The state isn't the only threat to free speech: the workplace is, too
One of the major battlefronts in regards to freedom of expression is how much the principle should apply in the workplace.
A common line one hears is that freedom of speech is a legal concept that strictly protects citizens from the persecution of the government for expressing their opinions; it does not apply to private organisations or public institutions who have their own autonomous codes of conducts that govern what their employees are permitted to say publicly on social media.
But let us consider Chief Inspector Andy George, the president of the National Black Police Association, who has just been placed under a misconduct investigation for a tweet he sent in November.
George took issue with the promotion of Martyn Blake, the firearms officer who was cleared by a jury of murder after shooting dead Chris Kaba on September 5 2022, from inspector to sergeant.
George, himself a former firearms officer, suggested black and Asian police officers are more likely to face misconduct allegations and to be punished for the same actions as Blake.
Now, maybe George is wrong. There are reasons to think his point might be unreasonable. The existence of a racial disparity doesn't necessarily mean that the cause of it is racism. Perhaps the Martyn Blake case wasn't the best point of comparison for his point.
But freedom of speech has never been about protecting the 'right' opinion and punishing the 'wrong' one. Part of the principle of freedom of speech is precisely the right to be wrong, even 'offensive', without being sanctioned for it.
Indeed, George is correct to say that this sends a 'chilling message' and 'stifles free speech'. Regardless of whether George is right or not in his views on the police and race, the issue of racism in the police force is a matter of public interest, particularly as in this country the police are supposed to serve the public, not the state.
Therefore, it can only be properly faced if all views and perspectives can be aired and face off against each other without fear. Even if a view is wrong, it might still contain a grain of truth that society has to take into consideration.
This issue is too serious for sanctioning dissent. It is a plain fact that if you are employed at a corporation or a public institution, your free speech rights are often left at the door. It is naive to believe that the government is the only threat to an individual's free speech.
Corporations and public institutions also hold a lot of power. If you dissent from the dominant view then you risk losing your livelihood. This is a matter that affects all of us. If we can't defend Andy George's free speech when he is 'wrong' this time, then we might be powerless next time in defending the person who is right from being censored by their employer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
3 days ago
- Powys County Times
Fears Powys planners aren't going out to visit sites
CONCERN over the lack of site visits being conducted by members of Powys County Council's Planning committee ahead of deciding applications, has been flagged up with the Auditor General for Wales. Earlier today, (Friday – June 5) Montgomeryshire's Conservative MS Russell George met with the Auditor General for Wales Adrian Crompton and a team from Audit Wales to work through a list of concerns about the council's planning service. In April, Mr Russell wrote to Mr Crompton raising continued and serious concerns regarding the performance of the planning service. This follows the publication of two reports by Audit Wales on the council's planning service in the last two years. Following today's meeting Mr George MS said: 'The auditor general took on board my concerns and examples provided and will use what I outlined as part of a wider piece of work Audit Wales are undertaking around the governance and leadership of the council.' Mr George explained that they worked through a number of points that formed the basis of the meeting agenda and gave examples of planning issues that he has come across. Mr George said: 'We did spend some time on examples around missing and inaccurate information in reports going to committee. 'I also made the point on the lack of site visits by committee.' Interest in Mr George's concerns around planning in Powys was shown by members of the council's Governance and Audit committee last month. The committee chairwoman and lay-member Lynne Hamilton said that she will be expecting an update on the issue following the meeting. In May 2023 Audit Wales published a damning report into the state of Powys council's planning service and issued a number of recommendations for the council to address. In response, the council set up an internal board to help steer improvements in the service. Last November, Audit Wales issued a follow up report which said that 'overall' they had found that Powys planners had 'responded quickly' to improve its arrangements. Audit Wales said that the planning service has: 'implemented the 2023 recommendations in full.' Mr George believes that the follow-up review did not provide a 'comprehensive examination' of planning.
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
Those from the countries on Trump's travel ban say they're confused and angry about what comes next
Anger and condemnation broke out as families, attorneys and immigrant advocates absorbed the blast from the latest bombshell delivered by the Trump immigration — a travel ban that stops or restricts people from 19 mostly African, Asian and Caribbean countries from entering the U.S. While the Trump administration said the travel ban is meant to keep Americans safe, critics lobbed accusations of discrimination, cruelty, racism, inhumanity and more in response. Meanwhile, the news also elicited confusion over what will happen once the ban goes into effect on Monday. "This travel ban is a racist, bigoted and xenophobic and deeply un-American attack on human rights — it's like persecution. We have fled dictatorship, violence, hunger,' Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, told NBC News from Miami, a city with a large population of immigrants from several of the countries on Trump's list. 'This administration clearly has something against immigrants, and it has something against us in particular,' said José Antonio Colina, a former Venezuelan army lieutenant who fled to Miami in 2003 and heads the exile organization Veppex. 'We are double-persecuted. We are persecuted by the tyranny of Nicolás Maduro and we are persecuted by the administration of Donald Trump.' A 38-year-old Haitian green-card holder in Miami who was too fearful to allow her name to be used said she and many others in the community feel 'confused and scared' over the travel ban on Haiti. She said most of her family lives there, including her sister and father, who is sick. 'They come all the time to visit and now I don't know if they will be able to,' she said, adding she heard there were exceptions to the ban but wasn't sure. There are some exceptions, including for people with lawful permanent residency, spouses and children of U.S. citizens, those who are adopted and others. 'But if you are a spouse of a permanent resident, forget about it,' said Doug Rand, former director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Biden administration. It will also impact other relatives, such as adult children and siblings of lawful permanent residents, people who won the diversity lottery or were sponsored by a U.S. employer and are from the listed countries, 'people who have been waiting for years and done it the right way,' he said. In Havana, a queue of people outside the American Embassy learned the news of the travel ban and suspensions as they waited for their visa interviews. 'I had been waiting nine years for this moment,' said one young woman in line, who declined to be identified by name for fear it might affect her visa chances. She and others said the suspension means not being able to visit family or escape dire circumstances in Cuba. 'If they don't grant visas, Cubans will starve, given the situation, they will starve,' said Ismael Gainza, a retired Cuban. 'I see that measure as bad, I see it as bad because the situation is tough and we have to survive.' Trump's proclamation issued Wednesday night bans people from 12 countries from traveling to the U.S. The countries are: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In seven more countries, travel to the U.S. was suspended but not banned. They are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Shahzeen Karim, managing attorney at Hafey & Karim law firm, said that although she's in the immigration law space, she holds 'Republican views' on the topic, agreeing there's a need for a stricter immigration policy and more thorough screening. 'I know the White House presented some explanations as to why each of those countries, but I can't help but feel very targeted, being a Muslim immigration attorney,' Karim said. 'The countries are majority Muslim unfortunately.' Challenging the ban could be 'an uphill battle' Immigration advocates said that, unlike Trump's previous travel ban, which caught them off guard, they expected the president would enact a similar policy in his second term. Trump's 2017 ban immediately barred Muslims from entering the country, leaving some stranded at airports or unable to board flights. But like his previous ban, the impact of the current ban taking effect next week will be felt by people trying to bring together families, those who landed a job in the U.S., who had tours or visits planned, who planned to study here or were looking forward to a cultural exchange. It took three tries for Trump, in his previous administration, to come up with a travel ban that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept. Lower courts nixed the first version and the administration kept revising it until the high court accepted its third version in June 2018. Immigration and civil rights groups opposed all three versions. Raha Wala, vice president of strategy and partnerships at the National Immigration Law Center, said that challenging the latest ban 'will be an uphill battle' because the Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. Edward Cuccia, an immigration attorney in New York City, said that blocking the latest ban could be tougher now than in 2017. 'Trump got smarter this time,' he said, explaining that the mix of countries makes it harder to argue that the ban is discriminatory. Also, the implementation won't be as abrupt and the argument that the singled-out nations do not vet the documents of their citizens well may hold up in court, according to Cuccia. Even so, the implications are vast for the people who are affected and are not a security threat, he said. 'What is this going to mean for family unification? There's a lot of countries here!' Cuccia said. 'And then, there are people that maybe had business dealings, people who wanted to do investments here in the United States or come over on temporary work visas, student visas or even just to visit … That seems to be gone out the window.' Wala called the justification for the ban — that visa overstays present a national security threat and the inability to fully vet visa travelers in those countries — a 'fig leaf.' If there is a gap in vetting, 'that's worth taking a look at,' he said, but added that 'all kinds of people overstay their visas — and just because someone overstayed their visa and committed a crime, we just have to get away from this guilt by association concept.' For Wala, the newly announced ban cannot be separated from the president's previous policies and statements. "This ban started as the president saying he was going to have a complete and total shutdown of Muslims in the country. And he also said he wants to ban folks — and pardon my French here — from s---hole countries," Wala said. In Miami, Colina said he was glad the ban would prevent officials of Maduro's regime in Venezuela and their families "who always find a way" to get a visa to enter the country, "but they are a minority, and the partial ban will negatively impact the larger community and it's not fair.'
NBC News
5 days ago
- NBC News
Live updates: Trump signs 12-country travel ban, launches probe into Biden's use of autopen
IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser. The president also said he will deny visas to foreign students who want to attend Harvard University. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30. Francis Chung / Bloomberg via Getty Images Updated June 5, 2025, 7:26 AM EDT Trump said tonight he will deny visas for foreign students trying to come to the United States to attend Harvard University, his latest attack on the prominent Ivy League college. The administration tried late last month to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students — a move that was swiftly blocked by a federal judge. In a proclamation, Trump said Harvard failed to present sufficient information about its foreign students to the federal government. Read the full story here. Trump on Wednesday directed a wide-ranging investigation into former President Joe Biden and officials in his administration, accusing his aides of using 'autopen' signatures to cover up his 'cognitive decline' and assert presidential power. Trump frequently uses Biden as a political foil and has sought to undo a number of policies from his predecessor's administration since he returned to office. Read the full story here. In a return of one of the most controversial policies of his first term, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation Wednesday banning nationals from a dozen countries, including Afghanistan, Haiti and the Republic of Congo, from entering the United States. Trump framed the new restrictions, which primarily target African and Asian countries, as necessary to fortify national security and combat terrorism. Read the full story here.
