3 ms·

Eh. You have a right to say what you want, but your employer has a right to not want to be associated with it...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
What about the right to air a private conversation in front of general public for express purpose of forcing one's employer to disassociate from a person? Consider this: were you to come to GP's office and show GP's boss a printout of them saying controversial things on HN, demanding GP's termination, GP would most likely keep their job and there would be a good chance you'd get kicked out by security. In order to get a company to fire someone, there needs to be a public mess, and those rarely happen organically. In this case, and other similar firings for wrongspeak that I can think of, a public storm was created intentionally. Can't see it as anything else than a weaker, non-lethal form of swatting.
- ghettoimp 7y ago
  These are interesting questions to consider. I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. If someone wrote something on HN, is it really private? In the case of RMS, I don't know enough about this mailing list to know whether it was private or not. I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. For instance, a governor of Puerto Rico was apparently sending homophobic and misogynistic messages around in a private messages. Is it less bad for being in a private conversation? To your hypothetical: If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. I'm not sure either. HN, or CSAIL mailing list, are community chatrooms that sometimes spill out into the world at large, but their day-to-day activity concerns their respective communities. You do not expect to see what you wrote there aired in mainstream news. > I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. I suppose it doesn't in the case of publicly recognizable people or public officials; this sort of comes with the territory. But what private (or semi-private) conversations introduce in this picture is a "kill chain" - a chain of people or organizations involved in taking a private message and turning it into a mob forcing one's employer's hand. I think it's worth to take a closer look at that chain - especially in this case, where you can clearly witness an increasing level of misrepresentation happening. The original post, for instance, stayed just a bit shy of making accusations that could be subject of a libel lawsuit, implying but not stating a lot of things. And then the media coverage did its usual misrepresentation amplification. To be clear, I'm not arguing for shooting the messenger - just that there should be some pressure in the society which ensures messengers are communicating their messages accurately. Ironically, the subject of this outrage is that pressure - RMS attempting to correct inaccuracies. > If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right. Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. But you're right, it's technically your right to try. But still, I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
    - ghettoimp 7y ago
      Your point about the "kill chain" is well taken. I have not having paid enough attention here to have followed it in this case. But I certainly think the lack of nuance in the media is absolutely a real problem with many bad consequences. > Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. Yes, absolutely. In an ideal world, if there isn't a deeply troubling reason to be upset, a respectable media outlet should (in an ideal world) push back. And an employer should want to defend its employees against trumped up nonsense. In this world, I fully appreciate that many media outlets love controversy and clicks, and it may be easier for a company to just fire someone than stand up for them and deal with said shit-storm. > I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry. I agree completely that trying to end someone's career is very extreme. I take no position regarding the specific case of whether or not RMS should have resigned. I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career. I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. For instance, if I had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred of {women, men, gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, ...}, that would be deeply problematic. If I then saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group, it would seem very reasonable to object strongly to them continuing in their career.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career. I'm not standing 100% by this analogy, but the similarity is that in both cases someone, out of anger or spite, abuses a huge lever the society has to punish misbehavior just to ruin someone's day, but the lever has a good chance of ruining someone's life. This works for both "SWAT team" and "virality on social networks" as values of "lever". > I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. In your example, it would be reasonable to object strongly - given that you had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred, like if you "saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group". I'd still hope you'd try the proper channels first, but if they fail, this is a matter of public importance. But the kind of thing we saw here - in this RMS story and other public outrage stories - doesn't meet the standard of evidence you described. (Also, law enforcement is a somewhat special case, because it's a position of privilege and power, when one acts with authority of the state. You definitely want to police people wielding this power aggressively, but you shouldn't apply the same aggressiveness to random folks doing regular jobs, like scientists or plumbers or programmers. Former is preventing abuse of power; latter is just destroying someone's livelihood through vigilante mob justice.) So what I'm saying isn't "don't ever go after one's career", just don't do it if your reasons are that you are offended by something you read. Ruining someone's livelihood like this is one of the most extreme form of damage you can legally do to another human being; it's thoroughly aggressive act, and it should only be done in circumstances justifying it. Words alone almost never are.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Does society have a right to not be associated with it? If every individual has that right, then a collection of those individuals working together retain that right if they so choose to do so. If grouping up people does cause them to lose that right, perhaps that characteristics of rights kicks into effect when dealing with sufficiently large institutions, especially ones who have significant tie in with government far beyond some small mom and pop employer.

What about the right to air a private conversation in front of general public for express purpose of forcing one's employer to disassociate from a person? Consider this: were you to come to GP's office and show GP's boss a printout of them saying controversial things on HN, demanding GP's termination, GP would most likely keep their job and there would be a good chance you'd get kicked out by security. In order to get a company to fire someone, there needs to be a public mess, and those rarely happen organically. In this case, and other similar firings for wrongspeak that I can think of, a public storm was created intentionally. Can't see it as anything else than a weaker, non-lethal form of swatting.

ghettoimp 7y ago
These are interesting questions to consider. I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. If someone wrote something on HN, is it really private? In the case of RMS, I don't know enough about this mailing list to know whether it was private or not. I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. For instance, a governor of Puerto Rico was apparently sending homophobic and misogynistic messages around in a private messages. Is it less bad for being in a private conversation? To your hypothetical: If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. I'm not sure either. HN, or CSAIL mailing list, are community chatrooms that sometimes spill out into the world at large, but their day-to-day activity concerns their respective communities. You do not expect to see what you wrote there aired in mainstream news. > I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. I suppose it doesn't in the case of publicly recognizable people or public officials; this sort of comes with the territory. But what private (or semi-private) conversations introduce in this picture is a "kill chain" - a chain of people or organizations involved in taking a private message and turning it into a mob forcing one's employer's hand. I think it's worth to take a closer look at that chain - especially in this case, where you can clearly witness an increasing level of misrepresentation happening. The original post, for instance, stayed just a bit shy of making accusations that could be subject of a libel lawsuit, implying but not stating a lot of things. And then the media coverage did its usual misrepresentation amplification. To be clear, I'm not arguing for shooting the messenger - just that there should be some pressure in the society which ensures messengers are communicating their messages accurately. Ironically, the subject of this outrage is that pressure - RMS attempting to correct inaccuracies. > If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right. Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. But you're right, it's technically your right to try. But still, I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
  - ghettoimp 7y ago
    Your point about the "kill chain" is well taken. I have not having paid enough attention here to have followed it in this case. But I certainly think the lack of nuance in the media is absolutely a real problem with many bad consequences. > Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. Yes, absolutely. In an ideal world, if there isn't a deeply troubling reason to be upset, a respectable media outlet should (in an ideal world) push back. And an employer should want to defend its employees against trumped up nonsense. In this world, I fully appreciate that many media outlets love controversy and clicks, and it may be easier for a company to just fire someone than stand up for them and deal with said shit-storm. > I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry. I agree completely that trying to end someone's career is very extreme. I take no position regarding the specific case of whether or not RMS should have resigned. I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career. I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. For instance, if I had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred of {women, men, gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, ...}, that would be deeply problematic. If I then saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group, it would seem very reasonable to object strongly to them continuing in their career.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career. I'm not standing 100% by this analogy, but the similarity is that in both cases someone, out of anger or spite, abuses a huge lever the society has to punish misbehavior just to ruin someone's day, but the lever has a good chance of ruining someone's life. This works for both "SWAT team" and "virality on social networks" as values of "lever". > I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. In your example, it would be reasonable to object strongly - given that you had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred, like if you "saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group". I'd still hope you'd try the proper channels first, but if they fail, this is a matter of public importance. But the kind of thing we saw here - in this RMS story and other public outrage stories - doesn't meet the standard of evidence you described. (Also, law enforcement is a somewhat special case, because it's a position of privilege and power, when one acts with authority of the state. You definitely want to police people wielding this power aggressively, but you shouldn't apply the same aggressiveness to random folks doing regular jobs, like scientists or plumbers or programmers. Former is preventing abuse of power; latter is just destroying someone's livelihood through vigilante mob justice.) So what I'm saying isn't "don't ever go after one's career", just don't do it if your reasons are that you are offended by something you read. Ruining someone's livelihood like this is one of the most extreme form of damage you can legally do to another human being; it's thoroughly aggressive act, and it should only be done in circumstances justifying it. Words alone almost never are.

SkyBelow 7y ago

Does society have a right to not be associated with it? If every individual has that right, then a collection of those individuals working together retain that right if they so choose to do so. If grouping up people does cause them to lose that right, perhaps that characteristics of rights kicks into effect when dealing with sufficiently large institutions, especially ones who have significant tie in with government far beyond some small mom and pop employer.