3 ms·

Private companies can do what they want, and like everything else, they are subject to criticism for it. If I run a conference and un-invite someone from speak

Private companies can do what they want, and like everything else, they are subject to criticism for it. If I run a conference and un-invite someone from speaking for whatever reason, of course that is my right. And if members of the public want to criticize me for it, and make their own choices about whether to business with me on that basis, that is also their right. This has nothing to do with this hand-wavey "Left" being hypocritical about anything. It's a company doing what it is legally allowed to do, and various members of the public having opinions about the company's choices. If and when somebody is proposing a law to regulate that Disney has to give anti-authoritarians a voice, and that same somebody also proposed a law barring Disney from giving pro-authoritarians a voice, we can talk about hypocrisy or manacles or double-edged swords.

dhimes 7y ago
Private companies can do what they want Not in the US. There are regulations on what you can do. A restaurant cannot refuse to serve a person of color because of their race, for example.
- balls187 7y ago
  Perhaps a more apt analogy would be companies cannot violate Federal Trade Laws (easily) without facing serious repercussions. While it may be unconstitutional to refuse service because of Race, it does happen. Perhaps not overtly. Speaking from my own experience as a "person of color", it's difficult to prove something happened because of my race. And there are still plenty of examples of people's constitutional rights being violated--such as when Starbucks called the police on two black men, who were then arrested, despite not committing any crimes.
  - erichocean 7y ago
    > While it may be unconstitutional to refuse service because of Race Sadly, it actually is constitutional to refuse service based on race (or any other reason)—it's literally part of the 1st Amendment (aka Freedom of Association). You are presumably referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans certain forms of exclusionary behavior and sort of "soft-repeals" that aspect of the 1st Amendment. Like anything else passed by Congress, it can be undone at any time. Unlikely, but in theory it could happen. It's actually astounding (and a little scary) how much of modern American culture and laws are built on top of legislation passed in the 1960s. That legislation and subsequent enhancements almost functions as a parallel legal system today to the one enacted by the original constitution (and the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition more generally). That said…I don't see a reversal coming any time soon and expect the Anglo-Saxon tradition (such as it is) to fade into the dustbin of history while the CRA and friends become more and more the law of the land over time. In a very real sense "the law is whatever is enforced", and it's extremely clear that even things like Freedom of Speech are going to be re-assessed in the name of tolerance in the very near future. Europe already has much stricter rules on speech, and I expect the US to follow suit. (I also expect the 2nd Amendment to be effectively repealed in the next 20-30 years as the baby boomers die off and no one still alive cares about owning a gun—but does care about not getting shot. I can easily imagine using the CRA as the legal vehicle to do so, something like a "right not to be shot" or whatever.)
    - balls187 7y ago
      I was thinking of the Equal Protection and Race in the constitution, aka the 14th amendment, but you are right. It was the Federal Civil Rights Act that actually made it a crime to discriminate.
- mc32 7y ago
  I think this gets "complicated". There are night-clubs which cater to certain audiences and you may find it hard to gain admission if you're not invited. Maybe that's not a thing anymore. In particular I used to hear clubs that catered to specific international audiences, so they catered to that audience and excluded others.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    And other clubs too. But if they are caught excluding, say, jews, it’s actionable (they can be successfully sued).
gruez 7y ago
>If I run a conference and un-invite someone from speaking for whatever reason, of course that is my right. nitpick: not if it's because they're a member of a protected class.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Nitpick: do EEO laws apply to conference speaking?
  - mc32 7y ago
    I would think it applies to attendees and not necessarily to speakers. Like a conference on I dunno, Brazilian businesses, maybe they only want Brazilian speakers --I can'[t imagine there be a requirement for there to be any American speakers or any class.
    - gruez 7y ago
      > Like a conference on I dunno, Brazilian businesses, maybe they only want Brazilian speakers AFAIK there's an exception if it's vital part of the job, like in that case (a conference about Brazillian businesses I presume). I was thinking more like, a node.js conference where you say "no muslim speakers allowed".

dhimes 7y ago

Private companies can do what they want Not in the US. There are regulations on what you can do. A restaurant cannot refuse to serve a person of color because of their race, for example.

balls187 7y ago
Perhaps a more apt analogy would be companies cannot violate Federal Trade Laws (easily) without facing serious repercussions. While it may be unconstitutional to refuse service because of Race, it does happen. Perhaps not overtly. Speaking from my own experience as a "person of color", it's difficult to prove something happened because of my race. And there are still plenty of examples of people's constitutional rights being violated--such as when Starbucks called the police on two black men, who were then arrested, despite not committing any crimes.
- erichocean 7y ago
  > While it may be unconstitutional to refuse service because of Race Sadly, it actually is constitutional to refuse service based on race (or any other reason)—it's literally part of the 1st Amendment (aka Freedom of Association). You are presumably referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans certain forms of exclusionary behavior and sort of "soft-repeals" that aspect of the 1st Amendment. Like anything else passed by Congress, it can be undone at any time. Unlikely, but in theory it could happen. It's actually astounding (and a little scary) how much of modern American culture and laws are built on top of legislation passed in the 1960s. That legislation and subsequent enhancements almost functions as a parallel legal system today to the one enacted by the original constitution (and the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition more generally). That said…I don't see a reversal coming any time soon and expect the Anglo-Saxon tradition (such as it is) to fade into the dustbin of history while the CRA and friends become more and more the law of the land over time. In a very real sense "the law is whatever is enforced", and it's extremely clear that even things like Freedom of Speech are going to be re-assessed in the name of tolerance in the very near future. Europe already has much stricter rules on speech, and I expect the US to follow suit. (I also expect the 2nd Amendment to be effectively repealed in the next 20-30 years as the baby boomers die off and no one still alive cares about owning a gun—but does care about not getting shot. I can easily imagine using the CRA as the legal vehicle to do so, something like a "right not to be shot" or whatever.)
  - balls187 7y ago
    I was thinking of the Equal Protection and Race in the constitution, aka the 14th amendment, but you are right. It was the Federal Civil Rights Act that actually made it a crime to discriminate.
mc32 7y ago
I think this gets "complicated". There are night-clubs which cater to certain audiences and you may find it hard to gain admission if you're not invited. Maybe that's not a thing anymore. In particular I used to hear clubs that catered to specific international audiences, so they catered to that audience and excluded others.
- dhimes 7y ago
  And other clubs too. But if they are caught excluding, say, jews, it’s actionable (they can be successfully sued).

gruez 7y ago

>If I run a conference and un-invite someone from speaking for whatever reason, of course that is my right. nitpick: not if it's because they're a member of a protected class.

triceratops 7y ago
Nitpick: do EEO laws apply to conference speaking?
- mc32 7y ago
  I would think it applies to attendees and not necessarily to speakers. Like a conference on I dunno, Brazilian businesses, maybe they only want Brazilian speakers --I can'[t imagine there be a requirement for there to be any American speakers or any class.
  - gruez 7y ago
    > Like a conference on I dunno, Brazilian businesses, maybe they only want Brazilian speakers AFAIK there's an exception if it's vital part of the job, like in that case (a conference about Brazillian businesses I presume). I was thinking more like, a node.js conference where you say "no muslim speakers allowed".