4 ms·

This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abri

This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.
- ElComradio 11y ago
  The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.
  - nkassis 11y ago
    I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.
    - ElComradio 11y ago
      Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all. In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  I mean, yes, you're right, but surely, if voicing a dissenting opinion will damage or outright destroy your career, then unless you're extremely privileged and can afford to take the hit, you can't really do it, even if technically you have the right, can you? Technological advances such as social media make vilifying dissenting views (and the people who express them) cheaper and more effective than ever before. There must be some kind of a balance between the right to dissent and the right to "have a displeasure with an opinion" as you said, and I feel like the way things are going now, it doesn't look like we have found that balance. Ultimately a healthy society will need both.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ElComradio 11y ago
A way to address this might be to add "political opinions" to the list of protected classes. It is undeniably bad for a democracy (I know I know, we aren't technically a democracy) where people aren't free in practice to discuss contentious issues. As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal. Legally, promoting either of those opinions is subject to exactly the same degree of protection. The willingness of a particular employer to accept the legal risk maybe different between them, but that's a different issue than the law itself.
  - ElComradio 11y ago
    That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. In what specific, concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended? > One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Those are obviously potential rules, but I don't see that either of them is closer to any reasonable interpretation of the intended result that antidiscrimination laws are intended to serve.
maratd 11y ago
> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a concept of private property. I am all for fostering tolerance to offensive speech, but not at the expensive of destroying the concept of private ownership. It is absolutely not a fundamental right. It should be a social norm, but that's all it should be. > It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices Who gets to define what is and is not extreme? Freedom of expression means tolerating something offensive by definition. If it's not offensive, it doesn't need to be tolerated.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  And thus you have the shifting definition of what is "extreme" or not. Then again, if you keep chopping off the edges of the bell curve, everything that doesn't precisely match the middle is extreme by comparison.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  >Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. Except a lot of private entities receive a lot of money from the federal government - either as subsidies, tax breaks or programs. So they should abide by the rules of the government too. Giving public money to entities that not view the first amendment as obligatory for them - that is wrong for me.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.

ElComradio 11y ago
The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.
- nkassis 11y ago
  I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.
  - ElComradio 11y ago
    Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all. In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.
DrJokepu 11y ago
I mean, yes, you're right, but surely, if voicing a dissenting opinion will damage or outright destroy your career, then unless you're extremely privileged and can afford to take the hit, you can't really do it, even if technically you have the right, can you? Technological advances such as social media make vilifying dissenting views (and the people who express them) cheaper and more effective than ever before. There must be some kind of a balance between the right to dissent and the right to "have a displeasure with an opinion" as you said, and I feel like the way things are going now, it doesn't look like we have found that balance. Ultimately a healthy society will need both.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ElComradio 11y ago

A way to address this might be to add "political opinions" to the list of protected classes. It is undeniably bad for a democracy (I know I know, we aren't technically a democracy) where people aren't free in practice to discuss contentious issues. As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal. Legally, promoting either of those opinions is subject to exactly the same degree of protection. The willingness of a particular employer to accept the legal risk maybe different between them, but that's a different issue than the law itself.
- ElComradio 11y ago
  That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. In what specific, concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended? > One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Those are obviously potential rules, but I don't see that either of them is closer to any reasonable interpretation of the intended result that antidiscrimination laws are intended to serve.

maratd 11y ago

> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a concept of private property. I am all for fostering tolerance to offensive speech, but not at the expensive of destroying the concept of private ownership. It is absolutely not a fundamental right. It should be a social norm, but that's all it should be. > It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices Who gets to define what is and is not extreme? Freedom of expression means tolerating something offensive by definition. If it's not offensive, it doesn't need to be tolerated.

caseysoftware 11y ago
And thus you have the shifting definition of what is "extreme" or not. Then again, if you keep chopping off the edges of the bell curve, everything that doesn't precisely match the middle is extreme by comparison.
venomsnake 11y ago
>Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. Except a lot of private entities receive a lot of money from the federal government - either as subsidies, tax breaks or programs. So they should abide by the rules of the government too. Giving public money to entities that not view the first amendment as obligatory for them - that is wrong for me.