8 ms·

Inducing People’s Employers to Fire Them Should Be a Civil Wrong

77 points by raleighm 8y ago

monksy 8y ago
What we need is stronger rights for the worker. At the moment the employer holds all of the cards and enjoys the fact that we can be let go for silly social riots like this.
- vowelless 8y ago
  I wonder what reasonable rights we can have to protect workers. At will employment sounds like a good idea on paper (employee can quit anytime they want), but it is assymetric, especially when large corporations are involved (employee is easily replaceable and so impact of quitting is less on corporation). Perhaps we should have at will employment for small corporations and then private unions for larger corporations? The unions will increase bargaining power of employees which could mitigate the issues brought up in the article.
- ngngngng 8y ago
  I debated this with a co-worker the other day. His opinion was that no matter what the reason for firing an employee, the employer can always justify it by citing performance or budgetary concerns. So the protections would be rendered useless. How's it work in Norway? They usually do a good job of making Americans look silly when we say "that can't work because..."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - duxup 8y ago
    Timing with the social outrage would present some difficulties. Also presumably this stuff crosses someone's desk and they email someone else and there starts the paper trail for the worker's lawyers.
  - mdekkers 8y ago
    ...citing performance or budgetary concerns... In the UK, where I ran a business and employed people, you need a small mountain of paperwork, collected over a fair period of time, to show that you tried in good faith to remedy the situation with the employee (in case of performance). Budgetary concerns also carry a heavy burden of proof. It really is a difficult and time-consuming path. Most medium and large companies choose to bypass the whole thing and offer a "compromise agreement", essentially "we give you x months pay right now if you sign this agreement where we mutually agree not to sue, or talk bad against eachother, and you GTFO right now". There is a significant risk of something called "constructive dismissal" meaning you made it unreasonably hard for someone to be effective in their workplace, that is decided by an employment tribunal. As an employer, the system is undoubtedly a burden, but as a human, I always found I could live with it. I had one instance where it was open-and-shut grounds for instant dismissal, and I still had to spend 4 months going through the process to ensure I was fully covered and not liable to some tribunal action. That sucked, but in the end there are many large firms that will fuck over employees without a second thought (USA style), and employees need protection from that.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Although employees don't get those protections if they've been working for the company for less than 2 years (unless the firing is discriminatory as defined in the Equality Act), and bringing a case to Employment Tribunal is fantastically expensive and thus not common.
- omeid2 8y ago
  For a completely different perspective, I want to raise a few points, in no specific order. I don't believe having laws that make people hard to fire is the right solution, because a healthy relationship with your work is absolutely critical for a fulfilling job. In essence, jobs should be mutually voluntary and easy to terminate with reasonable terms and notice. I think what is more important is that there should exist sound social infrastructure and safety-nets that affords employees better negotiation power. There is nothing that makes you weaker in a negotiation than being desperate for the transaction. Let's face it, we are headed into a new era and a new industrial revolution that is going to make millions of jobs obsolete. If this sounds too much like an argument for Universal Basic Income, it is not because it is intended to be, it is because UBI may be after all the right solution going forward.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    > a new industrial revolution that is going to make millions of jobs obsolete Just like the last one.
  - monksy 8y ago
    > jobs should be mutually voluntary and easy to terminate with reasonable terms and notice. I agree with you on that. But that's not what we have right now. The entire US (IANAL) is At-will employment. Which means that you can be let go for nearly any reason. There are no safety nets that will protect you if you're in the right. (I.e. The employer didn't want to hold their end of the bargain on vacation time when it's "unlimited pto") Having an internet mob going after you because you made a silly comment off the job on Twitter or that you don't agree with the current political climate is not a reasonable reason to fire someone.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  This is a fear of mine since an employer can fire you for basically any reason and just cite a compliant reason on paper. This is why I find it very hard to extend a relationship with an employer beyond anything other than work and I don't like being forced into recreational activities with my team.
gator-io 8y ago
Still can't believe Brendan Eich was hounded out of Mozilla.
- LoveSubs 8y ago
  we're only talking about pedophiles here. "right wingers" can be mistreated, it's fine. but pedophiles need to be protected for a "progressive" society webboys come and downvote me, one downvote = 1 impeachment for Drumff and 1 flag = madam president!!
  - gator-io 8y ago
    I just think political differences should not cause people to fired. That could get out of control fast.
    - solipsism 8y ago
      A CEO is a special position that includes being a spokesman for a company. It's a tough job, but it's accordingly usually very well compensated. You don't do your argument any favors by acting as if there's not this qualitative difference between the head spokesman of a company and just any other employee.
      - flukus 8y ago
        Ok, what about other senior management? They are often spokesmen for the company too. What about a middle manager? Surely the argument that employees wouldn't feel comfortable with a CEO donating would apply to middle management too. It's not just because he's CEO though, separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism but we've lost it from all levels.
        projektir 8y ago
        > separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism I think before you automatically assume this is a good thing, you may want to look into what this statement means and what it actually mapped out to historically. Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. I.e., it worked, because all of the "problem" segments have already been excluded, and so nobody had to deal with it. There is no problem with being a sexist manager if no women work under you, or if your actions are not perceived as problematic. Pretty easy to keep it "professional", because the definition is already skewed in your favor.
hirundo 8y ago
Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of association is important. As long as we respect both we won't interfere with people freely speaking to other people's employers or employers choosing to disassociate themselves from employees as a result. Sure free speech and association can have negative consequences, they just tend to be less negative than prohibited or compulsory speech or association.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  I'm not so sure. If an employer wants to disassociate from Islam and fires all muslims, why do we cover that under religious discrimination? Why not stop discrimination over all ideologies? Maybe somebody will start a religion for Nazism.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Are you genuinely asking for an entry-level explanation of why most modern societies disapprove of discrimination on a few specific characteristics but do not generally consider "ideology" one of them? (I can provide one, but don't want to explain something basic if it's not actually at issue here.)
    - Inconel 8y ago
      I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I like to think I have a reasonably good understanding of why modern societies don't discriminate on characteristics which a person can't change, and while I personally find it unethical to discriminate against someone based on their religious views, I have a hard time discerning why religion should get that protection while "ideology" shouldn't? As a non religious person I find religion both fairly ideological and something that a person can readily change, at least in a free society. I've looked through your profile and you always seem to provide good explanations so I'd love to hear your thoughts. I hope you can believe me that this is a question asked in good faith.
      - projektir 8y ago
exabrial 8y ago
Indeed. I think harassing people because you disagree with their political, religious, favorite flavor of skittle, etc is nasty. We need to have some class as the entire country is running towards identity politics like it's a good thing.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  Unfortunately, in-group preference is like a primal instinct. People will pretty much always (sub)consciously treat you differently if you are different. This is why I prefer not to work for companies where everyone is "like family". They tout a "strong company culture" but, to me, it sounds more like "if you aren't one of us, we'll find a way to fire you".
  - duxup 8y ago
    I agree. It is human nature / instinct to get all tribal and such. Someone had a great quote that I'm going to screw up big time here, but it was something like, "Every civilization is invaded by barbarians, they're called children." Now as a parent it is amusing, but I belive the quote really was intended to note how children aren't born making good decisions or making decisions that support a community or civilization. Rather they must be taught to resist the negative instincts in order to maintain society.
duxup 8y ago
I'm sympathetic to the example and idea, I guess I feel like it ... depends on the situation. Let's say you're running a coffee shop. One of your servers posts a lot of racist stuff about minorities on twitter and it comes to light. You want your shop to feel welcoming to all customers, keeping that person on is clearly untenable, potentially even a risk for the business to survive. Granted the article at the end does take a more measured approach compared to the title that seems a bit absolute.
- thunderbong 8y ago
  Is it really? If nobody coming to the shop feels threatened, if the server's attitude towards the customers is not racist, if nothing that the server is doing in their private life is affecting your business, should you really be bothered? Because, it feels to me, that once we give in to our imagined fears, we are only a few steps away from becoming what we feared.
paxys 8y ago
> There’s another issue here, too. Why do employers not stand up for an employee in the face of mob pressure? My own theory is that it comes down to “corporate branding” and the way in which an individual’s “personal brand” is thought to mesh with the employer’s “corporate brand.” This is the key point in the article IMO. Companies could shrug off these online mobs with a simple "none of our business" (and they have done so plenty in the past). Nowadays, however, every company is working its way into completely unrelated social causes simply for marketing, and employees must bear that burden whether they like it or not.
geofft 8y ago
Glad to see Quillette come out against free speech.
mc32 8y ago
On the one hand people have a right to free speech, on the other hand, they should not leverage their jobs or positions when making controversial comments so as to associate their employer with those words. Of course, this position is frustrated by there not being a clear cut distinction between work persona and private persona. Ideally, with a platform like Twitter, you'd have two personas, one tied to your employer or professional life, one tied to your private persona... For example, Rosanne or the people in the article.
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  Some people do separate their personal and work lives/personas. They are still at risk when malicious actors work to "doxx" them and force that connection to be made in the public space despite the honest attempt to compartmentalize.
  - mc32 8y ago
    This is true. But I mean it should br sicially acceptable to have at least the two. That’s not to say people should not push back on odiousness, but the pushback should happen on the account conducting the odiousness; hopefully with some community policing. In other words there should be some modearation, even if by a sympathetic group to ensure it does not become too extreme.
projektir 8y ago
This mostly comes down to employment being too important and an unbalanced relationship between the employee and the employer. If the relationship was more balanced, "you said something questionable on Twitter" just wouldn't really be that compelling.
- exabrial 8y ago
  I think this is an effect, but not a solution. The harder answer is we treat others the way we would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.
  - projektir 8y ago
    I'm not sure how "we should treat others better" can be implemented in practice? That seems to be in the same bucket as "people should be smarter".
    - deviationblue 8y ago
      > I'm not sure how "we should treat others better" can be implemented in practice? This is an honest question from you, but to some it might seem like a no-brainer. I think a lot of it has to with personality types.
- duxup 8y ago
  I think you're right on the power math, but I don't think addressing a social issue with social mobs like this ... is solved by addressing some sort of employment power balance.
  - projektir 8y ago
    "We'll get you fired!" only works because people have reason to be really afraid of it. People are just pulling a preexisting lever. They might, of course, find some other lever to pull, but this is a very convenient and accessible one.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
meritt 8y ago
If someone isn't ready to face the consequences of being of shunned professionally or socially, all they need to do is stop being a terrible person. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ sums it up quite well.
- nathanaldensr 8y ago
  Define "terrible person" and I might agree with you. Somehow, I don't think you'll be able to do it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kardos 8y ago
  If we're going to play the quote-xkcd game, this one is relevant too: https://xkcd.com/137 https://xkcd.com/137
  - meritt 8y ago
    I very much agree. I do not at all think people should self-censor nor hide under the guise of anonymity. They should stay true to their beliefs. However, if those beliefs are one of a terrible person, as judged their local social and professional networks, then they should be prepared for the consequences.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      I'd be careful prosecuting anyone for beliefs that are not tied to conduct. People need broad latitude to develop and should be given latitude to have evil thoughts, truly believe in them, and eventually reject them without fear of punishment. However, once those beliefs leave your head and alter your conduct or others perceive that they can alter your conduct, then you are responsible for what you get.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Attacks may and have been fabricated out of the blue. "When a Stranger Decides to Destroy Your Life" https://gizmodo.com/when-a-stranger-decides-to-destroy-your-life-1827546385 https://gizmodo.com/when-a-stranger-decides-to-destroy-your-...
everdev 8y ago
People like to go for the jugular when topics like these are best tread delicately. I'm sure the reporter in the sorry feels passionately about his position but if you use strong right/wrong language someone will probably end up feeling offended and get defensive.
- nemothekid 8y ago
  >Hitler as an example in an argument about a modern day political debate. Huh? What would this prove? Doesn't this happen already? Are you not aware of Godwin's law?
msiyer 8y ago
Democracy is a function of many variables. "An average high intelligence of population" and "high tolerance for seemingly outrageous ideas" are important ones. Humans have rigid belief-systems (comfort zone) and show very little capacity to step out of it. In the current form of democracy, freedom of expression exists only when it is convenient for masses or when the elites need to push an agenda.

77 points by raleighm 8y ago

What we need is stronger rights for the worker. At the moment the employer holds all of the cards and enjoys the fact that we can be let go for silly social riots like this.

vowelless 8y ago
I wonder what reasonable rights we can have to protect workers. At will employment sounds like a good idea on paper (employee can quit anytime they want), but it is assymetric, especially when large corporations are involved (employee is easily replaceable and so impact of quitting is less on corporation). Perhaps we should have at will employment for small corporations and then private unions for larger corporations? The unions will increase bargaining power of employees which could mitigate the issues brought up in the article.
ngngngng 8y ago
I debated this with a co-worker the other day. His opinion was that no matter what the reason for firing an employee, the employer can always justify it by citing performance or budgetary concerns. So the protections would be rendered useless. How's it work in Norway? They usually do a good job of making Americans look silly when we say "that can't work because..."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- duxup 8y ago
  Timing with the social outrage would present some difficulties. Also presumably this stuff crosses someone's desk and they email someone else and there starts the paper trail for the worker's lawyers.
- mdekkers 8y ago
  ...citing performance or budgetary concerns... In the UK, where I ran a business and employed people, you need a small mountain of paperwork, collected over a fair period of time, to show that you tried in good faith to remedy the situation with the employee (in case of performance). Budgetary concerns also carry a heavy burden of proof. It really is a difficult and time-consuming path. Most medium and large companies choose to bypass the whole thing and offer a "compromise agreement", essentially "we give you x months pay right now if you sign this agreement where we mutually agree not to sue, or talk bad against eachother, and you GTFO right now". There is a significant risk of something called "constructive dismissal" meaning you made it unreasonably hard for someone to be effective in their workplace, that is decided by an employment tribunal. As an employer, the system is undoubtedly a burden, but as a human, I always found I could live with it. I had one instance where it was open-and-shut grounds for instant dismissal, and I still had to spend 4 months going through the process to ensure I was fully covered and not liable to some tribunal action. That sucked, but in the end there are many large firms that will fuck over employees without a second thought (USA style), and employees need protection from that.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Although employees don't get those protections if they've been working for the company for less than 2 years (unless the firing is discriminatory as defined in the Equality Act), and bringing a case to Employment Tribunal is fantastically expensive and thus not common.
omeid2 8y ago
For a completely different perspective, I want to raise a few points, in no specific order. I don't believe having laws that make people hard to fire is the right solution, because a healthy relationship with your work is absolutely critical for a fulfilling job. In essence, jobs should be mutually voluntary and easy to terminate with reasonable terms and notice. I think what is more important is that there should exist sound social infrastructure and safety-nets that affords employees better negotiation power. There is nothing that makes you weaker in a negotiation than being desperate for the transaction. Let's face it, we are headed into a new era and a new industrial revolution that is going to make millions of jobs obsolete. If this sounds too much like an argument for Universal Basic Income, it is not because it is intended to be, it is because UBI may be after all the right solution going forward.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > a new industrial revolution that is going to make millions of jobs obsolete Just like the last one.
- monksy 8y ago
  > jobs should be mutually voluntary and easy to terminate with reasonable terms and notice. I agree with you on that. But that's not what we have right now. The entire US (IANAL) is At-will employment. Which means that you can be let go for nearly any reason. There are no safety nets that will protect you if you're in the right. (I.e. The employer didn't want to hold their end of the bargain on vacation time when it's "unlimited pto") Having an internet mob going after you because you made a silly comment off the job on Twitter or that you don't agree with the current political climate is not a reasonable reason to fire someone.
anonytrary 8y ago
This is a fear of mine since an employer can fire you for basically any reason and just cite a compliant reason on paper. This is why I find it very hard to extend a relationship with an employer beyond anything other than work and I don't like being forced into recreational activities with my team.

gator-io 8y ago

Still can't believe Brendan Eich was hounded out of Mozilla.

LoveSubs 8y ago
we're only talking about pedophiles here. "right wingers" can be mistreated, it's fine. but pedophiles need to be protected for a "progressive" society webboys come and downvote me, one downvote = 1 impeachment for Drumff and 1 flag = madam president!!
- gator-io 8y ago
  I just think political differences should not cause people to fired. That could get out of control fast.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    A CEO is a special position that includes being a spokesman for a company. It's a tough job, but it's accordingly usually very well compensated. You don't do your argument any favors by acting as if there's not this qualitative difference between the head spokesman of a company and just any other employee.
    - flukus 8y ago
      Ok, what about other senior management? They are often spokesmen for the company too. What about a middle manager? Surely the argument that employees wouldn't feel comfortable with a CEO donating would apply to middle management too. It's not just because he's CEO though, separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism but we've lost it from all levels.
      - projektir 8y ago
        > separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism I think before you automatically assume this is a good thing, you may want to look into what this statement means and what it actually mapped out to historically. Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. I.e., it worked, because all of the "problem" segments have already been excluded, and so nobody had to deal with it. There is no problem with being a sexist manager if no women work under you, or if your actions are not perceived as problematic. Pretty easy to keep it "professional", because the definition is already skewed in your favor.

hirundo 8y ago

Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of association is important. As long as we respect both we won't interfere with people freely speaking to other people's employers or employers choosing to disassociate themselves from employees as a result. Sure free speech and association can have negative consequences, they just tend to be less negative than prohibited or compulsory speech or association.

rohit2412 8y ago
I'm not so sure. If an employer wants to disassociate from Islam and fires all muslims, why do we cover that under religious discrimination? Why not stop discrimination over all ideologies? Maybe somebody will start a religion for Nazism.
- geofft 8y ago
  Are you genuinely asking for an entry-level explanation of why most modern societies disapprove of discrimination on a few specific characteristics but do not generally consider "ideology" one of them? (I can provide one, but don't want to explain something basic if it's not actually at issue here.)
  - Inconel 8y ago
    I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I like to think I have a reasonably good understanding of why modern societies don't discriminate on characteristics which a person can't change, and while I personally find it unethical to discriminate against someone based on their religious views, I have a hard time discerning why religion should get that protection while "ideology" shouldn't? As a non religious person I find religion both fairly ideological and something that a person can readily change, at least in a free society. I've looked through your profile and you always seem to provide good explanations so I'd love to hear your thoughts. I hope you can believe me that this is a question asked in good faith.
    - projektir 8y ago

exabrial 8y ago

Indeed. I think harassing people because you disagree with their political, religious, favorite flavor of skittle, etc is nasty. We need to have some class as the entire country is running towards identity politics like it's a good thing.

anonytrary 8y ago
Unfortunately, in-group preference is like a primal instinct. People will pretty much always (sub)consciously treat you differently if you are different. This is why I prefer not to work for companies where everyone is "like family". They tout a "strong company culture" but, to me, it sounds more like "if you aren't one of us, we'll find a way to fire you".
- duxup 8y ago
  I agree. It is human nature / instinct to get all tribal and such. Someone had a great quote that I'm going to screw up big time here, but it was something like, "Every civilization is invaded by barbarians, they're called children." Now as a parent it is amusing, but I belive the quote really was intended to note how children aren't born making good decisions or making decisions that support a community or civilization. Rather they must be taught to resist the negative instincts in order to maintain society.

duxup 8y ago

I'm sympathetic to the example and idea, I guess I feel like it ... depends on the situation. Let's say you're running a coffee shop. One of your servers posts a lot of racist stuff about minorities on twitter and it comes to light. You want your shop to feel welcoming to all customers, keeping that person on is clearly untenable, potentially even a risk for the business to survive. Granted the article at the end does take a more measured approach compared to the title that seems a bit absolute.

thunderbong 8y ago
Is it really? If nobody coming to the shop feels threatened, if the server's attitude towards the customers is not racist, if nothing that the server is doing in their private life is affecting your business, should you really be bothered? Because, it feels to me, that once we give in to our imagined fears, we are only a few steps away from becoming what we feared.

paxys 8y ago

> There’s another issue here, too. Why do employers not stand up for an employee in the face of mob pressure? My own theory is that it comes down to “corporate branding” and the way in which an individual’s “personal brand” is thought to mesh with the employer’s “corporate brand.” This is the key point in the article IMO. Companies could shrug off these online mobs with a simple "none of our business" (and they have done so plenty in the past). Nowadays, however, every company is working its way into completely unrelated social causes simply for marketing, and employees must bear that burden whether they like it or not.

geofft 8y ago

Glad to see Quillette come out against free speech.

mc32 8y ago

On the one hand people have a right to free speech, on the other hand, they should not leverage their jobs or positions when making controversial comments so as to associate their employer with those words. Of course, this position is frustrated by there not being a clear cut distinction between work persona and private persona. Ideally, with a platform like Twitter, you'd have two personas, one tied to your employer or professional life, one tied to your private persona... For example, Rosanne or the people in the article.

DanAndersen 8y ago
Some people do separate their personal and work lives/personas. They are still at risk when malicious actors work to "doxx" them and force that connection to be made in the public space despite the honest attempt to compartmentalize.
- mc32 8y ago
  This is true. But I mean it should br sicially acceptable to have at least the two. That’s not to say people should not push back on odiousness, but the pushback should happen on the account conducting the odiousness; hopefully with some community policing. In other words there should be some modearation, even if by a sympathetic group to ensure it does not become too extreme.

projektir 8y ago

This mostly comes down to employment being too important and an unbalanced relationship between the employee and the employer. If the relationship was more balanced, "you said something questionable on Twitter" just wouldn't really be that compelling.

exabrial 8y ago
I think this is an effect, but not a solution. The harder answer is we treat others the way we would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.
- projektir 8y ago
  I'm not sure how "we should treat others better" can be implemented in practice? That seems to be in the same bucket as "people should be smarter".
  - deviationblue 8y ago
    > I'm not sure how "we should treat others better" can be implemented in practice? This is an honest question from you, but to some it might seem like a no-brainer. I think a lot of it has to with personality types.
duxup 8y ago
I think you're right on the power math, but I don't think addressing a social issue with social mobs like this ... is solved by addressing some sort of employment power balance.
- projektir 8y ago
  "We'll get you fired!" only works because people have reason to be really afraid of it. People are just pulling a preexisting lever. They might, of course, find some other lever to pull, but this is a very convenient and accessible one.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

meritt 8y ago

If someone isn't ready to face the consequences of being of shunned professionally or socially, all they need to do is stop being a terrible person. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ sums it up quite well.

nathanaldensr 8y ago
Define "terrible person" and I might agree with you. Somehow, I don't think you'll be able to do it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kardos 8y ago
If we're going to play the quote-xkcd game, this one is relevant too: https://xkcd.com/137 https://xkcd.com/137
- meritt 8y ago
  I very much agree. I do not at all think people should self-censor nor hide under the guise of anonymity. They should stay true to their beliefs. However, if those beliefs are one of a terrible person, as judged their local social and professional networks, then they should be prepared for the consequences.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    I'd be careful prosecuting anyone for beliefs that are not tied to conduct. People need broad latitude to develop and should be given latitude to have evil thoughts, truly believe in them, and eventually reject them without fear of punishment. However, once those beliefs leave your head and alter your conduct or others perceive that they can alter your conduct, then you are responsible for what you get.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Attacks may and have been fabricated out of the blue. "When a Stranger Decides to Destroy Your Life" https://gizmodo.com/when-a-stranger-decides-to-destroy-your-life-1827546385 https://gizmodo.com/when-a-stranger-decides-to-destroy-your-...

everdev 8y ago

People like to go for the jugular when topics like these are best tread delicately. I'm sure the reporter in the sorry feels passionately about his position but if you use strong right/wrong language someone will probably end up feeling offended and get defensive.

nemothekid 8y ago
>Hitler as an example in an argument about a modern day political debate. Huh? What would this prove? Doesn't this happen already? Are you not aware of Godwin's law?

msiyer 8y ago

Democracy is a function of many variables. "An average high intelligence of population" and "high tolerance for seemingly outrageous ideas" are important ones. Humans have rigid belief-systems (comfort zone) and show very little capacity to step out of it. In the current form of democracy, freedom of expression exists only when it is convenient for masses or when the elites need to push an agenda.