2 ms·
Consider the Hollywood blacklist, where people with communist ties or sympathies were barred from working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist htt
by dalke 10y ago
Consider the Hollywood blacklist, where people with communist ties or sympathies were barred from working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist .
I think danarmak's points also apply in that situation. Pete Seeger was found in contempt of Congress for using his First Amendment right of free association:
> "I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this."
But therein you see a problem with danarmak's proposal "If a person does something which is indisputably legal, in their private capacity, that should not be allowed (by the law) to affect their public standing or their job".
What sort of law would be strong enough that it could stand up to the future equivalent of the McCarthy Era? None, of course, as its the politicians who make the law.
My understanding of these sorts of laws are that they serve mostly to protect the status quo. Those who have power and influence don't need protection. Those who have little power can mostly only protest and boycott, which is a power danarmak wants to reduce.
- danarmak 10y agoIt is true that the law in general is a very imperfect tool and standard, for all the reasons you mention and more. But I do think many specific laws are good ones. For example, various laws says it's illegal to not hire or to fire someone based on some protected characteristics like e.g. race, gender or sexual orientation. (I'm aware that this isn't universal among US states.) I think this is a good thing. And I think political opinions (expressed in a private capacity) should also be a protected category, and for broadly the same reasons: to prevent segregation, to protect minorities, to encourage healthy democracy as opposed to all-out political war.
- dalke 10y agoMy primary criticism was that you haven't shown that tech in the US is any different in this regard than other fields. I again assert that you (and I) have heard of these case primarily because we are in tech. FWIW, while Israel has laws which prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel ), for most part of the US "Political speech and activity, especially in private sector employment, is not well protected by anti-retaliation laws". Quoting http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activity http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activ... .
- danarmak 10y agoI never said that tech is different from other fields. If I implied that, it was unintentional. Quoting my reply to you from a different comment: > Finally, I don't know how much the US tech industry is different. I have a feeling it's more polarized than European or (in my case) Israeli tech, simply because US politics tends to be more polarized. Regardless, as a techie, I both care more and can influence more the tech industry than any other, and I'm more upset by such behavior in the tech field.
- dalke 10y agoGood point. Had you made it more general I could have criticized you the other way. Your original observation is sound.