Don't think this article will play well in Europe who sent this message: Dear Trump-Americans,
Now we Europeans have to disclose our social media activity from the last five years if we want to travel to the US. Anyone who criticizes Trump can be denied entry.
Let's say it clear: We never want to hear anything about "freedom of speech", "democracy" etc. from you again.
Irrelevant? European countries are trying to prevent social media companies from using algorithms and AI from infecting their populations with the same mind viruses that infects 30% of the US. That's because Europe has bitter experience with this. See Italy 1923-1943; German 1933-1945; USSR. That's what's irrelevant to the Trump regime's effort to stamp out dissent not just in the US but throughout the world. Bottom line, the Trump regime has no business lecturing anyone about "Free Speech."
Really solid work on the Miiloo AI toy story. The way it defends CCP positions and censors Taiwan/Winnie the Pooh questions shows how these values get baked into products aimed at kids globally. I remeber worrying about subliminal messages in cartoons, but this is more direct since the toy activeley shuts down alternative framings. That's a pretty wild export strategy.
The speech in question is what they teach to students as employees of the state.
Why does the state as employer not have a legit public interest in what its employees teach? How is this different from setting curricula?
Surely at least non-tenured faculty do not have the right to teach whatever it is that strikes their fancy in their classroom. How is this any different from that?
Do not misunderstand: I am *not* sure that there is nothing wrong with the law in question. But I’m not sure I understand why your argument explains how it is a First Amendment violation.
There's actually a whole bunch of legal cases on this topic. I can't write a summary of this now, but I can tell you it's a well-studied question, with quite a large amount of hairsplitting in certain circumstances.
Though I'm intrigued by how people think about this. The idea seems to be there are two principles: Employers have complete control over employees, and government should be limited in power. But then, what happens if the government is the employer? Should it fall into the "complete control" slot, or the "limited" slot? Most people who think that way tend to favor the "employer/complete control" side, because they're always arguing for business power. But sometimes they're troubled by the implications of it when government is a large employer.
Government as employer clearly has a right to dictate what employees can do or say publicly in their role AS EMPLOYEES.
Which is what this law covers.
I plead nolo contendere what tenured professors can do. But explain why the government employer doesn’t have the right to set the curricula in a government run school?
The law ain’t about what people do or say on their own time. That would of course violate the First Amendment.
Can I meta-discussion this for a moment? I'm not meaning to be rude, I've just been thinking about the following problem again. Often in social media discussions, I go through something like the following:
"This is an outrage, the law says X, it should be Y, tell to me why it isn't"
"Well, it's a complicated topic, you can read up on it if you want"
"No! Tell me, right now, in bite-size little pieces, why it's X but not Y!"
"OK, I'll give it a try, start within this broad principle ..."
"That's wrong! That's saying X, but Y is the only right one!" ... on and on.
I mean, it never seems to do any good.
Oh, just to grab a reference, you might start here:
Don't think this article will play well in Europe who sent this message: Dear Trump-Americans,
Now we Europeans have to disclose our social media activity from the last five years if we want to travel to the US. Anyone who criticizes Trump can be denied entry.
Let's say it clear: We never want to hear anything about "freedom of speech", "democracy" etc. from you again.
Dubious? Here's ABC News saying the State Department is doing it: https://abc7ny.com/post/tourists-42-countries-will-have-submit-5-years-social-media-history-enter-us-trump-plan/18272541/
Irrelevant? European countries are trying to prevent social media companies from using algorithms and AI from infecting their populations with the same mind viruses that infects 30% of the US. That's because Europe has bitter experience with this. See Italy 1923-1943; German 1933-1945; USSR. That's what's irrelevant to the Trump regime's effort to stamp out dissent not just in the US but throughout the world. Bottom line, the Trump regime has no business lecturing anyone about "Free Speech."
This is:
1) Dubious. Previous stories suggesting as much neglected to mention that the alleged individual had made a bomb threat the previous day.
2) Irrelevant. Why do you think you are justified in censoring your own citizens because a foreign country has instituted lese majeste for tourists?
Seems to me to be a rather repulsively authoritarian form of whataboutism.
Really solid work on the Miiloo AI toy story. The way it defends CCP positions and censors Taiwan/Winnie the Pooh questions shows how these values get baked into products aimed at kids globally. I remeber worrying about subliminal messages in cartoons, but this is more direct since the toy activeley shuts down alternative framings. That's a pretty wild export strategy.
I have a question about the Texas case:
The people in question are public employees.
The speech in question is what they teach to students as employees of the state.
Why does the state as employer not have a legit public interest in what its employees teach? How is this different from setting curricula?
Surely at least non-tenured faculty do not have the right to teach whatever it is that strikes their fancy in their classroom. How is this any different from that?
Do not misunderstand: I am *not* sure that there is nothing wrong with the law in question. But I’m not sure I understand why your argument explains how it is a First Amendment violation.
Could you please explain?
There's actually a whole bunch of legal cases on this topic. I can't write a summary of this now, but I can tell you it's a well-studied question, with quite a large amount of hairsplitting in certain circumstances.
Though I'm intrigued by how people think about this. The idea seems to be there are two principles: Employers have complete control over employees, and government should be limited in power. But then, what happens if the government is the employer? Should it fall into the "complete control" slot, or the "limited" slot? Most people who think that way tend to favor the "employer/complete control" side, because they're always arguing for business power. But sometimes they're troubled by the implications of it when government is a large employer.
Government as employer clearly has a right to dictate what employees can do or say publicly in their role AS EMPLOYEES.
Which is what this law covers.
I plead nolo contendere what tenured professors can do. But explain why the government employer doesn’t have the right to set the curricula in a government run school?
The law ain’t about what people do or say on their own time. That would of course violate the First Amendment.
Can I meta-discussion this for a moment? I'm not meaning to be rude, I've just been thinking about the following problem again. Often in social media discussions, I go through something like the following:
"This is an outrage, the law says X, it should be Y, tell to me why it isn't"
"Well, it's a complicated topic, you can read up on it if you want"
"No! Tell me, right now, in bite-size little pieces, why it's X but not Y!"
"OK, I'll give it a try, start within this broad principle ..."
"That's wrong! That's saying X, but Y is the only right one!" ... on and on.
I mean, it never seems to do any good.
Oh, just to grab a reference, you might start here:
https://www.aaup.org/academic-freedom-and-first-amendment-2007