3 ms·

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 po

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
        I am taking you seriously, and my point is that arguing about how Google could possibly be breaking a law if the judge decides to interpret anything as a political activity doesn't make much sense. The argument came down to you saying that almost anything is a political activity, and that Google being regulated by the government makes it equivalent to a government entity. No matter how many sources are provided, only one can actually matter: the judge who will decide that. That's the problem with legal interpretation, until a judge clears it, all discussion is just speculation. Look at your own points: > Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. Yes they can. > Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression No, it isn't, your source only talks about a public entity. > Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about ethics, let's talk about ethics. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context. So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.

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
        I am taking you seriously, and my point is that arguing about how Google could possibly be breaking a law if the judge decides to interpret anything as a political activity doesn't make much sense. The argument came down to you saying that almost anything is a political activity, and that Google being regulated by the government makes it equivalent to a government entity. No matter how many sources are provided, only one can actually matter: the judge who will decide that. That's the problem with legal interpretation, until a judge clears it, all discussion is just speculation. Look at your own points: > Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. Yes they can. > Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression No, it isn't, your source only talks about a public entity. > Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about ethics, let's talk about ethics. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context. So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.