty of aggressive criminal behavior or extended arrest scenarios. (Domestic abuse, dog fighting, rape, murder, DUI resulting in injury or death of another person)
I think such a law would be effective in combating a bullying technique practiced by individuals of all political leanings, targeting advertisers and corporations in order to have speech you disagree with restricted. While this wouldn't remove all consequences from speech, it would afford workers some protection. So teachers wouldn't get fired for posting beach side bikini pictures on their private Facebook pages, team owners wouldn't have pressure to resign/sell placed on them after expressing unpopular opinions in non-business scenarios, and media personalities wouldn't risk losing their jobs for expressing harsh opinions.
In summation, the Market is a dehumanizing institution, and we as Americans have a duty to protect freedom of speech and opinion before corporate interests.
no
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.