7 ms·

James Damore is (almost certainly) not a victim of a free-speech violation

28 points by empressplay 9y ago

thedz 9y ago
The ol' freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences bit
- sssilver 9y ago
  "Sure, you are free to say what you want, but you won't be free from the consequence of getting shot" --A certain Joseph Stalin.
leifaffles 9y ago
Nobody is arguing that he is a victim of his "free speech rights" being violated. People are arguing that Google is acting like a thug.
- msie 9y ago
  If he had only posted it anonymously he wouldn't have put Google in such an awkward position. What do you do with someone that many will not want to work with?
  - scarmig 9y ago
    Should Hobby Lobby be able to fire a transman employee who publicly transitions, just because many of his coworkers would not want to work with him?
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      You're comparing simply being to publicly soapboxing. That's an absurd comparison. A more apt comparison is if that trans person disseminated a controversial manifesto about gender theory on company time with company services.
      - scarmig 9y ago
        The person I was responding to stated that a company should fire an employee if other employees don't want to work with him. If we accept offense as the metric by which we decide whether someone should be fired or not, then you bite the bullet and accept the consequences of applying that principle uniformly. You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired, and other people shouldn't. Which may be defensible, but off-topic to this particular thread.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        > You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired Spare me the extrapolation. My position is clear: Stupid people should be fired.
        kazagistar 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure that was the position of the "manifesto" as well.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        Only one person involved showed demonstrable stupidity, though.
        msie 9y ago
        Some are let go because of differences in opinion on how the company should be run. How is this any different than being offended? Both are differences in opinion. Not saying it's right in some cases.
      - srslack 9y ago
        >controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the implication that gender representation in software engineering must be 50/50 or there's clearly some sort of discrimination going on. Perhaps, like the author of the article, you haven't actually read the "manifesto." I'll be charitable and assume that you did: what, in your mind, do you fundamentally believe is controversial in the memo, and is it controversial because it spits in the face of the facts, or is it controversial because they're uncomfortable facts, for you personally?
    - msie 9y ago
      It's wrong but this happens all the time. Maybe not fire in some cases but "buy them out". How does a company operate otherwise?
  - msie 9y ago
    The irony of being voted down for my differing opinion is so delicious.
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't break the HN guidelines by commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
scarmig 9y ago
There's something grotesque about the Left suddenly embracing at-will employment as the best thing in the world that's key to a just society. The First Amendment clearly doesn't protect Damore. But there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. If employees try to start a union but the employer fires without consequence everyone who talks about it or likes it on Facebook, is that a society where free speech is valued?
- eesmith 9y ago
  The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and followup legislation grant additional protections to employees for matters regarding discrimination against a protected class of people, including speech rights which are not otherwise protected in the workplace by the First Amendment. There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. It also includes the freedom to assemble, which is closely or even interchangeable with the freedom of association. This is what allows a group to expel someone from the group as a consequence of speaking in a way which the group disagrees with.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    > The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Yes, which is exactly the point. Lazy justifications of any non-governmental punishment of speech with "well the First Amendment doesn't protect against it, so it's fine!" is just that: lazy. > There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. Yes. And there is more to free speech than the First Amendment.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Which is why "the Left" didn't make that lazy argument. They added laws which protected that sort of speech, which took years of political effort. The Left's arguments were also much more concrete than an appeal to "free speech". Suppress the right to unionize and there will be wildcat strikes and a return to the violent actions of the 1800s. Allow workplace discrimination on the basis of skin color and there will be a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow era. Don't discriminate against women in the workplace because the experience of WWII shows that women are much more capable than was previously thought. [0] You'll also notice that "the Left" deliberately made it harder for people to make some sorts of speech at work, if it results in a hostile workplace. Why, it's almost as if they consistently believe that "free speech" at the workplace has a lesser standing than free speech in a public arena. Sure, there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. There's also more to freedom of assembly than the First Amendment. There is a necessary tension between the two no matter how it is embodied. If freedom of speech trumps the freedom of assembly then there is no liberty. [0] Also, don't discriminated against men, eg, "men aren't allowed to be nurses." Really the argument is that there are very few jobs with a bona fide reason for discrimination on the basis of gender.
sanxiyn 9y ago
This article repeats "The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo", namely calling it "anti-diversity manifesto". The issue was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  How to spin news for power and profit 101. Control the wording and you bias the people.
michaelchisari 9y ago
It's an open and shut situation: He used company time and company services to disseminate a controversial position to a captive audience of coworkers. Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job. It showed terrible judgement on his part, and that's not even getting into the content of the manifesto.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  >Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job. Doubtful. Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. In the current climate, there'd still be the same outrage ("Googler has evil thoughts, why isn't Google firing him?!"). If anything, he'd have even less of a case in the court of public sympathy, as the entire point of this guy's post was not just diversity issues in general but how they applied to Google's internal operations. Taking the initiative to air that publicly would have been an intentional hit against Google PR. In this case, though, the author of this memo had posted it to internal Google groups, and then presumably an ideological opponent leaked it to the public for the purposes of stirring public opinion against the author.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    > Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. That's a completely different situation, and can't really be compared. A CEO position for a non-profit and Sr. Engineer at Google are not comparable. A CEO position is the public face of a company. There is so much more that goes into it on multiple levels than being an engineer with only 4 years under their belt who nobody has ever heard of. Had he posted this to a personal blog, it would have barely been a footnote. And more importantly, California law would have protected him.
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      Not in this day and age. One of my high school teachers posted political commentary to his Facebook profile that was controversial to some. It went viral and he got fired...effectively for his religious beliefs. We live in a day and age of viral outrage. So some might say he's a teacher and therefore he can't make his students uncomfortable. So his free speech is effectively cut off. Meanwhile as a student in college I'm forced to suffer through the opinions of heavily biased professors who literally assign term papers which only act as exercises in progressive liberal confirmation bias.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
The last two paragraphs are quite telling: > In sum, Damore may have enough of a complaint to file a case, but that case — ultimately — won't get very far unless the US Supreme Court is willing to adopt California law, widen it, and give all Americans a new right to use their bosses' computers for political activity. That, given the court's 5-4 conservative majority, seems unlikely. On the other hand, the conservative judges might sympathize with Damore, but... > It is rare that conservatives argue for the rights of employers to be restricted when it comes to firing workers. They ought to tread very carefully with that insistence. Such a right could give every communist, every member of the KKK, and every Hillary Clinton voter an equal right to fill up their internal workplace bulletin boards with propaganda of their pleasing. ...but Business Insider warns the judges that if they choose to back up Damore, workplaces might become filled with communist propaganda.
nextweek2 9y ago
Ironically Google appear to want to create a yes men/women culture. Anybody with a descenting view knows they have to tow the company line to keep their job. Those trying to make the workplace more equal are going to find it harder to meet the people they need to reach. Education would have been a better choice.

28 points by empressplay 9y ago

thedz 9y ago

The ol' freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences bit

sssilver 9y ago
"Sure, you are free to say what you want, but you won't be free from the consequence of getting shot" --A certain Joseph Stalin.

leifaffles 9y ago

Nobody is arguing that he is a victim of his "free speech rights" being violated. People are arguing that Google is acting like a thug.

msie 9y ago
If he had only posted it anonymously he wouldn't have put Google in such an awkward position. What do you do with someone that many will not want to work with?
- scarmig 9y ago
  Should Hobby Lobby be able to fire a transman employee who publicly transitions, just because many of his coworkers would not want to work with him?
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    You're comparing simply being to publicly soapboxing. That's an absurd comparison. A more apt comparison is if that trans person disseminated a controversial manifesto about gender theory on company time with company services.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      The person I was responding to stated that a company should fire an employee if other employees don't want to work with him. If we accept offense as the metric by which we decide whether someone should be fired or not, then you bite the bullet and accept the consequences of applying that principle uniformly. You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired, and other people shouldn't. Which may be defensible, but off-topic to this particular thread.
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        > You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired Spare me the extrapolation. My position is clear: Stupid people should be fired.
        kazagistar 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure that was the position of the "manifesto" as well.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        Only one person involved showed demonstrable stupidity, though.
      - msie 9y ago
        Some are let go because of differences in opinion on how the company should be run. How is this any different than being offended? Both are differences in opinion. Not saying it's right in some cases.
    - srslack 9y ago
      >controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the implication that gender representation in software engineering must be 50/50 or there's clearly some sort of discrimination going on. Perhaps, like the author of the article, you haven't actually read the "manifesto." I'll be charitable and assume that you did: what, in your mind, do you fundamentally believe is controversial in the memo, and is it controversial because it spits in the face of the facts, or is it controversial because they're uncomfortable facts, for you personally?
  - msie 9y ago
    It's wrong but this happens all the time. Maybe not fire in some cases but "buy them out". How does a company operate otherwise?
- msie 9y ago
  The irony of being voted down for my differing opinion is so delicious.
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't break the HN guidelines by commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

scarmig 9y ago

There's something grotesque about the Left suddenly embracing at-will employment as the best thing in the world that's key to a just society. The First Amendment clearly doesn't protect Damore. But there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. If employees try to start a union but the employer fires without consequence everyone who talks about it or likes it on Facebook, is that a society where free speech is valued?

eesmith 9y ago
The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and followup legislation grant additional protections to employees for matters regarding discrimination against a protected class of people, including speech rights which are not otherwise protected in the workplace by the First Amendment. There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. It also includes the freedom to assemble, which is closely or even interchangeable with the freedom of association. This is what allows a group to expel someone from the group as a consequence of speaking in a way which the group disagrees with.
- scarmig 9y ago
  > The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Yes, which is exactly the point. Lazy justifications of any non-governmental punishment of speech with "well the First Amendment doesn't protect against it, so it's fine!" is just that: lazy. > There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. Yes. And there is more to free speech than the First Amendment.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Which is why "the Left" didn't make that lazy argument. They added laws which protected that sort of speech, which took years of political effort. The Left's arguments were also much more concrete than an appeal to "free speech". Suppress the right to unionize and there will be wildcat strikes and a return to the violent actions of the 1800s. Allow workplace discrimination on the basis of skin color and there will be a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow era. Don't discriminate against women in the workplace because the experience of WWII shows that women are much more capable than was previously thought. [0] You'll also notice that "the Left" deliberately made it harder for people to make some sorts of speech at work, if it results in a hostile workplace. Why, it's almost as if they consistently believe that "free speech" at the workplace has a lesser standing than free speech in a public arena. Sure, there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. There's also more to freedom of assembly than the First Amendment. There is a necessary tension between the two no matter how it is embodied. If freedom of speech trumps the freedom of assembly then there is no liberty. [0] Also, don't discriminated against men, eg, "men aren't allowed to be nurses." Really the argument is that there are very few jobs with a bona fide reason for discrimination on the basis of gender.

sanxiyn 9y ago

This article repeats "The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo", namely calling it "anti-diversity manifesto". The issue was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601

AstralStorm 9y ago
How to spin news for power and profit 101. Control the wording and you bias the people.

michaelchisari 9y ago

It's an open and shut situation: He used company time and company services to disseminate a controversial position to a captive audience of coworkers. Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job. It showed terrible judgement on his part, and that's not even getting into the content of the manifesto.

DanAndersen 9y ago
>Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job. Doubtful. Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. In the current climate, there'd still be the same outrage ("Googler has evil thoughts, why isn't Google firing him?!"). If anything, he'd have even less of a case in the court of public sympathy, as the entire point of this guy's post was not just diversity issues in general but how they applied to Google's internal operations. Taking the initiative to air that publicly would have been an intentional hit against Google PR. In this case, though, the author of this memo had posted it to internal Google groups, and then presumably an ideological opponent leaked it to the public for the purposes of stirring public opinion against the author.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  > Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. That's a completely different situation, and can't really be compared. A CEO position for a non-profit and Sr. Engineer at Google are not comparable. A CEO position is the public face of a company. There is so much more that goes into it on multiple levels than being an engineer with only 4 years under their belt who nobody has ever heard of. Had he posted this to a personal blog, it would have barely been a footnote. And more importantly, California law would have protected him.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Not in this day and age. One of my high school teachers posted political commentary to his Facebook profile that was controversial to some. It went viral and he got fired...effectively for his religious beliefs. We live in a day and age of viral outrage. So some might say he's a teacher and therefore he can't make his students uncomfortable. So his free speech is effectively cut off. Meanwhile as a student in college I'm forced to suffer through the opinions of heavily biased professors who literally assign term papers which only act as exercises in progressive liberal confirmation bias.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

The last two paragraphs are quite telling: > In sum, Damore may have enough of a complaint to file a case, but that case — ultimately — won't get very far unless the US Supreme Court is willing to adopt California law, widen it, and give all Americans a new right to use their bosses' computers for political activity. That, given the court's 5-4 conservative majority, seems unlikely. On the other hand, the conservative judges might sympathize with Damore, but... > It is rare that conservatives argue for the rights of employers to be restricted when it comes to firing workers. They ought to tread very carefully with that insistence. Such a right could give every communist, every member of the KKK, and every Hillary Clinton voter an equal right to fill up their internal workplace bulletin boards with propaganda of their pleasing. ...but Business Insider warns the judges that if they choose to back up Damore, workplaces might become filled with communist propaganda.

nextweek2 9y ago

Ironically Google appear to want to create a yes men/women culture. Anybody with a descenting view knows they have to tow the company line to keep their job. Those trying to make the workplace more equal are going to find it harder to meet the people they need to reach. Education would have been a better choice.