Does capitalism kill the 1st?

[tecoyah]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

 

[iangb]

Not an american, but as far as I'm aware the First Amendment only limits governmental limitation of free speech, not societal limitation.

The First says that you can say what you like and the government can't throw you in jail because of it. It doesn't require other people (including the government) to provide a platform for your speech, and doesn't prevent anyone else (private citizens, corporations, etc) from responding to your speech in whatever way they feel like, be that by boycotts, arguing back, or firing you. In fact, you could probably argue that their response is almost as much protected by the First as your initial speech is - you are free to express yourself by speech, they are equally free to express themselves in response (as long as their response is not illegal, obviously).

 

[joG]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

Capitalism makes it more difficult for government to restrict free speech. This does not give full protection, when it is combined with autocracy, but it does put a certain check on government power.

 

[Redress]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a right to no repercussions from your speech. The first protects only against the government limiting speech. This is proper. Actions always have consequences, the first does not change that.

 

[Cephus]

The 1st Amendment only affects the government's ability to stifle free speech, it doesn't guarantee free speech without consequence. If the people don't like what you say, they are free to react to it in any way they want.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

I don't see that capitalism itself is to blame.

The source of the problem is a particularly insidious movement of political correctness, that lately has found a way to subvert some elements of capitalism to its own purpose. Capitalism is not the source of the problem, but merely a tool that is being abused as a weapon. In a different society, that was less capitalistically-inclined, the same movement would find other elements to abuse to its purpose in place of capitalism.

 

[Goshin]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

More like the oldest form of societal regulation. There have ALWAYS been consequences to pissing off your neighbors.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

More like the oldest form of societal regulation. There have ALWAYS been consequences to pissing off your neighbors.

I think there's something more to it than just “pissing off your neighbors”.

What we have here is a movement to discriminate in employment and business opportunities against those who hold certain beliefs that certain others find disagreeable.

It is worth noting that as things currently stand, it is completely illegal in these contexts to discriminate against someone because of his religion. Should it be any more acceptable to discriminate against someone for sincerely-held beliefs outside of those which are overtly religious? I do not think that it should.

 

[The Mark]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

Boycotting or penalizing people financially is capitalistic?
Not sure that's accurate.
But then, the US is not really a capitalistic society - in part we are, but by no means entirely.

Edit: Also, what the people above me are saying about how the 1st A only protects the people from governmental actions against free speech.

 

[Slartibartfast]

More and more, we are seeing people who speak what is judged to be negative being penalized financially.
Say something racist....lose your tv show or sports team.
Say something Homophobic....get your show cancelled.
Be religious....get boycotted.

Is this a new form of societal regulation?

The beauty I find in many of the constitutional rights is that it enabled society to self regulate in an organic and emergent manner per typical human instinct. It's not so much that the first amendment is being killed, its just being used for what it is, internal societal regulation. Humanity (unless there is significant evolution) will always seek to shape their environment to one that comforts them, this is the cause of our inventiveness and the cause of us building societies in the first place. Its just more of what has always existed.