←back to thread

446 points Teever | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.251s | source
Show context
carefulfungi ◴[] No.45029744[source]
This is explictly restricting speech (restricting the right to advertise for labor) and would have to meet a high first amendment bar in the US.

Pay transparency law supporters have argued successfully that there is a compelling interest in closing gender and racial wage gaps and that salary range information can be mandated in job listings for that purpose. What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the government to control speech?

replies(9): >>45029832 #>>45030092 #>>45030131 #>>45030211 #>>45031041 #>>45031437 #>>45032487 #>>45033785 #>>45039658 #
TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45030092[source]
> This is explictly restricting speech (restricting the right to advertise for labor) and would have to meet a high first amendment bar in the US.

Fraud or specifically false advertisement is not protected by the First Amendment. 15 USC 52 and ff.

> What's the compelling interest in this case that allows the government to control speech?

Ghost job postings negatively impact interstate commerce.

replies(1): >>45030354 #
pacoWebConsult ◴[] No.45030354[source]
> Ghost job postings negatively impact interstate commerce.

Sure, people wasting time applying to ghost jobs has a societal and economic cost, but what is the impact of government regulation of freely advertising job postings?

How does that stack up against the compliance cost of ensuring all of these regulations are being met so the company aren't fined, and the loss of legitimate postings to all of the places they would normally be posted to due to those regulatory cost?

The government has no business to be restricting speech in this manner.

replies(2): >>45031040 #>>45032085 #
1. ◴[] No.45031040[source]