5 ms·

Oh, you have the right to hold opinions. You just don't have the right to hold opinions WHERE you want. And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as

Oh, you have the right to hold opinions. You just don't have the right to hold opinions WHERE you want. And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as someone asking you to leave their house isn't. A private company, just like a private house, is not "society".

stagbeetle 9y ago
Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression[0]. Private homes are not sovereign lands and neither are companies. [0]https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  That source states that the limitation is defined as being by a public (ie. government) body. >The nature of the public body is irrelevant. It could be legislative, executive or judicial, or a publicly owned enterprise
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    You're correct, I misread the source.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Google is not a government, so your point is moot. The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments. Citing your own source: "The right to freedom of expression cannot be limited at the whim of a public official"
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. >"The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments." This is incorrect. Article 19 is a prominent humans right organization, specifically focusing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also the second source agreeing that you cannot fire someone for what they say. Here, I'll add a third: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en... pg 54, Ross vs Canada. This is straight from the UN.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      They can, except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government. So again, your entire argument does not apply at all to Google, or any other non-government entity.
      - stagbeetle 9y ago
        Discrimination in the common-sense, against political idealology and permanent factors (race, gender, etc). It's illegal to retaliate/discriminate (being fired is covered under this definition) on the basis of an employee's political activity.[0] [0]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html
        ucaetano 9y ago
        But it is ok to fire an employee if such political activity creates a hostile work environment and so on. You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot.
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        Legally, sure. Fairly, under the United Declaration of Human Rights, or if it were a just world, no. "You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot." I don't think so. Any topic that has a clear dichotomy between two political parties is in-itself a political issue. Again, the umbrella for political activity is a wide one.

stagbeetle 9y ago

Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression[0]. Private homes are not sovereign lands and neither are companies. [0]https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html

joshuamorton 9y ago
That source states that the limitation is defined as being by a public (ie. government) body. >The nature of the public body is irrelevant. It could be legislative, executive or judicial, or a publicly owned enterprise
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  You're correct, I misread the source.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ucaetano 9y ago
Google is not a government, so your point is moot. The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments. Citing your own source: "The right to freedom of expression cannot be limited at the whim of a public official"
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. >"The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments." This is incorrect. Article 19 is a prominent humans right organization, specifically focusing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also the second source agreeing that you cannot fire someone for what they say. Here, I'll add a third: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en... pg 54, Ross vs Canada. This is straight from the UN.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    They can, except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government. So again, your entire argument does not apply at all to Google, or any other non-government entity.
    - stagbeetle 9y ago
      Discrimination in the common-sense, against political idealology and permanent factors (race, gender, etc). It's illegal to retaliate/discriminate (being fired is covered under this definition) on the basis of an employee's political activity.[0] [0]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        But it is ok to fire an employee if such political activity creates a hostile work environment and so on. You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot.
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        Legally, sure. Fairly, under the United Declaration of Human Rights, or if it were a just world, no. "You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot." I don't think so. Any topic that has a clear dichotomy between two political parties is in-itself a political issue. Again, the umbrella for political activity is a wide one.