3 ms·

> But this groupthink terrifies me when it’s used to bully people for exercising their right to free speech. How will we know what people are truly thinking if

by elihu 9y ago

> But this groupthink terrifies me when it’s used to bully people for exercising their right to free speech. How will we know what people are truly thinking if we rush to silence them? I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public. To quote the alt-text for https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ > I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. I think a better argument would be that the "manifesto" wasn't actually saying anything particularly controversial, it was just a statement of opinion that many reasonable people would agree with. Perhaps it contains some assumptions that aren't backed up by recent research, but unknowingly saying something that's not true shouldn't ordinarily be a fireable offense. I would rather work at an employer where employees feel free to discuss hard problems that are relevant to the work environment for which there aren't any easy answers than one where minority opinions (or even majority opinions that contradict the leadership) are silenced. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to work at an employer where people felt free to say deliberately offensive things without repercussion.

int_19h 9y ago
> I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public. It's an argument that certainly makes a lot of sense from a libertarian perspective. But those of us on the left have already dismissed similar arguments - we know that when private commercial entities are sufficiently powerful, the limitations that they impose on their employees, customers etc can be so strong that they cannot be unchallenged (see the entire history of workers' rights movement, basically). We consider this immoral, and advocate for various limitations on the ability of businesses to do whatever they want. If free speech is a public good, then why shouldn't the same standard be applied to it? I'm not even talking about legal aspects here, but purely the ethical side of things - shouldn't we at least condemn a situation where an entire industry effectively suppresses some opinions using its economic levers (employment among them)? And if it's not considered a public good, then that should be explicitly stated, because that used to be one of the pretty basic tenets of liberalism.
- elihu 9y ago
  The United States has historically given very broad protections to free speech in public, which is something I support and am very glad of. There is some kind of speech that isn't appropriate in a corporate setting. There are some kinds of speech that I think should be legally protected both inside and outside a corporation. I think the manifesto should fall inside the category of protected speech, as he was only saying things that a reasonable person might think given what he saw inside of Google. Workers should be free to criticize management decisions or comment on working conditions. There are some things that aren't okay, though. I wouldn't want to work with someone who decorates their cubicle with iconography commemorating the third Reich, or who makes unwanted remarks about which of his or her attractive coworkers they would most like to sleep with. I don't know exactly what the criteria should be for what speech inside a corporation should be protected and what should not, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that an employee has no right whatsoever to any free speech in the course of their job, but I don't think that an employee has exactly the same free speech rights while they're on the job that they would have in any public place.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Thank you for a well-reasoned reply. I broadly agree with what you say. There are some forms of speech that shouldn't be easy to suppress by economic pressure from actors in a dominant position (like corporation vs a single employee), but where that line is in the workplace, is certainly different compared to where it is in off-work public speech. And it's not just about offensiveness of opinion - the corporation is also an actor with certain legal rights, and to unduly constrain them would also be inappropriate. I would draw the line a bit differently, though. IMO, the distinguishing point here is that this guy wrote his manifesto on an internal corporate network. So he used the company-provided communication channel, and targeted other employees of the company, specifically to discuss how said company should be run. Is this still public speech? I'm not sure. It feels like the company should at least be able to control the communication channel. While yes, ideally, it should be possible to raise criticism internally as well, I think that is also best left as an internal company policy. If its owners think that their business run better if it's managed by yes-men, in general or on certain topics, they're probably wrong, but it's their right to be wrong in this manner. Speaking out in public - on your own time, using public channels, and not as a company employee - is another matter, that I think deserves more protections.

by elihu 9y ago

int_19h 9y ago

> I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public. It's an argument that certainly makes a lot of sense from a libertarian perspective. But those of us on the left have already dismissed similar arguments - we know that when private commercial entities are sufficiently powerful, the limitations that they impose on their employees, customers etc can be so strong that they cannot be unchallenged (see the entire history of workers' rights movement, basically). We consider this immoral, and advocate for various limitations on the ability of businesses to do whatever they want. If free speech is a public good, then why shouldn't the same standard be applied to it? I'm not even talking about legal aspects here, but purely the ethical side of things - shouldn't we at least condemn a situation where an entire industry effectively suppresses some opinions using its economic levers (employment among them)? And if it's not considered a public good, then that should be explicitly stated, because that used to be one of the pretty basic tenets of liberalism.

elihu 9y ago
The United States has historically given very broad protections to free speech in public, which is something I support and am very glad of. There is some kind of speech that isn't appropriate in a corporate setting. There are some kinds of speech that I think should be legally protected both inside and outside a corporation. I think the manifesto should fall inside the category of protected speech, as he was only saying things that a reasonable person might think given what he saw inside of Google. Workers should be free to criticize management decisions or comment on working conditions. There are some things that aren't okay, though. I wouldn't want to work with someone who decorates their cubicle with iconography commemorating the third Reich, or who makes unwanted remarks about which of his or her attractive coworkers they would most like to sleep with. I don't know exactly what the criteria should be for what speech inside a corporation should be protected and what should not, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that an employee has no right whatsoever to any free speech in the course of their job, but I don't think that an employee has exactly the same free speech rights while they're on the job that they would have in any public place.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Thank you for a well-reasoned reply. I broadly agree with what you say. There are some forms of speech that shouldn't be easy to suppress by economic pressure from actors in a dominant position (like corporation vs a single employee), but where that line is in the workplace, is certainly different compared to where it is in off-work public speech. And it's not just about offensiveness of opinion - the corporation is also an actor with certain legal rights, and to unduly constrain them would also be inappropriate. I would draw the line a bit differently, though. IMO, the distinguishing point here is that this guy wrote his manifesto on an internal corporate network. So he used the company-provided communication channel, and targeted other employees of the company, specifically to discuss how said company should be run. Is this still public speech? I'm not sure. It feels like the company should at least be able to control the communication channel. While yes, ideally, it should be possible to raise criticism internally as well, I think that is also best left as an internal company policy. If its owners think that their business run better if it's managed by yes-men, in general or on certain topics, they're probably wrong, but it's their right to be wrong in this manner. Speaking out in public - on your own time, using public channels, and not as a company employee - is another matter, that I think deserves more protections.