News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat by sanderjd on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @10:30AM (#11854733)
It seems to me that there are two separate legal structures that protect me from your hypothetical: 1. The government can't send black helicopters because of freedom of speech and 2. A private organization can't deploy black helicopters to take me into custody for any purpose (that's kidnapping). This is why it's important to hold government to a higher standard: they can legally do far more things than private organizations.
Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat by mindslight on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @10:59AM (#11854934)
First, OP said nothing about kidnapping - there's a lot of intimidation that can be done that isn't explicitly illegal. Even more that won't be prosecuted when say the "private organization" and "government" enjoy a cozy relationship.

But that scenario is based around "independent" reprisals. The real threat we are facing today is directly connected consequences...

> [government] can legally do far more things than private organizations

This completely misses my original point - both government and private organizations can do things that effectively punish. For example, a mall can kick you out and banish you for wearing an offensive T-shirt. This is not a problem when malls are but a small part of society, but form a restriction equivalent to government if one's entire society is made up of malls.

Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat by stillsut on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @12:28PM (#11855560)
The confusion around this issue is generated by the rise of protected classes and the selective application of discrimination suits against institutions.

Title IX is a good example of a law which can be expanded to limit the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by coercion. This has come about because federal funding is an indispensable portion of the modern research university's budget. As such, no 1 person, no 1 group can be allowed to threaten the University's compliance with the law. Therefore, the law enables the government to coerce the institution into severing its private contract with the offensive party - student or faculty. In effect, a government agency is able to punish political speech by proxy.

As 25% of the GDP, and probably upwards of 90% of the spending in many industries (e.g. defense contracting), the governments spending power has given it unforseen power to demand a trade of speech for access to economic opportunities. We need a law similar to "too big to fail" in sectors where the government has monopoly-like powers.