7 ms·

> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate too much power. For Google, that moment has come. This feels like a bit of an exaggeration in th

• throwaway2048 9y ago
  This comment seems to be conflating "morally right" with "legally permitted"
  • vaishaksuresh 9y ago
    Morality also works both way right? If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right?
    • leggomylibro 9y ago
      Depends on what else the feeding hand does with its time.
    • 5ilv3r 9y ago
      Everyone knows that morality does not work that way. There is no 1:1 relationship between righteousness and being a provider.
    • jgust 9y ago
      > If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right? Whistleblowing? You could argue you have a moral obligation to your fellow citizens. Not arguing, just offering an example.
    • ninkendo 9y ago
      Don't be reductionist, he doesn't work for google, he worked for a nonprofit to which Google donated. Google threw its weight around to get him fired by threatening to pull funding.
      • AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        he worked for a nonprofit to which Google donated Ipso facto, he worked for Schmidt/Google.
        • tarboreus 9y ago
          "Working for" implies paid employment. He never worked for Google. The think tank is supposed to be independent from its donors. If, in practice, it's not as independent as it's supposed to be, all the more reason to admire him for following the spirit of what the organization was supposed to do. In no way was he legally or morally beholden to Google, despite the fact that it was ultimately revealed that they were in a position to get him fired. If I hold a gun to your head, you don't owe me anything--though you might still do what I say.
          • trapperkeeper74 9y ago
            The correct response would be "Go ahead, kill me now, motherfucker." ;)
            • tarboreus 9y ago
              A morally defensible, if impractical, position. Kant would be proud.
              • trapperkeeper74 9y ago
                Zoom! Let me explain that joke, and the truth behind it. Murderers and would-be murderers are more likely to: - derive enjoyment of begging victims than indifferent ones - respect someone whom is willing to pay the price Furthermore, in way, this is what Christians and nonviolent leaders like Gandi originally meant about "turn the other cheek"... not being meek and defenseless but to volunteer for punishment. The bully or abuser is confused and/or gives respect for such, and then is more likely to stop doing it. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than nothing. Only a good guy with a gun or having massive balls and a plan, can stop a bad guy with a gun. ;)
  • forkLding 9y ago
    how so? I don't understand where you are drawing the parallels
• stretchwithme 9y ago
  Yeah, free speech doesn't mean others have to pay to say something they don't like. It means you can say it. And at your own expense.
  • TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    In this case, New America is a non-profit: > New America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all donations are tax deductible. - https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/ So while they do receive funding from Google, if Google is permitted to control the discourse in this way we should ask if New America deserves non-profit status and whether Google should be able to deduct monies spent on the entity.
    • stretchwithme 9y ago
      And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer agree with what the non-profit is doing?
      • arca_vorago 9y ago
        Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
      • dcole2929 9y ago
        No one can or should be able to force you to donate your money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax free exemption on the basis of being a independent non profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving they are not in fact independent. It's likewise fair to question whether any person donating to that organization deserves to write off their donations if the receiving organization acts more like a pr division of the giver. My personal opinion is that if an organization receives more than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer independent and shouldn't be treated as such
        • deleted 9y ago
• arctux 9y ago
  Notably, he worked for the nominally-independent New America's Open Markets program, not for Google.
• burnte 9y ago
  This. The Neonazis being fired are saying the same thing, but the freedom of speech is a freedom TO speak, not a freedom FROM consequence.
  • oh_sigh 9y ago
    What neonazis have been fired from Google?
  • tarboreus 9y ago
    It's certainly a freedom from consequence if the consequence would normally be a reprisal by government.
• riku_iki 9y ago
  > I mean, some states have at-will employment where they can just fire you for any reason they want. As someone pointed in previous similar topic, this reason can't be illegal, and potentially this threatens his constitutional free-speech rights in this case. > I'm sure there's some clause in their contract that says "if you speak out against us we have the option of terminating you." Again, if some contract provision is against constitution, it is not enforceable.
  • criddell 9y ago
    The free speech amendment stops congress from passing a law that abridges freedom of speech. A non-disparagement clause in a private contract doesn't violate the constitution.
• DoctorNick 9y ago
  He was not an employee of Google. He was employed by a think tank which was ostensibly supposed to have independence from their funding sources.
  • SapphireSun 9y ago
    There's the con. There is no independence from funding sources unless you have so many that you can ignore losing one. Now if one were to turn that critical lens to the rest of the advertising funded media...
• SilasX 9y ago
  Well, yes and no. The philosophy behind freedom of speech is (to greatly simplify) "it's so much better for the advancement of ideas when people can say controversial things without being afraid of material reprisals." One way to promote the ideal is to not push legal penalties against those who say such things. That's the basis of the legal protection of speech, and specific countries' laws thereon (in the US, the First Amendment). But you get the same disaster, and failure of the ideal, when non-governmental actors do it. If everyone fears going into poverty when they say something controversial, well, we're in the same crappy-ideas-that-no-one-criticizes dystopia. Hence my frustration at those who give the lecture about "lol First Amendment is just for the government" and "lol why should they have to pay you when they don't like your ideas?" Yes, they're technically correct, but it's comically missing the point to "stand up for free speech" but also cheer on the technically-legal ways you can make someone suffer for disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean we should force you to keep buying from those whose ideas you don't like. It does mean we shouldn't be sanguine about orgs using financial power over someone's livelihood to keep their (potentially) good ideas from being spoken.
  • pfisch 9y ago
    This is sort of ridiculous. You don't have to keep someone on your payroll who is actively speaking out about white supremacy. There should be social consequences for your speech, just not legal ones.
    • AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
      Social censorship of speech is nearly as dangerous as government censorship of speech. We need to have a robust norm of not trying to silence people for dissenting viewpoints
      • pfisch 9y ago
        So if my employee is advocating murdering me and my entire family that is cool? I have to fund someone who is actively trying to get political support to put me in a concentration camp?
• balls187 9y ago
  He criticized a "corporation" one that gets criticized on HN somewhat often. As for At-Will states, you can't fire someone for any reason, because there are employment protection laws. And, as anyone who has worked in positions of authority can attest, even if you have to fire someone, you build up enough evidence so that when you are sued, you can back up your claims.
  • JBlue42 9y ago
    Isn't that what at-will employment is? From my last employer's handbook: Employment at the Company is at will. The policy of at-will employment means that employment with the Company, is voluntarily entered into, and you are free to resign at will at any time, with or without notice or cause. The policy also means that the Company may terminate your employment at will at any time, with or without notice or cause. This right to terminate employment with or without notice or cause also applies, of course, to decisions regarding other terms of employment, including but not limited to demotion, promotion, transfer, compensation, benefits, duties, and location of work. No representative of the Company, other than one of the Principals, has the authority to enter into any agreement for employment for a specified duration or to make any agreement contrary to foregoing. Any such agreement must be by individual agreement, in writing and signed by you and one of the Principals. Accordingly, neither this manual nor any policy contained in this manual is intended to imply continued employment or otherwise limit in any way the policy of at-will employment. Nor does this manual, in describing Company policies or procedures, commit the Company, to follow any particular procedure in the course of imposing discipline, changing the terms or conditions of employment, or terminating
    • balls187 9y ago
      > Isn't that what at-will employment is? Yes, at anytime, and with our without reason. However, doing so can open you up to a lawsuit for wrongful termination. You can't be fired because of sex (including orientation and pregnancy), race, religion, disability, age, or nation of origin. Retaliation, refusal to commit a crime, and failure to follow your companies own termination process, are also grounds for wrongful termination claims. Typically, HR departments have a firing manager start building a paper trail of evidence, usually by way of a PiP.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• joeyo 9y ago
  Except Lynn wasn't a Google employee, so the at-will employment analysis doesn't apply.
• WithHighProb 9y ago
  Skimming over the comments, it seems many people defines "free speech" as if they lived in utopia
• zjmbjkyu7877 9y ago
  The people with real power in America, connected insiders, the also uber rich, and their media mouth pieces are turning on Google. This is a call to arms by an elite to elites. Not a call for a fairer market. Google has gotten away with treating users like products since forever. That won't change since that's how all tech and media companies thrive. That Google is manipulating the elite behind closed doors is the problem being highlighted. Nothing substantial about how it abuses the public for its own gain. Note too how this is being posted in Jeff Bezos's paper. This could have been a press release or some industry post, blog, but it's getting prestigious lift. Right after the "free speech" situation at Google. Little to NO sustained outrage over their role in the employee recruiting ban with Apple and others, depressing wages for the tech industry. But it sure feels like today Google alone is being targeted with a wave of negative media coverage. Note Amazon just rode into our backyards with its barely vetted purchase of Whole Foods. EDIT big media piles on: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/google-is-losing-allies-across-the-political-spectrum/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/google-is-losing...
• rhizome 9y ago
  Barry Lynn (and the organization) was doing the work he was hired to do.
• tedunangst 9y ago
  Businesses large and small can make business decisions. But only especially large businesses can go around making "offers you can't refuse" to every think tank in order to get what they want.
• kevin_b_er 9y ago
  > some states have at-will employment All states except Montana at 0.32% of the population. 99.68% of the population of the US are in at-will employment states. Most everyone is under at-will. The negative consequence is that if you cannot have a meaningful income to survive while exercising your rights, do you have a right to begin with?
• thomastjeffery 9y ago
  That is the crux of the issue with Google being a monopoly. If you work for a company, and speak out against that company, there is no reason for that company to be forced to keep you. They can kick you out, and if you are fired simply over disagreement, you can find another company. The very availability of that option is how you are free to speak against your corporation. You need not stay there. If that company is a monopoly, however, you are left without that option, and therefore left without the liberty to speak freely against that company. You can still speak out against them, and get fired like before, but then you are left with no avenue of employment afterward; and since you are thus aware, you likely won't be speaking out after all.
  • logfromblammo 9y ago
    BL: I wrote a paper on the dangers of corporate monopolies and how they have a dangerous ability to silence their critics, stifle civil liberties, and control public discourse. ES: Google is a near-monopoly. One might view your paper as criticism--criticism that I might like to silence. BL: Oh, sh- ES: You're fired! Also, I'll have my guys tweak the ranking algorithm a bit. Enjoy finding yourself on page 1000 of the search results for "Barry Lynn". BL: (squeak) ES: [impression of Agent Smith from The Matrix] What good is a phone call when you cannot... speak? Bwahahahaha!
• criley2 9y ago
  >> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate too much power. For Google, that moment has come. I agree, Google has enabled far more political free speech than it has suppressed. On the often-misunderstood idea of freedom of all speech, Google certainly has the right to suppress the speech of its employees in certain scenarios. That has nothing to do with freedom of political speech, the storied american ideal. In this case, this man learned a very important lesson most of us should learn much younger than him: freedom to speak does not include freedom from repercussions (AKA don't bite the hand that feeds if you want to be fed, real basic stuff here) Only political speech is a protected class, and it is only protected from government intrusion, not private.