Since when can a business or other private place of employment not set the tone of discourse or other personal...
Since when can a business or other private place of employment not set the tone of discourse or other personal expressions while at work or in the work environment?
I may be misreading this, but I swear it sounds like these people want free speech reinterpreted as when employed by a movie theater to have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and additionally claim no responsibility for the results. Sorry, but you are damaging the business of the company that employed you and I cannot imagine how your so-called free speech rights trump their interest in not employing someone who wants to damage their business. Not to mention you are endangering the public when you do that.
Either way, you are responsible for the results of your actions. So even if someone said sure, say whatever you want whenever you want - damage your employer's business, hurt members of the public - you own whatever happens as a consequence. The employer should still be able to fire you, and anybody who got hurt should be able to seek remedy - which probably means sue you for anything you will ever be worth.
P.S. Bull that raising money to 'take someone out' was just trying to start an "investigation that might damage the public standing of the activist". Bull shit. There is no commonly accepted use of 'taking out' someone that does not mean violence, specifically killing someone. Clearly, you were not suggesting the money be raised so you could 'take out' the Black Lives Matter activist on a date.
You were looking to cause violence, you know you were looking to cause violence and there is nothing vague about Twitter suspending you for looking to cause violence against another, specifically named no less, person.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/08/google-faces-a-lawsuit-over-discriminating-against-white-men-and-conservatives/?utm_term=.c3a9b5be05de
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/08/google-faces-a-lawsuit-over-discriminating-against-white-men-and-conservatives/?utm_term=.c3a9b5be05de
I may be misreading this, but I swear it sounds like these people want free speech reinterpreted as when employed by a movie theater to have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and additionally claim no responsibility for the results. Sorry, but you are damaging the business of the company that employed you and I cannot imagine how your so-called free speech rights trump their interest in not employing someone who wants to damage their business. Not to mention you are endangering the public when you do that.
Either way, you are responsible for the results of your actions. So even if someone said sure, say whatever you want whenever you want - damage your employer's business, hurt members of the public - you own whatever happens as a consequence. The employer should still be able to fire you, and anybody who got hurt should be able to seek remedy - which probably means sue you for anything you will ever be worth.
P.S. Bull that raising money to 'take someone out' was just trying to start an "investigation that might damage the public standing of the activist". Bull shit. There is no commonly accepted use of 'taking out' someone that does not mean violence, specifically killing someone. Clearly, you were not suggesting the money be raised so you could 'take out' the Black Lives Matter activist on a date.
You were looking to cause violence, you know you were looking to cause violence and there is nothing vague about Twitter suspending you for looking to cause violence against another, specifically named no less, person.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/08/google-faces-a-lawsuit-over-discriminating-against-white-men-and-conservatives/?utm_term=.c3a9b5be05de
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/08/google-faces-a-lawsuit-over-discriminating-against-white-men-and-conservatives/?utm_term=.c3a9b5be05de
So, Damore is an asshole and I'm not particularly concerned about him or his feelings. (From what I've heard of his brief, it's laughable.) I know nothing about Johnson beyond what I just read in Wikipedia, although he sounds like scum to me.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd be lying if I said that this situation-- I don't mean those two, I mean this whole.... moment, for lack of a better word-- didn't make me nervous. And I really have no particularly worthy guidance beyond the sense that there's an ugly slippery slope in here, related to the collapse of the traditional wall between public and private identities; the extreme difficulties in putting together coherent guidelines for these sorts of things; and the extreme and inherent risk in foisting this all off on individual tech companies.
(If you're not convinced of that last point, consider a world in which Roger Ailes had bought Twitter and Steve Bannon had bought Facebook.)
His argument, according to reports, is that "conservatives are discriminated against at Google: they make fun of Alex Jones and share Nazi-punching memes!" (So, wait...you're saying that you identify with the Nazis in Nazi-punching memes?)
ReplyDeleteBut I think there is something to what John Novak is saying here, but yeah, I can't yet tease it out either. The idea that there isn't any such thing as distinct circles of contact anymore...
I mean, yes to you both. My understanding is that free speech is not totally unbounded, though, even now.
ReplyDeleteMy concern about precedent being set in law is that something weird and messy may happen. Either that we get restrictions that become a problem allowing the government or someone to prevent us from ever freely saying anything, or that we end up with no restrictions of any kind being enforceable anywhere, ever.