4 ms·

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: "T

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.
        ucaetano 9y ago
        Now you have resigned yourself to using your personal interpretations of "fair" and "political activity" as your arguments. Not much left to discuss then...
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        These are the terms our discussion was based on. You said "Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such." I rebutted with authority sources saying the opposite and your following rebuttals were all opinion. I'm not going to point blame, but this is a two-way street and requires effort from both parties.
        ucaetano 9y ago
        No, you rebutted with interpretations from a single party which are actually referring to governments only, not companies. So, again, you have provided no argument regarding Google's case.
        stagbeetle 9y ago

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.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        Now you have resigned yourself to using your personal interpretations of "fair" and "political activity" as your arguments. Not much left to discuss then...
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        These are the terms our discussion was based on. You said "Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such." I rebutted with authority sources saying the opposite and your following rebuttals were all opinion. I'm not going to point blame, but this is a two-way street and requires effort from both parties.
        ucaetano 9y ago
        No, you rebutted with interpretations from a single party which are actually referring to governments only, not companies. So, again, you have provided no argument regarding Google's case.
        stagbeetle 9y ago