5 ms·

> Because if you really think that somebody needs to be fired, for stating a point completely unrelated to their job, then that is a problem that we, as a socie

> Because if you really think that somebody needs to be fired, for stating a point completely unrelated to their job, then that is a problem that we, as a society, need to address urgently. The issue is not voicing an opinion in private -- it's voicing it on an institutional mailing list in his capacity as a member of that institution.

dmitrygr 7y ago
Like I said: clearly specify which opinions your employees are not allowed to hold, and that is okay. Arbitrarily deciding this AFTER they have already expressed the opinion is terrible. Deciding post-facto smells of favoritism and can never be proven to be fair. It also creates a chilling effect since nobody ever knows what is and is not ok to say, since at any point in time AFTER the fact you might decide it is not ok.
- james-mcelwain 7y ago
  It definitely makes sense to have some kind of official policy about what kind of speech is acceptable, but I don't think it's possible to enumerate all opinions that are unacceptable in a reasonable way. I'm almost certain MIT has an employee handbook that reasonably covers situations like this. If anything, it's a demonstration of favoritism that he wasn't fired in the past.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    > I don't think it's possible to enumerate all opinions that are unacceptable in a reasonable way. The beauty of REAL freedom of speech (like we had in 1977 [1]) is that the answer to that is: none [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
    - james-mcelwain 7y ago
      I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level.
      - dmitrygr 7y ago
        > I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level. Because if i can lose my job over a statement and a mob reaction, the mob makes me unemployable since they scare other employers, i lose my livelihood, and thus my life. If I have no protection from that (enshrined in a law, like california actually has), in what way is speech free? It becomes more of: "speech only as authorized by the mob-du-jour".
        james-mcelwain 7y ago
        So freedom of association doesn't matter?
        dmitrygr 7y ago
        you bring up an interesting point, freedom of association is also important, and it seems like those two are potentially in conflict over speech. I'd love to continue this debate, but HN's increased throttling of replies-to-replies makes it complicated. Can we continue over email? (mine is in my profile)
        yellowapple 7y ago
        Freedom of association (or more specifically: the freedom to not associate) has limits; for example, freedom of association "doesn't matter" in the context of whether or not it's legal or moral to prohibit someone of a protected class from patronizing a business.
NikkiA 7y ago
the instution that is at the heart of a current scandal regarding jeffrey epstein, it should be noted. That they feel they cannot take on the burden of RMS's stupid comments in addition to their existing scandelous items is not surprising, and should not surprise anyone. RMS may well have gotten away with making the comments he did, had he been posting on the UCB mailing list.

dmitrygr 7y ago

Like I said: clearly specify which opinions your employees are not allowed to hold, and that is okay. Arbitrarily deciding this AFTER they have already expressed the opinion is terrible. Deciding post-facto smells of favoritism and can never be proven to be fair. It also creates a chilling effect since nobody ever knows what is and is not ok to say, since at any point in time AFTER the fact you might decide it is not ok.

james-mcelwain 7y ago
It definitely makes sense to have some kind of official policy about what kind of speech is acceptable, but I don't think it's possible to enumerate all opinions that are unacceptable in a reasonable way. I'm almost certain MIT has an employee handbook that reasonably covers situations like this. If anything, it's a demonstration of favoritism that he wasn't fired in the past.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  > I don't think it's possible to enumerate all opinions that are unacceptable in a reasonable way. The beauty of REAL freedom of speech (like we had in 1977 [1]) is that the answer to that is: none [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
  - james-mcelwain 7y ago
    I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level.
    - dmitrygr 7y ago
      > I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level. Because if i can lose my job over a statement and a mob reaction, the mob makes me unemployable since they scare other employers, i lose my livelihood, and thus my life. If I have no protection from that (enshrined in a law, like california actually has), in what way is speech free? It becomes more of: "speech only as authorized by the mob-du-jour".
      - james-mcelwain 7y ago
        So freedom of association doesn't matter?
        dmitrygr 7y ago
        you bring up an interesting point, freedom of association is also important, and it seems like those two are potentially in conflict over speech. I'd love to continue this debate, but HN's increased throttling of replies-to-replies makes it complicated. Can we continue over email? (mine is in my profile)
        yellowapple 7y ago
        Freedom of association (or more specifically: the freedom to not associate) has limits; for example, freedom of association "doesn't matter" in the context of whether or not it's legal or moral to prohibit someone of a protected class from patronizing a business.

NikkiA 7y ago

the instution that is at the heart of a current scandal regarding jeffrey epstein, it should be noted. That they feel they cannot take on the burden of RMS's stupid comments in addition to their existing scandelous items is not surprising, and should not surprise anyone. RMS may well have gotten away with making the comments he did, had he been posting on the UCB mailing list.