Where Protection Ends
The delicate balance between protected speech and speech that implies or asserts that which is illegal
The firing of a tech company engineer for writing a piece “proving” that the dearth of females in that industry is the result of their incompatibility with it has created a sort of controversy, although it is found almost entirely with those who are innately conservative and displeased with sharing the tech economy with women, and with feminism in general. They see the efforts to increase female participation in tech as reverse discrimination. And, they believe this discrimination is benefiting those whose gender is not naturally suited for the work. Thus, the rights of men are being subverted for all the wrong reasons.
The issue of freedom of speech is invariably invoked in these kinds of controversies, much in the same way it has been for online bulletin board services, forums and social media. But the terms of service for the latter are similar to the limitations on free speech in companies and various institutions. Which is to say, censorship of opinions and beliefs is not a violation within these contexts. While the constitution and thus government may uphold the principle of free speech, its application is dependent on the context of speech. So, for example, companies are not interested in providing a platform for employees to express controversial opinions regarding issues outside of their job responsibilities. Personal opinions do not usurp the principles and values of a company or institution.
Beyond this is how often the justifications for controversial opinions are open to question, being dubious or misleading at best. While permissible in the outside world, these can making leading and working with others difficult, if not impossible. Thus, employees who express opinions regarding the suitability and capability of other associates on the basis of qualities unrelated to actual skill and ability cannot be permitted to retain their positions. A working environment is not a debating club. The pragmatic assumption is that employment requires adherence to company/organization culture, standards and goals.
There are distinct limits on speech as a matter of practicality. Inciting violence is not permitted and can be prosecuted, and harmful lies represent defamation and have legal consequences. But there are also misuses of these. Threats of charges of defamation can be meant for and used to prevent free speech againt those who do not want to be criticized or commented on. This is particularly notable for authoritarian leaders or those who want to be. In democratic societies the courts can and do determine what constitutes legitimate defamation. While freedom of speech is extremely important in a democracy, it does not exist without restriction even in open societies.
But things have changed when it comes to appropriate speech and restraint regarding how others are referred to. The current president is a warning in this regard. While many of us wonder at those who support him, it’s likely that many of his supporters voted thinking he’d soften his rhetoric. They were sure his words didn’t really matter. Not because they don’t disagree with them but rather because they don’t see, or refuse to, what his messages of hate and words of disrespect and lying create. Energizing white supremacists and nationalists wasn’t supposed to be part of the deal.
Political identity and multiculturalism are part of our modern society. Those who are most hostile to these point, with some validity, to how intolerant and prone to censorship “liberals” and their political correctness are. Both sides fail to acknowledge that free speech includes other points of view, including more moderate opinions. The reality is that for speech to be protected, it cannot be limited to what one agrees with. As noxious and antithetical to diversity and tolerance some speech can be, we have to trust that more generous, open-minded speech will prevail in the end.
Although we need to protect and defend speech, we also need to have conversations about how to cope with hate speech by speakers claiming racial/ethnic/religious superiority that threatens the civil rights of others. Free speech that is hate speech crosses lines that enter the realm of law and order. This is another example of the delicate balance between protected speech and speech that implies or asserts that which is illegal. The segregation of citizens by race, for example, is not actually realistic in terms of white supremacy objectives, but hate speech can interfere with mitigating existing inequities.
For those of us who cherish diversity and equality, freedom of speech is simultaneously pragmatic as a right and yet a source of conflict with our values. It is now even more of a conundrum given the reckless pandering to the worst aspects of this freedom by the leader of the country. This is a tragic failing of moral leadership when we need it more than ever. We are on our own for the time being.

