Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware) [LWN.net]

Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware)

Posted Sep 2, 2009 21:37 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
In reply to: Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware) by alvieboy
Parent article: Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware)

Freedom of speech means that the law cannot prohibit you from speaking (per se), or punish you for it, regardless of the content of your speech. You remain free to voluntarily accept limitations on your own speech, however, as the university has done here. They are free to break that contract, but then they must forfeit the penalty they agreed to in accepting it. This would be perfectly legal in the U.S. as well as most other democratic nations—and more to the point, in all nations which prioritize liberty, which is independent of, and often opposed to, democracy.

(Log in to post comments)

Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware)

Posted Sep 2, 2009 22:11 UTC (Wed) by alvieboy (subscriber, #51617) [Link]

Despite the fact that it is not actually Uni's speech.

I am not sure what's the concrete status of Universities in Argentina, but I do believe they are not private held. This enforces them to serve the population. Point one.

Freedom of speech - I am free to speak up for whatever I want albeit I might suffer consequences from it. But that comes after. No one can forbid me to expose my points of view - That's censure - the same censure US allegedly are against as a Democratic country.

I do understand your point, but I must disagree. Here where I live *no one*, not even the government, can forbid be from expressing my points of view, even if them put my own country in a "dangerous" situation. Nor can any privately held company. They can sue me after for damages, but surely not any other way. And I can go to jail too, but I have to be given the freedom to speech.

So basically this boils down to: It's up to Uni to decide whether it wants someone to speak there or not, but telling us that this breaks up some kind of [illegal?] agreement is throwing dust to people's eyes.

It boils down to politics.

Álvaro

Microsoft contract forces cancellation of Stallman talk in Argentina (Matware)

Posted Sep 3, 2009 5:54 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

As someone has said, it doesn't mean that there can never be any limitations placed on where/etc.

For instance: you can't show up to your office and sit there with a megaphone loudly criticising your boss through a megaphone. That would pretty rapidly lead to termination of employment.

Likewise, the university presumably has an agreement with Microsoft prohibiting this kind of thing, with penalties (or loss of benefits) for non-compliance.

Freedom of speech means that the government can't place a blanket prohibition on saying certain things. It doesn't mean you're free to walk in anywhere at any time and say whatever you like, despite what Internet commenters everywhere seem to think.

Ideals of Universities

Posted Sep 3, 2009 8:37 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

Universities are a special case! Traditionally they are supposed to encourage critical thinking and free exchange of ideas. Of course within civilized limits (no bullhorns in offices). A critical guest lecture is certainly something a good university should not ban.

Based on what one sees here (possibly not the whole story, and I cannot read Spanish), the university in question seems to have failed in its mission.

When freedom of speech comes up, many are quick to point out it applies to governements and laws, but in a world where large corporations wield influence comparable to governements, it is a too narrow view.