←back to thread

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

(www.cnbc.com)
446 points Teever | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | 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 #
snapetom ◴[26 Aug 25 20:57 UTC] No.45032237[source]▶
Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.
replies(1): >>45032942 #
gosub100 ◴[26 Aug 25 22:06 UTC] No.45032942[source]▶
I thought that was affirming money was speech?
replies(2): >>45033428 #>>45038460 #
1. tracker1 ◴[26 Aug 25 23:07 UTC] No.45033428[source]▶
Kind of... restricting money/spending is restricting speech/reach.