3 ms·

If by "justifies" you mean "doesn't explicitly outlaw" then yeah, I am, because libel laws also exist. Is it your position that the real problem with McCarthyi

by ezrast 8y ago

If by "justifies" you mean "doesn't explicitly outlaw" then yeah, I am, because libel laws also exist. Is it your position that the real problem with McCarthyism was that actual communist spies were being denied jobs and service? I don't know how else you could be drawing the connection to what you quoted.

philwelch 8y ago
There's no legal burden of proof requirement for firing somebody for suspicion of belonging to a non-protected class. American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue, particularly if the victim is a public figure. The real problem with McCarthyism is that even actions by non-governmental entities to enforce social norms against genuinely totalitarian ideologies by means that fall within the bounds of the law can still be unjust if they are pursued to extremes.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue That's true, but potentially misleading: under the civil standard of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”), all the burden of proof means is that you are obligated to provide some evidence from which that conclusion could be drawn. > particularly if the victim is a public figure. No, while there are other things that must be proven when the plaintiff is a public figure or the issue is one of public concern, the degree of responsibility or required proof on the falsity element of libel doesn't change. (What does change, specifically, is about the publisher’s mental state; while for libel more generally mere negligent misreprentation will suffice for libel, for issues of public concern actual malice is required.)
- ezrast 8y ago
  I don't know why you're bringing burden of proof into it. Of course people get fired for unjust reasons all the time. If those reasons are petty prejudices that have existed for the duration of humankind's existence, and that the best efforts of societal and political leaders have failed to stamp out, we use the sledgehammer of protected classes to try and limit the damage. If the reasons have more to do with a massive, nation-wide disinformation campaign instigated by powerful political figures, those are some very particular problems that are not best fixed by putting additional shackles on those pesky private businesses. "<thing> can be unjust if pursued to extremes" is not a provocative or substantive comment for any value of <thing>. But before I go on, let me seek clarification: for the purposes of this discussion, are you actually suggesting that political affiliation should be made a protected class? That seems like where this is going but I don't want to accidentally end up fighting a straw person.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    My argument is that private entities should be pressured to exercise their freedom of association responsibly and fairly, even when failure to do so falls below the legal standards of non-discrimination. I agree that legal "sledgehammers" and "shackles" are burdensome. It's because of my eagerness to avoid such remedies that I strongly advocate other measures to discourage private firms from abusing their market power to effect political change by selectively including or excluding potential customers and employees for political reasons. While I suppose I technically agree that "private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association", they should be under pressure to use extreme discretion in exercising that freedom.
    - ezrast 8y ago
      Okay, that's generally reasonable, but in the context of the current US political climate I think you're concerned about the wrong thing. While the national situation is frequently described as being rife with political intolerance, those attitudes belong mostly to the masses and to politicians. The megacorporations in question skew heavily techno-libertarian and display little propensity for censoring their platforms beyond removing illegal content and porn. In the case of social media in particular, it's the major platforms' lack of interest in curating political content that has allowed them and their "unbiased" algorithms to become the unwitting tools of those who would undermine our political institutions. If the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit would choose some principles to stand for rather than trying to be everything to everyone, they and we would be less susceptible to that sort of manipulation.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        Social media is a whole other can of worms. What do you consider “undermining our political institutions”? If that consists of spreading disinformation and propaganda, those have been part of politics for as long as there have been politics. If it’s because the propaganda is inserted by witting or unwitting agents of a hostile foreign power—well, that was the rationale for blacklisting suspected Communist screenwriters. This wasn’t the angle I was coming from, but it does circle back to that somehow.

by ezrast 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago

There's no legal burden of proof requirement for firing somebody for suspicion of belonging to a non-protected class. American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue, particularly if the victim is a public figure. The real problem with McCarthyism is that even actions by non-governmental entities to enforce social norms against genuinely totalitarian ideologies by means that fall within the bounds of the law can still be unjust if they are pursued to extremes.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue That's true, but potentially misleading: under the civil standard of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”), all the burden of proof means is that you are obligated to provide some evidence from which that conclusion could be drawn. > particularly if the victim is a public figure. No, while there are other things that must be proven when the plaintiff is a public figure or the issue is one of public concern, the degree of responsibility or required proof on the falsity element of libel doesn't change. (What does change, specifically, is about the publisher’s mental state; while for libel more generally mere negligent misreprentation will suffice for libel, for issues of public concern actual malice is required.)
ezrast 8y ago
I don't know why you're bringing burden of proof into it. Of course people get fired for unjust reasons all the time. If those reasons are petty prejudices that have existed for the duration of humankind's existence, and that the best efforts of societal and political leaders have failed to stamp out, we use the sledgehammer of protected classes to try and limit the damage. If the reasons have more to do with a massive, nation-wide disinformation campaign instigated by powerful political figures, those are some very particular problems that are not best fixed by putting additional shackles on those pesky private businesses. "<thing> can be unjust if pursued to extremes" is not a provocative or substantive comment for any value of <thing>. But before I go on, let me seek clarification: for the purposes of this discussion, are you actually suggesting that political affiliation should be made a protected class? That seems like where this is going but I don't want to accidentally end up fighting a straw person.
- philwelch 8y ago
  My argument is that private entities should be pressured to exercise their freedom of association responsibly and fairly, even when failure to do so falls below the legal standards of non-discrimination. I agree that legal "sledgehammers" and "shackles" are burdensome. It's because of my eagerness to avoid such remedies that I strongly advocate other measures to discourage private firms from abusing their market power to effect political change by selectively including or excluding potential customers and employees for political reasons. While I suppose I technically agree that "private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association", they should be under pressure to use extreme discretion in exercising that freedom.
  - ezrast 8y ago
    Okay, that's generally reasonable, but in the context of the current US political climate I think you're concerned about the wrong thing. While the national situation is frequently described as being rife with political intolerance, those attitudes belong mostly to the masses and to politicians. The megacorporations in question skew heavily techno-libertarian and display little propensity for censoring their platforms beyond removing illegal content and porn. In the case of social media in particular, it's the major platforms' lack of interest in curating political content that has allowed them and their "unbiased" algorithms to become the unwitting tools of those who would undermine our political institutions. If the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit would choose some principles to stand for rather than trying to be everything to everyone, they and we would be less susceptible to that sort of manipulation.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      Social media is a whole other can of worms. What do you consider “undermining our political institutions”? If that consists of spreading disinformation and propaganda, those have been part of politics for as long as there have been politics. If it’s because the propaganda is inserted by witting or unwitting agents of a hostile foreign power—well, that was the rationale for blacklisting suspected Communist screenwriters. This wasn’t the angle I was coming from, but it does circle back to that somehow.