6 ms·

Can you provide examples of how the US is better in this regard? As a counterexample, in Europe, no company can fire an employee for "perpetuating gender stere

Can you provide examples of how the US is better in this regard? As a counterexample, in Europe, no company can fire an employee for "perpetuating gender stereotypes", or any other opinion, while in the US it seems quite easy to fire people for any reason.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38934027 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38934027 German court upholds its ban on comedian's Erdogan poem Not the exact same business situation, but is that an example? Guy can't make a living off of his comedy because he's mocking a dictator.
- kuschku 9y ago
  The guy gets a wage from state TV, and created the poem in the first place as an example of what is banned. The poem literally uses the most ridiculous insults he could find just to ensure it would be banned. The whole purpose of the poem was to get banned.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Does that change anything? Mr Boehmermann's lawyer said the ruling went against "artistic freedom". "We believe that the court's decision in its concrete form is wrong, given that it deems those parts dealing with Erdogan's approach to freedom of expression to be acceptable," said Christian Schertz. per one of the links in that article
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Yes, they wanted to get the poem banned, so the law would be appealed (which it then was).
      - petre 9y ago
        The said poem could easily qualify as protest art because it actually proved Germany is not really that much better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech or freedom of artistic expression if you wish.
        pluma 9y ago
        > Germany is not really that much better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech or freedom of artistic expression That kind of rhetoric trivializes how repressive the Erdoğan regime really is. With all its faults, Germany hasn't locked up thousands of innocent people on shady claims of conspiracy or terrorism, or shut down independent TV stations or newspapers. Germany also hasn't abolished its strict division of power and given the president or chancellor absolute power.
        walterstucco 9y ago
        I don't like Germany, I don't like Germans, but I'm sure that I would live in Germany rather than in Turkey right now. And so would you Stop pretending we believe your rethorical bullshit
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Have you read said poem?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Yes, it's about on the level of South Park as far as material goes.
    - GauntletWizard 9y ago
      And South Park is a national treasure. Why does Germany prevent it's national treasures from being viewed?
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Germany has some very strict speech laws because of the whole Hitler thing over half a century ago. It’s illegal to do the Nazi salute, use the Nazi version of the swastika, etc.
  - GauntletWizard 9y ago
    And that's wrong. It's not helping - Far Right protests are almost as much of a problem in Germany as in the US, despite the fact that the police can and will lock you up for those views. If anything it has incited more people to view those things with respect - Mostly rebellious youths, but many of them never leave once they've adopted the lifestyle. Suppressing speech never has the intended effect of making it go away. It only makes it nastier and more virulent, by giving it an enemy to fight and it's followers the badge of oppression.
    - pluma 9y ago
      Citation needed. I've actually met ex-nazis in Germany and I don't believe the causality you're proposing holds up. Yes, neo-nazis think the "jews" are running the country and keeping them down, but this is no different from how the antifa think the "fascists" are doing the same. The recent rise of nationalism in Germany actually has more to do with both major parties having become indistinguishable in many cases and "moderates" flocking to the extremes to "punish" the government. It's a lot like trolls on 4chan spreading racist memes "for the lulz" until they end up having become actual white supremacists participating in Nazi rallies instead of merely shitposting on the Internet. Right-leaning "moderates" vote for the right-wing extremists (NPD if you're really angry or AfD if you are more of a realist) out of spite and then fall for the rhetoric as they continue exposing themselves to their messages. The only effective treatment against this disease seems to be constant exposure to other people with other ideas coming from other walks of life. Yes, there's an East/West divide in neo-Nazi density in Germany, but it's also very much a rural/metropolitan divide. If all the people around you look, talk and think like you, everything different becomes a threat to your way of life.
- pluma 9y ago
  The poem was part of a satirical performance. The performance was deemed protected speech, although the content of the poem by itself would have been a violation of a libel law (§ 103) explicitly protecting foreign heads of state that is being abolished as a consequence of this precedent. He's also still very much able to "make a living off of his comedy". His "Schmähkritik" (the title of the piece as well as the crime reciting the poem would constitute) was just a single one-off performance on a publicly funded TV show.
BatFastard 9y ago
You are correct. I think the EU in general has better protections
Meekro 9y ago
I certainly concede that Google's firing of James Damore is a rejection of the cultural value I was talking about. I didn't mean that every institution in the US accepts it, just that it seems to be more accepted than it is in other countries. I don't have much insight into European companies and how strongly they protect speech as a matter of policy, but rulings by the EU have been extremely discouraging. Here are some examples: 1. The EU's "right to be forgotten" can compel the removal of content that is both true and relevant. [1] In the US, my right to publish true facts about you trumps your right to have them swept under the rug. 2. The EU can compel publishers to remove content they deem "hate speech." [2] If you look up the EU's definition of hate speech, it actually sweeps broadly into what the US would call protected speech. For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations (unlike libel in the US), a newspaper that is dragged into court on hate speech charges couldn't defend itself by proving that what it wrote was true. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-right-to-be-forgotten-on-google-search-results-a-970419.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-r... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook-twitter-hate-speech-fine-law https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany
- DeusExMachina 9y ago
  Those are indeed shameful examples and definitely discouraging. Nonetheless, alone they are not enough to prove the point. I could go and find other cases for the US too. If we look, though, at the Freedom of the Press report of Freedom without Borders, the US comes after all Western Europe countries (except Italy): https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
  - Meekro 9y ago
    It's hard to respond to that ranking site since I can't find what factors went into the rankings. If you could be more specific on why the US should rank below Western Europe in freedom of speech/press, I could look into the specific incidents of censorship you're referring to. I can tell you that, in the US, it's extremely difficult to prevent a newspaper from publishing things the government doesn't want published (see New York Times v. United States), or for a private party to successfully sue them (see New York Times v. Sullivan). It has happened, but it's very rare and there is nothing analogous to Europe's sweeping "hate speech" laws that force newspapers to self-censor anything critical of migrants.
neerkumar 9y ago
The fact that google fired him doesn't imply they had the right to do so. There are plenty of illegal firings in Europe as well. Then the employee sues the company and wins. If a judge decides that google firing was legal under those motivations, then you would be right (hasn't happened yet). Also, in the US, often companies offer you money to not sue them when they fire you. Doesn't mean the firing is legal, simply it is easier for everyone involved that way. Here the guy was likely fired for saying that he witnessed discriminating hiring practices, i.e. quotas, to improve diversity metrics. And firing a whistleblower is illegal in the US as well. Most likely they will reach an agreement (or they have already reached). The guy will get some money and everyone will move on. Much easier than getting involved with legal stuff for both, google and the engineer.
switch007 9y ago
"no company can fire..." May be true but an employee can be fired for "no reason" or trumped up reasons. I can certainly be fired for my opinion...my contract (in legalise) says I must always represent the company positively. What also matters is the practicalities and cost of redress and that varies across Europe. It's not the liberal paradise across the board as some suggest.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38934027 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38934027 German court upholds its ban on comedian's Erdogan poem Not the exact same business situation, but is that an example? Guy can't make a living off of his comedy because he's mocking a dictator.

kuschku 9y ago
The guy gets a wage from state TV, and created the poem in the first place as an example of what is banned. The poem literally uses the most ridiculous insults he could find just to ensure it would be banned. The whole purpose of the poem was to get banned.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Does that change anything? Mr Boehmermann's lawyer said the ruling went against "artistic freedom". "We believe that the court's decision in its concrete form is wrong, given that it deems those parts dealing with Erdogan's approach to freedom of expression to be acceptable," said Christian Schertz. per one of the links in that article
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Yes, they wanted to get the poem banned, so the law would be appealed (which it then was).
    - petre 9y ago
      The said poem could easily qualify as protest art because it actually proved Germany is not really that much better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech or freedom of artistic expression if you wish.
      - pluma 9y ago
        > Germany is not really that much better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech or freedom of artistic expression That kind of rhetoric trivializes how repressive the Erdoğan regime really is. With all its faults, Germany hasn't locked up thousands of innocent people on shady claims of conspiracy or terrorism, or shut down independent TV stations or newspapers. Germany also hasn't abolished its strict division of power and given the president or chancellor absolute power.
      - walterstucco 9y ago
        I don't like Germany, I don't like Germans, but I'm sure that I would live in Germany rather than in Turkey right now. And so would you Stop pretending we believe your rethorical bullshit
walterstucco 9y ago
Have you read said poem?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Yes, it's about on the level of South Park as far as material goes.
  - GauntletWizard 9y ago
    And South Park is a national treasure. Why does Germany prevent it's national treasures from being viewed?
colejohnson66 9y ago
Germany has some very strict speech laws because of the whole Hitler thing over half a century ago. It’s illegal to do the Nazi salute, use the Nazi version of the swastika, etc.
- GauntletWizard 9y ago
  And that's wrong. It's not helping - Far Right protests are almost as much of a problem in Germany as in the US, despite the fact that the police can and will lock you up for those views. If anything it has incited more people to view those things with respect - Mostly rebellious youths, but many of them never leave once they've adopted the lifestyle. Suppressing speech never has the intended effect of making it go away. It only makes it nastier and more virulent, by giving it an enemy to fight and it's followers the badge of oppression.
  - pluma 9y ago
    Citation needed. I've actually met ex-nazis in Germany and I don't believe the causality you're proposing holds up. Yes, neo-nazis think the "jews" are running the country and keeping them down, but this is no different from how the antifa think the "fascists" are doing the same. The recent rise of nationalism in Germany actually has more to do with both major parties having become indistinguishable in many cases and "moderates" flocking to the extremes to "punish" the government. It's a lot like trolls on 4chan spreading racist memes "for the lulz" until they end up having become actual white supremacists participating in Nazi rallies instead of merely shitposting on the Internet. Right-leaning "moderates" vote for the right-wing extremists (NPD if you're really angry or AfD if you are more of a realist) out of spite and then fall for the rhetoric as they continue exposing themselves to their messages. The only effective treatment against this disease seems to be constant exposure to other people with other ideas coming from other walks of life. Yes, there's an East/West divide in neo-Nazi density in Germany, but it's also very much a rural/metropolitan divide. If all the people around you look, talk and think like you, everything different becomes a threat to your way of life.
pluma 9y ago
The poem was part of a satirical performance. The performance was deemed protected speech, although the content of the poem by itself would have been a violation of a libel law (§ 103) explicitly protecting foreign heads of state that is being abolished as a consequence of this precedent. He's also still very much able to "make a living off of his comedy". His "Schmähkritik" (the title of the piece as well as the crime reciting the poem would constitute) was just a single one-off performance on a publicly funded TV show.

BatFastard 9y ago

You are correct. I think the EU in general has better protections

Meekro 9y ago

I certainly concede that Google's firing of James Damore is a rejection of the cultural value I was talking about. I didn't mean that every institution in the US accepts it, just that it seems to be more accepted than it is in other countries. I don't have much insight into European companies and how strongly they protect speech as a matter of policy, but rulings by the EU have been extremely discouraging. Here are some examples: 1. The EU's "right to be forgotten" can compel the removal of content that is both true and relevant. [1] In the US, my right to publish true facts about you trumps your right to have them swept under the rug. 2. The EU can compel publishers to remove content they deem "hate speech." [2] If you look up the EU's definition of hate speech, it actually sweeps broadly into what the US would call protected speech. For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations (unlike libel in the US), a newspaper that is dragged into court on hate speech charges couldn't defend itself by proving that what it wrote was true. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-right-to-be-forgotten-on-google-search-results-a-970419.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-r... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook-twitter-hate-speech-fine-law https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany

DeusExMachina 9y ago
Those are indeed shameful examples and definitely discouraging. Nonetheless, alone they are not enough to prove the point. I could go and find other cases for the US too. If we look, though, at the Freedom of the Press report of Freedom without Borders, the US comes after all Western Europe countries (except Italy): https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
- Meekro 9y ago
  It's hard to respond to that ranking site since I can't find what factors went into the rankings. If you could be more specific on why the US should rank below Western Europe in freedom of speech/press, I could look into the specific incidents of censorship you're referring to. I can tell you that, in the US, it's extremely difficult to prevent a newspaper from publishing things the government doesn't want published (see New York Times v. United States), or for a private party to successfully sue them (see New York Times v. Sullivan). It has happened, but it's very rare and there is nothing analogous to Europe's sweeping "hate speech" laws that force newspapers to self-censor anything critical of migrants.

neerkumar 9y ago

The fact that google fired him doesn't imply they had the right to do so. There are plenty of illegal firings in Europe as well. Then the employee sues the company and wins. If a judge decides that google firing was legal under those motivations, then you would be right (hasn't happened yet). Also, in the US, often companies offer you money to not sue them when they fire you. Doesn't mean the firing is legal, simply it is easier for everyone involved that way. Here the guy was likely fired for saying that he witnessed discriminating hiring practices, i.e. quotas, to improve diversity metrics. And firing a whistleblower is illegal in the US as well. Most likely they will reach an agreement (or they have already reached). The guy will get some money and everyone will move on. Much easier than getting involved with legal stuff for both, google and the engineer.

switch007 9y ago

"no company can fire..." May be true but an employee can be fired for "no reason" or trumped up reasons. I can certainly be fired for my opinion...my contract (in legalise) says I must always represent the company positively. What also matters is the practicalities and cost of redress and that varies across Europe. It's not the liberal paradise across the board as some suggest.