265
Workers fired over Charlie Kirk comments learn the limits of free speech on the job
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
265 points (97.8% liked)
politics
25634 readers
3534 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But "Free Speech" is often referred to as though it is some magical incantation in the USA. It may be my ignorance, but I haven't come across anything to imply it's seen that way in other countries.
Thr UK has the same thing as America. Australia on the other hand, for example, doesn't have as many of those rights. https://legalclarity.org/does-australia-have-freedom-of-speech/
Free speech is protection from the government. People, especially here on Lenny it seems, (not saying you personally, just in general) have a highly gross misunderstanding of the basic law when they claim free speech is anything else.
The US being a younger nation is probably why you hear it more from Americans. Our rights are new, relative to the most of the world. Plus US culture is everywhere.
Do they? I wasn’t actually sure. I thought the government was cracking down on anti-genocide speech.
Basically the same.
UK is not In the eu.
No kidding.
So where does the clampdown on anti-genocide speech land wrt this?
Freedom of speech is often conflated with non-discrimination.
i.e. A grocery store clerk mentioning politics om the job. In a non-"at-will" state and with a non-disgusting contract between employee and employer, the employer never comes under "Free speech" violations, but discrimination ones.
Even in such a mix of specific circumstances (the state, the employee and the employer being sane rule-wise), there'd still need to be a counterexample - i.e. would the same happen if the person held a slightly different belief or posessed a slightly different shade of skin, set of chromosomes or some other discriminator.
It's a higher ask than a "Free Speech" card, but it is a protection. (Some restrictions may apply).