People need to stop discussing freedom of speech in terms of the First Amendment, except when purely talking about the American legal system. Over 6 and a half billion people live in parts of the world (that would be the vast majority of it) that aren't America and so the First Amendment is completely irrelevant to them.
Any laws protecting free speech start from the basis that free speech needs to be protected. The idea that protected free speech should be protected comes first, then the law follows. So now we ask the question, what limits should be placed on speech? I personally believe that FoS is an important right that we should all have. That includes potentially offensive speech. There are parts of the world where my opinions, as an atheist, would be grossly offensive. Perhaps shops would refuse to serve me. Perhaps I'd be banned from sports fixtures just for expressing my opinion. Perhaps I'd lose my job and wouldn't be able to find another. I might not be illegal to hold the opinions I do, but if I can't take part in society because of it, it might as well be.
Many people seem to hold a double standard. Because people always think that they're right, they think that it's self evident that their views should be protected, because they're correct views, such as "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality" or "There is no fundamental difference between races" (both things I firmly believe). However, there are communities where these views may be offensive and I believe I should have a right not to lose my job, or be denied access to sports events for holding those opinions. I feel the same about people with what I consider offensive opinions.
However, discrimination on the basis of race is entirely another matter and should be illegal and shouldn't be protected. The reason Sterling isn't a victim of any sort is because he was actually discriminatory, as well as racist. This is where I think there's a difference between this story and the Mozilla one. I also don't think Olin should have lost his job. He expressed an opinion. I disagree with said opinion although I don't happen to find it offensive but I can see why people do. Free speech isn't free if you can lose your job over it. OK, it's not the government curtailing your speech but it is your employer and, as mentioned above, I think the right to free expression should go beyond just what government allows.
Note: This isn't how things are, it's how I believe things should be. I recognise that there are perfectly valid arguments for restricting some speech, for employers firing people whom they believe have damage a companies reputation etc. I just think, after thinking long and hard about the issues, that the protection of speech is important, that people shouldn't lose their jobs for expressed beliefs or political opinions. I also acknowledge that there are, and should be, exceptions to someone's right to FoS, and there are debates to be had about what these are, but we should err on the side of people having the right rather than restricting it.
Any laws protecting free speech start from the basis that free speech needs to be protected. The idea that protected free speech should be protected comes first, then the law follows. So now we ask the question, what limits should be placed on speech? I personally believe that FoS is an important right that we should all have. That includes potentially offensive speech. There are parts of the world where my opinions, as an atheist, would be grossly offensive. Perhaps shops would refuse to serve me. Perhaps I'd be banned from sports fixtures just for expressing my opinion. Perhaps I'd lose my job and wouldn't be able to find another. I might not be illegal to hold the opinions I do, but if I can't take part in society because of it, it might as well be.
Many people seem to hold a double standard. Because people always think that they're right, they think that it's self evident that their views should be protected, because they're correct views, such as "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality" or "There is no fundamental difference between races" (both things I firmly believe). However, there are communities where these views may be offensive and I believe I should have a right not to lose my job, or be denied access to sports events for holding those opinions. I feel the same about people with what I consider offensive opinions.
However, discrimination on the basis of race is entirely another matter and should be illegal and shouldn't be protected. The reason Sterling isn't a victim of any sort is because he was actually discriminatory, as well as racist. This is where I think there's a difference between this story and the Mozilla one. I also don't think Olin should have lost his job. He expressed an opinion. I disagree with said opinion although I don't happen to find it offensive but I can see why people do. Free speech isn't free if you can lose your job over it. OK, it's not the government curtailing your speech but it is your employer and, as mentioned above, I think the right to free expression should go beyond just what government allows.
Note: This isn't how things are, it's how I believe things should be. I recognise that there are perfectly valid arguments for restricting some speech, for employers firing people whom they believe have damage a companies reputation etc. I just think, after thinking long and hard about the issues, that the protection of speech is important, that people shouldn't lose their jobs for expressed beliefs or political opinions. I also acknowledge that there are, and should be, exceptions to someone's right to FoS, and there are debates to be had about what these are, but we should err on the side of people having the right rather than restricting it.
