3 ms·

One of those things involves a crime and the other involves people exercising their free right of association to not associate with that dude (and, transitively

One of those things involves a crime and the other involves people exercising their free right of association to not associate with that dude (and, transitively, to not associate with people who think it's a good idea to continue associating with that dude). The comparison you're making isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and lawnmowers. And it is why I left an out for malice: because that disingenuous comparison is used by real bad folks for real bad things.

Retric 9y ago
Ahh, ok to be clear what they are doing is not legal. Mob 'justice' is however rarely prosecuted to it might seem legal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eropple 9y ago
  Please cite your sources with regards to the assertion that it is "illegal" to not associate with somebody who you think does bad shit. I have a First Amendment in my back pocket--one that, if I'm being frank, I understand--that disagrees with you.
  - Retric 9y ago
    The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance. There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading. The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making. Libel and Defamation are another very tricky area. And on and on. We are talking about many huge landmines, though again prosecutions are very rare.
    - eropple 9y ago
      I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove, has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." This is not complicated. A person doesn't have to associate with people they don't want to associate with. (A business may be required to do business with people they don't want to do business with if the reason for their desire to not do business with them is because they are of a protected class--but that is, trivially and obviously, a different thing.) Prosecutions are "very rare" because it isn't illegal.
      - Retric 9y ago
        "Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal. "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it. A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm" Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.
        eropple 9y ago
        This post is close to getting me to throw my hands up in the air and give up. But it's not for the reason you'd hope, it's not because of some chin-stroking wisdom or feat of evidence. It's because I can't argue with not-even-wrong claims. Literally nothing in your post is both accurate and relevant. Tortious interference has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. FEHA has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. The fallacy of composition has never been so unfurled and I am left almost wordless by it. I asked for examples. To your credit, you did provide examples of something. I am unsure what, but it is something. But if you are interested in relevant content, I would suggest instead beginning with SCOTUS First Amendment rulings around association and speech, an accessible entry point into which would be NAACP v. Alabama, and follow into cases that cite it.

Retric 9y ago

Ahh, ok to be clear what they are doing is not legal. Mob 'justice' is however rarely prosecuted to it might seem legal.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eropple 9y ago
Please cite your sources with regards to the assertion that it is "illegal" to not associate with somebody who you think does bad shit. I have a First Amendment in my back pocket--one that, if I'm being frank, I understand--that disagrees with you.
- Retric 9y ago
  The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance. There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading. The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making. Libel and Defamation are another very tricky area. And on and on. We are talking about many huge landmines, though again prosecutions are very rare.
  - eropple 9y ago
    I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove, has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." This is not complicated. A person doesn't have to associate with people they don't want to associate with. (A business may be required to do business with people they don't want to do business with if the reason for their desire to not do business with them is because they are of a protected class--but that is, trivially and obviously, a different thing.) Prosecutions are "very rare" because it isn't illegal.
    - Retric 9y ago
      "Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal. "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it. A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm" Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.
      - eropple 9y ago
        This post is close to getting me to throw my hands up in the air and give up. But it's not for the reason you'd hope, it's not because of some chin-stroking wisdom or feat of evidence. It's because I can't argue with not-even-wrong claims. Literally nothing in your post is both accurate and relevant. Tortious interference has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. FEHA has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. The fallacy of composition has never been so unfurled and I am left almost wordless by it. I asked for examples. To your credit, you did provide examples of something. I am unsure what, but it is something. But if you are interested in relevant content, I would suggest instead beginning with SCOTUS First Amendment rulings around association and speech, an accessible entry point into which would be NAACP v. Alabama, and follow into cases that cite it.