We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Conspiracy Theories, False Flags etc. » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (37 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..12~13~14 [Next]
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Yes, but that's not enough protection for me, Mr.Andrews. It's much better than UK, Canada and Europe, with their hate speech laws and the such like, but it's still not enough to satisfy a 'free speech fundamentalist' like myself. Smile. Hence why I can agree with your assessment of the US constitution, and also hold its not enough - you need a better one Smile

Examples of the stifling of free speech in the US are pretty numerous - usually via institutional monopoly power (Twitter, Google, Facebook), or the heckler's veto, or deplatforming, or the undue use of institutional power (loss of grades, loss of jobs), and the such like. You also have anti-discrimination laws which can often fly in the face of free expression, free enterprise and free speech - often forcing certain people groups, like the transphobic/homophobic religious, out of the public sphere. These things are not good enough for the flourishing of modern civilisation, IMHO. Free speech should be defended more robustly.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Invent your own twitter. Then free speech all you like.

Free speech does not mean consequence free. You do not have the right to bloviate without consequences. You can't be that big an advocate if you're not willing to accept the consequences.

You seem to jay want to spout off and not be held to account for it. Not how it works.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Let's make it a little more interesting: should a private employer be allowed to fire an employee:

1) for expressing on the job, his or her political beliefs?
2) for expressing off the job, his or her political beliefs?
3) for uncovering corruption within the company?
4) for speaking without company approval to the press?

Understood that these are not necessarily First Amendment questions.
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Nov 26, 2017, landmark wrote:
Let's make it a little more interesting: should a private employer be allowed to fire an employee:

1) for expressing on the job, his or her political beliefs?
2) for expressing off the job, his or her political beliefs?
3) for uncovering corruption within the company?
4) for speaking without company approval to the press?

Understood that these are not necessarily First Amendment questions.


1.Yes, if it disrupts the business.
2.No.
3.No.
4.It depends.

Speaking simply.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Interesting - please check your employer's employee handbook about suitable workplace behavior.

Right to work?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Nov 26, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Yes, but that's not enough protection for me, ...


Okay, I'll ask Smile and if you were king of the forrrrrrest... what would you decree?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Let me show you the type of things I'd would prefer (and hope modern democracies move towards for the greater good of civilisation) from concrete examples, and why I call myself a 'free speech fundamentalist'. I totally get why my position seems radical to many Smile :

1) Should Twitter be able to ban or de-verify accounts on the basis of 'wrong-think'? No, because Twitter are a effectively a monopoly and the regulating dynamic of the free market can only operate when there is genuine competition. Markets have to have some sort of regulation to prevent such monopolies coming to be, and remedial action should be taken if they fail. The same argument applies to YouTube de-monetisation, Google ideological filtering algorithms, and Facebook bans. Some companies are now too big and without meaningful competitors to allow them to have ideological strangleholds and thought-policing powers.

2) An employee loses their job, possibly career, because they expressed a view their bosses deemed unacceptable. Perhaps they thought transgender bathrooms were a bad idea, or that socialism was a good thing, or that all white people were racist, or that BLM was a quasi-terrorist organisation, or whatever. Is this ok? Not to me, no. Free speech is such a important ingredient for civilised society that allowing mass workforce silencing, mass employee duplicity and a freezing effect across the culture under fear of economic punishment within an unbalanced institutional/class system (rich institutions vs poor workers) is bad for all. Robust worker's rights to protect their meaningful ability to express their thoughts without fearful self-censorship or economic sanction is necessary. Companies shouldn't be able to fire an employee for just any reason at all - this leads to societal power imbalances and class divides which foster resentments and possibly other social-ills (like crime), bad for all society. Truth canbest be found when everyone has the ability to speak candidly on any ideological subject.

3) An evangelical Christian bakery is criminalised for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Is this ok? I don't think so. Although a necessary price to pay for robust free speech will be ******-bags acted ******y, discrimination laws give governments massive unecessary power - today you agree with who they target, tomorrow it could be you. No one should be forced to express an opinion, create a product or artwork, use their language, to support, endorse or engage in an ideology against their consciences. So no to all such discrimination laws after society has reached a certain point of pluralism and equality. Yes, this means that a racist hotel will be able to say, 'no blacks', and yes, some nutter can say, 'only flat eart her served here', or whatever the hell they want. But the free market will take care of such. Better the occasional idiot than the whole of some people groups (mostly the religious) being forced out of the public sphere entire, and the threat of it being your people group next time.

4) Should invited speakers be de-platformed, or charged 'security fee' extortion rates, so as to prevent people, mostly students, hearing 'wrong-think'? No, to allow theheckler's veto is to effectively prevent certain ideas being aired and certain debates from happening. This is clearly detrimental to society. Publicly funded institutions have a duty to allow all views to be aired without their interference, although it might be better to go with JS Mill and desire private only education. Certainly the police should aims to silence the violent de-platformers rather than the non-violent wrong-thinkers. The power dynamic needs to shift - legitimate protests, lawful conferences, invited speakers etc should not be punished, silenced or shut down because of threats from ideologues such as antifa, communists, jihadis or the such like.

I could go on, but you get the picture. I like the idea of everyone being able to say the truth as they see it without fear or punishment. Smile
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2824 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Image is important to a company, and the company has the right to hire the type person that best represents the company. While you have a right to use Twitter and Facebook anyway you want, you still have an obligation to the company you agreed to represent. Free speech is not always so free.

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Yes, at it stands companies do have that right to fire someone for, in their opinion, bringing their company into disrepute by holding to an idea or expressing a thought they find objectionable.

But I disagree that they should have that right. I shouldn't be able to fire you simply because I think your POV might be unpopular at this moment in time. This effectively means a company exercises imbalanced power over people's thoughts - look at what happened at Google, or with that Fire Chief some years back. And that has a huge freezing effect on discourse and makes people dissemble their true beliefs or else buy into the current popular group-think under threat of financial ruin for their families. Employees, being the far weaker of the two parties, need some sort of robust protection to avoid the negative social effects that arise from such 'freezing' of opinions.

In short, I believe society would be far better off with employee protection rights that ensured that people couldn't be fired for their opinions, speech or affiliations (and any secondary ramifications) - only for their direct work related performance. In the same way you currently can't sack someone just for being Jewish, I don't think you should be able to sack someone just because they wrote that they think men and women are different. Yes, this means companies will sometimes have to take a hit - but this seems the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

To understand just how far I hold this principle, I'd be ok (for example) with a teacher being an open Nazi and teaching my own children - so long as their work related performance was exactly the standard expected of all teachers. I'd rather my kid taught by a bigot who got great grades than a good person who sucked at their job. And I'd much rather my child grew up in an environment where people didn't have to hide their true thoughts and opinions.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Should one be free from consequence of free speech?

In short free speech is not free. Companies have the absolute right to hire and fire based on the rules they create. Provided they do not discriminate based on race, gender and various other things.

But shoot off your mouth and it is possible you need to keep a resume handy. Having a job is not a right. While the GOVERNMENT can not stop you from saying anything you like, companies can. Otherwise it is abridging a their rights.

You can absolutely say anything you wish. But just be prepared to be an adult and accept the results. Life has consequences. You have the right to do lots of things that have consequence.

I would much rather my child grew up knowing actions have consequence. It is not a bad life lesson.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2824 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
I agree that the employer shouldn’t be able to just up and fire someone for speaking their personal opinion once on facebook. But after being warned that it could be damaging to the company to continue such behavior, the employer should have a right to stop it. It’s ok to have bad thoughts about the company polices, but it’s not ok to break those policies.

Still, it really depends on what is being said. Common sense should be used by both sides.

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Most companies have codes of conduct. It is very simple.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
TW, I agree with you on points 1 and 2, especially regarding Google and Facebook. They are effectively monopoly utilities and should be treated as such. I am very wary of giving those entities the effective power of censorship as some seem ready to do.

With regard to #3, I disagree; a store that does business with the public, using public utilities and services, and hence public subsidy, should not be able to refuse service based on gender, race, and other protected classes.

With regard to #4, I am generally against "de-platforming" or prosecution for "hate speech." That's a very slippery slope in my opinion. But...a university has limited resources, and it is perfectly within the rights of students to demonstrate and protest as to how those resources are being used. I think it's perfectly fine, for a hypothetical example, for students to be make known their displeasure with having tens of thousands of dollars going to a commencement speaker who is a certified war criminal, when that money could have been used for some other selection. And I don't think it wrong to call for the resignation of whoever made that decision.
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Danny:
Of course there will be consequences, but not every and any consequence. For example, I don't think people should be imprisoned for political dissent or hate speech. There are legitimate consequences and illegitimate consequences. Social reproach, counter debate, non-violent protest and loss of friends are fine; financial ruin, loss of career, educational failure, imprisonment or worse are not fine.

Tom:
Common sense doesn't work in law - it becomes arbitrary decided either by the company, or protestors, or the tyranny of the majority. Look at the current issues, it's obvious where the problems lie. There needs to be more individual protections for the good of society. Free speech is not protected enough in society at present.

landmark:
I'm glad we agree about the monopolies situation Smile

Most people disagree with me on 3, but I can't in good conscience force Jewish sign writers to make Nazi banners, or churches host satanist weddings, or force under threat of government violence (which is what law ends up being) to do anything against their sincere consciences. Yes, there will be the occasional racist idiot, but that's a small price to pay in order to not disenfranchise huge numbers of otherwise normal religious or less-than-totally-PC people from the public sphere. The economic and civilising loss to wider society of all those lost teachers, entrepreneurs, and public officials is ludicrous.

Regarding 4, non-violent protest and counter argument is always legitimate. Forcing the removal of speakers isn't, war criminal or not (remember one person's war criminal is another's freedom fighter, hero or president.). Calling for firing can be a form of hecklers veto and lead to freezing effects - why take any risk with safe-space students? Just avoid all possibility of controversy. Not good for civilisation.
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2824 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Quote:
On Nov 27, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:

Tom:
Common sense doesn't work in law - it becomes arbitrary decided either by the company, or protestors, or the tyranny of the majority. Look at the current issues, it's obvious where the problems lie. There needs to be more individual protections for the good of society. Free speech is not protected enough in society at present.



Common sense is about the only thing that does work in the workplace. You run your mouth in a way that may hurt my business, you’re fired, and I have every legal right to do it. I know, I’ve done it.

Now I'm sure things are a little different in huge companies with unions involved, but in smaller places, your biggest right may be to find another job. Smile

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
I don't disagree that's how things are, I just disagree that's how things should be. For example, I don't think I should have the legal right to sack you, and possibly ruin your entire career and family, because you said the above - which I politically disagree with.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
So you want to infringe upon the rights of the owner of the company?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Yes. In a rights conflict (which are inevitable) I favour the weak individual person over the powerful institution. Although, 'rights' don't exist intrinsically, they are only what is granted that title/afforded by government. What is, after all, a right? Only what is permitted as such (politically speaking). I'm Burkean in that regard.

So sure, if you think employers should have a right to fire people they disagree with, and if you think that's best for society, then cool - make your case and hope to win in the market place of ideas. I disagree and hope my view prevails for the good of all. I couldn't support a society which ruined a family because the poor guy said on Facebook that he thought men and women were different, or that Israel had a right to exist, or that being left handed was ok.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
You're mixing up multitudes of issues and want to cry free speech.

Free FROM government censorship is the idea. Not the ability to say any fool thing you want consequence free. When has that ever been the case?

I am sorry to tell you that the view of an employer being able to fire you for saying stupid stuff IS the prevailing view. I don't have to make a case it is how it is and has been and probably will be for quite some time. Might want to get used to disappointment.

See companies exist to make money. Not to provide jobs. So if you say something stupid that costs the company money and they have to lay off workers what then? What about THOSE little guys rights?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1973 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
No, I don't think I'm mixing things up.

Free speech is exactly 'being able to say any fool thing you want'. That's exactly it. I've never claimed such a right is also a right to be free from all consequence, though - that's a strawman attack. Rather I think that to have a society where people are truly free 'to say any fool thing they want' one must offer individuals a certain degree of protection from certain consequences - for example: free from fear of imprisonment, free from fear of violence, free from fear or financial ruin, free from fear of loss of education. Otherwise the 'freedom' of freedom of speech is not a practically existing freedom, it's a pipe dream enjoyed only by the rich or those who agree the popular opinions of the day. That is very bad for society.

You don't have to be sorry, I'm well aware that the prevailing view (in the US) is that employers should be able to fire you for any reason. I think the majority view is wrong. And yes you do have to make a case, at least if you want to persuade others or demonstrate its not an unreasonable view, else you're just arguing ad populum.

Yes, companies rightly exist to make money. But we restrict their ability to make money any which way, don't we? We don't allow all kinds of things: monopolies, slaves, hazardous work environments, false advertising etc because we recognise these as being bad for society even if good for the soecific company. We can easily extend such restrictions to cover free speech. Again, I'm thinking both in terms of principle and pragmatics - morality and civilisation. I don't believe it is either right nor good that someone can be sacked and their family ruined for saying women are different to men, or that being white is ok.

Do you? Would you be ok with a society where companies sacked every black person who said being white was ok simply because companies can fire whoever they want if they think it makes them more popular and profitable? I think that would be bad, and I apply the principle consistently across multiple issues and groups.

As I said, I'm a free speech fundamentalist, and I don't expect most people are as freedom loving as I am.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Conspiracy Theories, False Flags etc. » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (37 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..12~13~14 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL