4 ms·

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

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
        This is dishonest. The first party was the Centre for Law and Democracy (based in Canada). The second party was Article 19 (registered in UK) -- however I was informed I misread the print on this one. The third party was the Office of the United Nations (based in USA/NY and SWI). The fourth party was the California Labor Code. You have offered, in this entire comment chain: 1). Your opinion on how freedom of expression should be restricted (unsourced) 2). Your opinion on what constitutes a societal sanction (unsourced) 3). Your opinion on what constitutes fair grounds for dismissal (unsourced) So I will rebut, once again, with sources countering your claims. You: "They [Google] can [discriminate on what you say], except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government." Employees are protected under "anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. "[0] Local laws include California's Labor Code - LAB § 1101: "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."[1] Google would also be in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"[2] for retaliation against objections of its discriminatory practices against men (section n, paragraph 1). Which Google, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex... The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."[3] I ask of you to show me the courtesy of not wasting my time if you don't wish to take this seriously. [0]http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-i... [1]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html [2]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm [3]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

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
        This is dishonest. The first party was the Centre for Law and Democracy (based in Canada). The second party was Article 19 (registered in UK) -- however I was informed I misread the print on this one. The third party was the Office of the United Nations (based in USA/NY and SWI). The fourth party was the California Labor Code. You have offered, in this entire comment chain: 1). Your opinion on how freedom of expression should be restricted (unsourced) 2). Your opinion on what constitutes a societal sanction (unsourced) 3). Your opinion on what constitutes fair grounds for dismissal (unsourced) So I will rebut, once again, with sources countering your claims. You: "They [Google] can [discriminate on what you say], except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government." Employees are protected under "anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. "[0] Local laws include California's Labor Code - LAB § 1101: "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."[1] Google would also be in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"[2] for retaliation against objections of its discriminatory practices against men (section n, paragraph 1). Which Google, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex... The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."[3] I ask of you to show me the courtesy of not wasting my time if you don't wish to take this seriously. [0]http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-i... [1]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html [2]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm [3]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm