←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 5 comments | 26 Aug 25 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.414s | source
Show context
carefulfungi ◴[26 Aug 25 17:35 UTC] 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 #
gosub100 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:13 UTC] No.45030211[source]▶
Are corporations given the right to free speech?
replies(5): >>45030740 #>>45031106 #>>45032088 #>>45032237 #>>45038407 #
1. snapetom ◴[26 Aug 25 20:57 UTC] No.45032237[source]▶
Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.
replies(1): >>45032942 #
2. gosub100 ◴[26 Aug 25 22:06 UTC] No.45032942[source]▶
I thought that was affirming money was speech?
replies(2): >>45033428 #>>45038460 #
3. tracker1 ◴[26 Aug 25 23:07 UTC] No.45033428[source]▶
Kind of... restricting money/spending is restricting speech/reach.
4. Gormo ◴[27 Aug 25 11:59 UTC] No.45038460[source]▶
No, that ruling was almost exactly the opposite. The FEC tried to argue, based on the "electioneering communication" provisions of the McCain-Feingold act, that expression of opinions that might benefit a candidate was equivalent to a monetary donation to that candidate, so their authority to regulate campaign donations included the power to suppress the publication of certain political speech.

Basically, they were arguing that "speech is money". The court ruled against that, and reaffirmed that speech in itself is always protected by the first amendment, regardless of who may benefit from it or what resources were allocated to facilitating it.

replies(1): >>45041169 #
5. gosub100 ◴[27 Aug 25 15:38 UTC] No.45041169{3}[source]▶
Thank you for the explanation. I'll admit this was intellectual laziness on my part.