4 ms·

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

by afpx 9y ago

toomuchtodo 9y ago
I think the greater concern are weaponized codes of conduct in an at-will employment environment. If you can’t say something without losing your job, you’re not free to say something. You can take every effort to respect someone else, not allow any of your behavior to be construed as harassment, and still be out the door because someone objects to or is offended by what you’ve said.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  You’re always free to say it. What you’re talking about is being free of other people exercising their speech to denounce it. Let’s be honest here. What these folks want is the ability to insult and attack people with impunity. That’s not what free speech is. It never was.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I’m talking from an employment perspective where your wage is on the line. The Supreme Court has ruled in the US that there is no exception to free speech for hate speech. If this is not preferred, your argument is with the judicial branch or Congress and a constitutional amendment, not me.
    - jonathankoren 9y ago
      You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about the government, not private actors. If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a sailor blush. It gets to the point that it hurts your business. Patrons stop coming in. You can’t recruit. Do you fire him? Of course not! You’d be impugning his free speech and that’s horrible. So the restaurant closes, and you start another. And guess who shows up for a job? Sailor Blusher. Do you hire him? Of course! You have to because if you didn’t, you’d be infringing in his right to get paid to berate strangers! This story isn’t an exaggeration. This is the logical outcome.
      - billfruit 9y ago
        I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens. If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.
        jonathankoren 9y ago
        I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.
      - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
        > The law is about the government, not private actors. So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case? https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
        camel_Snake 9y ago
        IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.
- mcguire 9y ago
  That's always been the case.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    To fix a problem, you must first identify it.
  - tachyonbeam 9y ago
    Doesn't make it okay. It used to be considered a left position to believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We also used to argue in favor of freedom of speech. One thing hasn't changed, which is that the people in power want to suppress any speech they disagree with.
rdtsc 9y ago
> If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ... You'll have a few dollars for sure. However you probably also won't hear from people who couldn't say it. Because well, they ... didn't say it. The idea I think is that those who mention it claim they speak for some larger group who couldn't. Don't know how true that is, but that's the idea.
- afpx 9y ago
  You’re probably right to some degree, but remember that your argument is bi-directional. (I’m sure someone can explain this better, but I’ll give it a shot.) As a silly example, let’s say 85% of an area believes that carbonation is harmful to health. 10% are indifferent, and 5% believe that it’s good for health. One carbonation lover happens to be bold enough to drink carbonated beverages in public. Many bystanders walk past thinking, “Wow - that guy is nuts. But, oh well, it’s his life.” One of the carbonation haters walks by and happens to be bold enough to challenge the guy and say, “Drinking carbonated beverages is stupid, man!” The carbonation lover and hater then get into a visible argument. Naturally, a few more people get involved in the discussion. Ultimately, outnumbered, the carbonation lover goes home feeling misunderstood and defeated. He meets up with a buddy of his at the carbonation lovers group, and they trade similar stories and conclude that the area is just intolerant of carbonation lovers. The next time, they decide to drink in public more defiantly and with some defensiveness. They start to wear T-shirt’s that say, “Carbonation is not a crime!” What they missed is that for that one person out of 100 who challenged them in public, 84 walked by and didn’t.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    That's a good example, I can see how in general it is a bidirectional thing. In this case I think the outcome is that the carbonation lover who drank in public is then fired from their job (Denise Young Smith or D'Amore, not that I personally agree or condone what they said or did, just using them as examples here). Not only that even discussing carbonation at all is swept under the rug and covered up quickly (for example, this whole thread is already flagged). They probably expect to be able to say they like carbonation or even drink it in public and even argue and face criticism for it. What they don't expect is to be attacked, fired or punished for it.

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

by afpx 9y ago

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

toomuchtodo 9y ago

I think the greater concern are weaponized codes of conduct in an at-will employment environment. If you can’t say something without losing your job, you’re not free to say something. You can take every effort to respect someone else, not allow any of your behavior to be construed as harassment, and still be out the door because someone objects to or is offended by what you’ve said.

jonathankoren 9y ago
You’re always free to say it. What you’re talking about is being free of other people exercising their speech to denounce it. Let’s be honest here. What these folks want is the ability to insult and attack people with impunity. That’s not what free speech is. It never was.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I’m talking from an employment perspective where your wage is on the line. The Supreme Court has ruled in the US that there is no exception to free speech for hate speech. If this is not preferred, your argument is with the judicial branch or Congress and a constitutional amendment, not me.
  - jonathankoren 9y ago
    You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about the government, not private actors. If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a sailor blush. It gets to the point that it hurts your business. Patrons stop coming in. You can’t recruit. Do you fire him? Of course not! You’d be impugning his free speech and that’s horrible. So the restaurant closes, and you start another. And guess who shows up for a job? Sailor Blusher. Do you hire him? Of course! You have to because if you didn’t, you’d be infringing in his right to get paid to berate strangers! This story isn’t an exaggeration. This is the logical outcome.
    - billfruit 9y ago
      I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens. If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.
      - jonathankoren 9y ago
        I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.
    - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
      > The law is about the government, not private actors. So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case? https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
      - camel_Snake 9y ago
        IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.
mcguire 9y ago
That's always been the case.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  To fix a problem, you must first identify it.
- tachyonbeam 9y ago
  Doesn't make it okay. It used to be considered a left position to believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We also used to argue in favor of freedom of speech. One thing hasn't changed, which is that the people in power want to suppress any speech they disagree with.

rdtsc 9y ago

> If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ... You'll have a few dollars for sure. However you probably also won't hear from people who couldn't say it. Because well, they ... didn't say it. The idea I think is that those who mention it claim they speak for some larger group who couldn't. Don't know how true that is, but that's the idea.

afpx 9y ago
You’re probably right to some degree, but remember that your argument is bi-directional. (I’m sure someone can explain this better, but I’ll give it a shot.) As a silly example, let’s say 85% of an area believes that carbonation is harmful to health. 10% are indifferent, and 5% believe that it’s good for health. One carbonation lover happens to be bold enough to drink carbonated beverages in public. Many bystanders walk past thinking, “Wow - that guy is nuts. But, oh well, it’s his life.” One of the carbonation haters walks by and happens to be bold enough to challenge the guy and say, “Drinking carbonated beverages is stupid, man!” The carbonation lover and hater then get into a visible argument. Naturally, a few more people get involved in the discussion. Ultimately, outnumbered, the carbonation lover goes home feeling misunderstood and defeated. He meets up with a buddy of his at the carbonation lovers group, and they trade similar stories and conclude that the area is just intolerant of carbonation lovers. The next time, they decide to drink in public more defiantly and with some defensiveness. They start to wear T-shirt’s that say, “Carbonation is not a crime!” What they missed is that for that one person out of 100 who challenged them in public, 84 walked by and didn’t.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  That's a good example, I can see how in general it is a bidirectional thing. In this case I think the outcome is that the carbonation lover who drank in public is then fired from their job (Denise Young Smith or D'Amore, not that I personally agree or condone what they said or did, just using them as examples here). Not only that even discussing carbonation at all is swept under the rug and covered up quickly (for example, this whole thread is already flagged). They probably expect to be able to say they like carbonation or even drink it in public and even argue and face criticism for it. What they don't expect is to be attacked, fired or punished for it.