4 ms·
@Google did not take away Damore's right to free speech. They fired him for promoting his sexist thoughts b/c they're deeply offensive.
by idibidiart 9y ago
@Google did not take away Damore's right to free speech. They fired him for promoting his sexist thoughts b/c they're deeply offensive.
- imron 9y agoI never claimed they did. If anything, they've given him a voice that he didn't have before (so congratulations to whichever person at Google disagreed with James and decided to leak the memo to Gizmodo. The law of unintended consequences strikes again). My comment was only in reference to your claim that 'sexism is not free speech'. Whatever you think of James and his memo, and whether it is sexist or not, there is nothing in there that wouldn't be protected as free speech if it came down to that.
- idibidiart 9y agoFree speech is protected in that a person can share their thoughts. But my point is that the consequences of free speech in the case of sexism should not be free of punishment, i.e. no such thing as "free speech" when it comes to sexism, racism, etc except in the limited sense that the speech is allowed to happen. My point is that there should be consequences to sexist speech, which is why I said it's not free speech. I think the confusion is the definition of "free speech" I can say something racist or sexist or hateful but it does not mean that I will not be punished for it.
- AstralStorm 9y agoThis not plain old sexist speech. This is a cogent argument that is supposed to be disproven and not shouted down as sexist. (Like some racist arguments were disproved reasonably well in the past.)
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe real question is, what if he is right? And what would it take to prove him wrong? Blacklisting someone for "toxic atmosphere" or "spreading bad thinking" is essentially Orwellian or inquisition.