←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: 0.354s | 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 #
1. NoGravitas ◴[27 Aug 25 13:50 UTC] No.45039658[source]▶
I want to downvote you, but you are technically correct. I think most of us agree that there exists a compelling interest, but that in practice the case would be made that this should be struck down because it restricts speech, and the captured judiciary would certainly uphold that argument.