Caltrops - Tansin A. Darcos's Alter Ego





	[quote name="Commander Tansin A. Darcos"]As someone pointed out in Jonsey's <a href="https://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=197984">article here</a> in Motherfucking News, in <a href="https://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=197992">a reference to</a> what I recognized as a panel from XKCD, that the First Amendment only protects people against the government violating your Free Speech rights, it has (with limited exceptions) no effect on what other private organizations or individuals do in response to what someone says. It is unfortunate, but is absolutely correct. The only time a private organization is subject to the First Amendment is when it acts in a manner which represents a government function. A monopoly service provider or a tariffed communications provider would be subject to honoring the First Amendment, So Verizon, Comcast or Pacific Gas & Electric can't cut off your service for publicly proposing they be taken over by the government, or expressing displeasure about them, or supporting a cause they disagree with (or opposing one they support).. That does not prevent Wells Fargo or Chase from cancelling your Visa or MasterCard, or Google from disabling search, or your employer from firing you, if you did the above things, if they wanted to. That the large companies don't is because if they did and it was publicized, it would be a Public Relations disaster if they did. Is it time to demand better protections for private speech? For example, laws prohibiting retaliation / firing by employers or perhaps businesses for private opinions expressed outside of the business or employment context? Similar to the way they can't fire someone for their race, religion or gender.[/quote]