4 ms·

But now you're getting into the "free speech for me, not for thee" part. You're basically saying that Damore is entitled to free speech and protection, but that

But now you're getting into the "free speech for me, not for thee" part. You're basically saying that Damore is entitled to free speech and protection, but that Google and his former co-workers are not. Remember, who you work with is part of the freedom of association which is a component of free speech.

jblow 9y ago
Firing someone is speech? A whole lot of laws disagree with you about that.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Firing someone is part of the right to free association.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    It's limited. You don't get to fire someone for being black, or Jewish, or male, and crucially in California, for political speech you disagree with.
Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
This is a strawman I'm very hard pressed to find anyone in HN at least who would deny Goolgle's right or another other party's right of writing a rebuttal to his claims. A free and open internal debate is exactly what Damore was trying to start. Firing to me at least is not speech, it's an inherently violent act.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Google is trying to run a company and having someone like Damore does not help that cause.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  It's not a strawman if plenty of people in this comment section are making the exact argument. And if I can't fire an employee for being hostile to my other employees, then I do not have freedom of association.
  - maoistinquisitr 9y ago
    You do not have pure freedom of association. Both a set of laws and our culture do not allow you to refuse to do business with people.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Yes. However, none of those laws prevent you from firing someone who is creating a hostile work environment for your other employees.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        "We didn't fire him for being black, we fired him because his skin created a hostile work environment for his racist coworkers".
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        “Hostile work environment” is a legal term of art in employment anti-discrimination law; it only applies when the hostility is a mechanism of discrimination against protected class, which “racists”, as such, are not.
        weberc2 9y ago
        That's my point. Nor are "people who are offended by challenges to their political beliefs". Ostensibly his crime was "creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities", but this is clearly not defensible to anyone who read his post. He was fired for challenging (an anti-white, anti-male, anti-conservative) political orthodoxy, and that's illegal in California.

jblow 9y ago

Firing someone is speech? A whole lot of laws disagree with you about that.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Firing someone is part of the right to free association.
- weberc2 9y ago
  It's limited. You don't get to fire someone for being black, or Jewish, or male, and crucially in California, for political speech you disagree with.

Idontknowmyuser 9y ago

This is a strawman I'm very hard pressed to find anyone in HN at least who would deny Goolgle's right or another other party's right of writing a rebuttal to his claims. A free and open internal debate is exactly what Damore was trying to start. Firing to me at least is not speech, it's an inherently violent act.

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Google is trying to run a company and having someone like Damore does not help that cause.
s73ver_ 9y ago
It's not a strawman if plenty of people in this comment section are making the exact argument. And if I can't fire an employee for being hostile to my other employees, then I do not have freedom of association.
- maoistinquisitr 9y ago
  You do not have pure freedom of association. Both a set of laws and our culture do not allow you to refuse to do business with people.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Yes. However, none of those laws prevent you from firing someone who is creating a hostile work environment for your other employees.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      "We didn't fire him for being black, we fired him because his skin created a hostile work environment for his racist coworkers".
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        “Hostile work environment” is a legal term of art in employment anti-discrimination law; it only applies when the hostility is a mechanism of discrimination against protected class, which “racists”, as such, are not.
        weberc2 9y ago
        That's my point. Nor are "people who are offended by challenges to their political beliefs". Ostensibly his crime was "creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities", but this is clearly not defensible to anyone who read his post. He was fired for challenging (an anti-white, anti-male, anti-conservative) political orthodoxy, and that's illegal in California.