Ah. I see.
In the first place, freedom of speech is not an international right, it is a national right depending on your citizenship.
In China you have a lot of state control and are not guaranteed the right to a free press, freedom to worship as your conscience dictates, or the freedom to say as you please against the government or anyone else.
Among those nations that do grant some version of freedom of speech there is some variance in what it means exactly, how broadly it is applied, what the consequences are, and everything else related to issues that come up.
Because Disney is an American company and Carla Giancarlo is an American citizen (born in Sarasota FL) there is no question that issues of free speech will fall under American jurisprudence and American definitions etc of free speech.
Fair and agreed?
So who decides? The US government is established under a Constitution that separates government into three branches. The legislative branch makes the law, so long as said laws do not violate the Constitution. The judicial branch interprets the law and the executive branch enforces the law. Because freedom of speech is part of the Bill of Rights, the law itself is part of the Constitution, the highest level. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in interpreting the law and they have done so in several cases since our founding. Free speech is not absolute. The Supreme Court has made several exceptions to free speech, see here for a basic list and explanation. The court system is also the entity that sets the penalty against the government for violating free speech. This is usually by making a law invalid and assigning appropriate fines.
There are two other important points to contend with.
The first is obvious in the language of the First Amendment itself.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, the First Amendment prohibits the government from prohibiting free speech. It says nothing of private companies. No company or other non governmental organization owes you free speech on this soil. Free speech is not something we owe each other as citizens. This is why you don’t get jailed for supposed violations of free speech, the First Amendment restricts the government not private persons or entities.
The second point to contend with is what I was talking about earlier in the thread. The legal code grants the right of personhood to companies. That means they can sue another company, person, entity, or the government for damages caused by speech that falls under the exceptions clause as though they were a person. Most of the time these cases are civil not criminal so there’s no imprisonment involved. We’re talking restitution fines and the public censure of having lost the case.
To apply practically in two situations:
Disney/Giancarlo. Disney terminating her employment because of comments she made does not violate the First Amendment because Disney is not the government, they are a private company who can set whatever terms of employment they want. If she signed a contract of employment and then violated the terms of that contract she can be rightfully terminated if Disney can prove that her speech broke the contract agreement and caused them harm (not necessarily financial). She can also be sued by any entity who can prove her comments caused harm under the exceptions clause because freedom of speech is not absolute. In other words, jewish synagogues across the country could file a class action suit against her for her comments and she would lose if they could prove those comments caused psychological distress or other harm because those comments made a mockery of the genocide. Such a suit does not violate her right to make those comments but it does hold her accountable for doing so. After losing the suit she could get right back up and say worse the next day and absolutely nothing would prevent her from doing so.
Today, a news report began about a meme circulating around the Los Angeles Police Department. It’s a picture of George Floyd with the caption “You Take My Breath Away” for Valentine’s Day. Those cops are going to be reprimanded and hopefully fired. There are already calls for accountability. There will be a backlash against accountability from the far right yammering about cancel culture and freedom of speech. Let’s examine. The First Amendment protects the people against the government. If you are a police officer you are part of the government when on duty, not a private citizen. This comment breeds distrust against the police. It causes harm under the exceptions clause because the government is an employer. Freedom of Speech protections do not apply.
I hope this clarifies for you the boundaries of free speech in America and why in these cases the American view of free speech should be the one to be considered and applied. I understand your comments and confusion better now. If China ever gets some measure of freedom of speech China (government and people) will set the boundaries, penalties, etc which is as it should be. Yours will not look like ours, nor should they. They should be written to suit the needs of China and Chinese citizens. If there ever is a global iteration of free speech then all nations should be part of that process, it should be determined equally and equitably and a treaty should be signed.
I hope you understand my position better now too. As an American, I can tell you that the First Amendment is our most precious gift from our ancestors as citizens. It is the inheritance we are to safeguard for our children and our posterity. As part of the Bill of Rights, it binds us and defines us. As you can imagine, people who get that are gonna be pretty worked up over deliberate misuse and abuse of the First Amendment by a lunatic fringe and oath breaking GOP that would abuse that inheritance for their own gain. It’s been non-stop of that kind of lunacy from the ignorant Trump base et al for more than 4 years now, to the point they’re trying to defend an attempted coup and insurrection and failure to impeach by gaslighting the First Amendment. It can’t be allowed to go unchallenged.
