4 ms·

I tend to refer to Chistopher Hitchens on this topic. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

• CalChris 9y ago
  That's nice but how does what Hitchens says apply here? The Manifesto writer apparently still works at Google. No one is silencing him. A whole shit ton of people are disagreeing with what he says. The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. No one is enforcing his silence, though in CA, Google as a corporation could dispense with his employment at will. Are you saying that we shouldn't disagree with him, that we should be silent, and that you'll cite Hitchens for that? Really?
  • walru 9y ago
    No. I'm saying that you don't have to agree with him, but he has the right to speak and others have the right to hear him. Perhaps re-digest 1:25-3:07.
    • CalChris 9y ago
      No one is questioning the manifesto writer's right to say what he wishes to say nor others to read what he writes, although if he says what he said while in the employ of Google to others who are also in the employ of Google, he can't hang his future employment there on rights. His right to speak is with respect to the govmint and not his employer. Again, how does what Hitchens says apply here? I think the good Christopher is on my side, not yours. Added: I might be wrong about Google's right to fire the manifesto writer [1]. That would be something for lawyers to work over. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...