5 ms·

I don’t think you understand the constitution or bill of rights as well as you think you do.

dcow 6y ago
When you can get fired for something you do in your spare time because another employee says it bursts their bubble, then we’ve crossed into a realm where individuals are no longer free to express themselves because their life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness is at stake. Yes I know that’s from The Declaration of Independence and not The Constitution. FFS my roommate’s company banned custom emoji in Slack because some committee got trolled by 4chan into thinking :pepe: constitutes hate speech. I’m not making this up...
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  None of that has anything to do with the constitution or bill of rights, which talk about the enumerated powers of the government and the rights of the people that the government may not infringe upon. If you have an issue with your employer, find a new job.
  - dcow 6y ago
    Yes the point of our founding documents is exactly to outline a set of rights that citizens collectively enjoy and which shall not be impinged upon. It's not simply the classic "government vs private" dichotomy. We've had freedom of expression cases hit the supreme court related to what students at a public school can wear on a t-shirt. Clearly a scenario much more complex than the government explicitly impinging upon freedom of expression. > If you have an issue with your employer, find a new job. I used to say that too. But there's a catch. Our government sets economic policy. Economic policy governs citizens' ability to find and obtain work, ultimately their ability to prosper. If the economic policy is "anything goes" then we will see and have seen rise of economic machines that suppress freedom of expression in the service of increasing shareholder value. The questions I think we should be asking is "does this make sense?" and, "have the goals outlined in the constitution been effectively achieved?". If government has enacted policy that yields an environment where people are not actually free to express themselves, is this not a failure of government to secure those basic freedoms? I'd be a lot more comfortable telling people not to bother with oppressive employers if, for example, we had a concept of UBI so that people could feasibly sustain themselves in absence of a private economic machine writing their paycheck.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      Public schools are government-funded, therefore the bill of rights is at play. Your private employer can absolutely fire you for the contents of your t-shirt if they so choose, assuming it has nothing to do with protected classes/speech or anything like that. Here is some reading on this topic: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/employee-free-speech-in-the-workplace.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
      - dcow 6y ago
        I know the details. I think you're missing my point. I'm challenging the status quo legal interpretation of the extent to which the first amendment is applicable. I'm arguing that regardless of the exact letter of the language in the bill of rights, we are experiencing an environment whereby individuals are unable to freely express themselves without real threat to their livelihood and that it is in the interest of a functional democracy to preserve and protect such a right. I believe this is the government's concern because a) the government decides economic policy, and so we are responsible for the effects of e.g. a capitalist/private-sector-driven economy. If such a choice is having the effect of impingement of freedom of expression, it matters little whether the government paid for the institution directly or not. We subsidize private institutions as a society and we are responsible for and have power over that decision. And b) the spirit of the bill of rights is not being upheld. The whole point of the bill of rights is a realization that in order for a society built on civil liberty and freedom to thrive, there must be limits to the power any institution has to stifle said freedoms. That the law of the land must protect those freedoms for all people, full stop. In short, I am aware of the status quo but I think interpretation is ripe for a modern revamp given trends over the last decade.
        cycrutchfield 6y ago
        Why are you against the rights of a private company to act as they wish? Are you some kind of commie?
        6y ago
- skibidi 6y ago
  Same thing happened at my place over pepe emojis. What strikes me is the conversation centered around perceptions. "It makes me feel bad so take it down or else. End of the conversation" No opportunity to "work it out". Everything is confrontational, win or lose kind of thing. Each incident seems benign on its own, but kills soul in the long run. If you're ever caught in that crossfire, the reasonable stance is "just do what they say, don't make a scene, think of your career"

dcow 6y ago

When you can get fired for something you do in your spare time because another employee says it bursts their bubble, then we’ve crossed into a realm where individuals are no longer free to express themselves because their life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness is at stake. Yes I know that’s from The Declaration of Independence and not The Constitution. FFS my roommate’s company banned custom emoji in Slack because some committee got trolled by 4chan into thinking :pepe: constitutes hate speech. I’m not making this up...

cycrutchfield 6y ago
None of that has anything to do with the constitution or bill of rights, which talk about the enumerated powers of the government and the rights of the people that the government may not infringe upon. If you have an issue with your employer, find a new job.
- dcow 6y ago
  Yes the point of our founding documents is exactly to outline a set of rights that citizens collectively enjoy and which shall not be impinged upon. It's not simply the classic "government vs private" dichotomy. We've had freedom of expression cases hit the supreme court related to what students at a public school can wear on a t-shirt. Clearly a scenario much more complex than the government explicitly impinging upon freedom of expression. > If you have an issue with your employer, find a new job. I used to say that too. But there's a catch. Our government sets economic policy. Economic policy governs citizens' ability to find and obtain work, ultimately their ability to prosper. If the economic policy is "anything goes" then we will see and have seen rise of economic machines that suppress freedom of expression in the service of increasing shareholder value. The questions I think we should be asking is "does this make sense?" and, "have the goals outlined in the constitution been effectively achieved?". If government has enacted policy that yields an environment where people are not actually free to express themselves, is this not a failure of government to secure those basic freedoms? I'd be a lot more comfortable telling people not to bother with oppressive employers if, for example, we had a concept of UBI so that people could feasibly sustain themselves in absence of a private economic machine writing their paycheck.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    Public schools are government-funded, therefore the bill of rights is at play. Your private employer can absolutely fire you for the contents of your t-shirt if they so choose, assuming it has nothing to do with protected classes/speech or anything like that. Here is some reading on this topic: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/employee-free-speech-in-the-workplace.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
    - dcow 6y ago
      I know the details. I think you're missing my point. I'm challenging the status quo legal interpretation of the extent to which the first amendment is applicable. I'm arguing that regardless of the exact letter of the language in the bill of rights, we are experiencing an environment whereby individuals are unable to freely express themselves without real threat to their livelihood and that it is in the interest of a functional democracy to preserve and protect such a right. I believe this is the government's concern because a) the government decides economic policy, and so we are responsible for the effects of e.g. a capitalist/private-sector-driven economy. If such a choice is having the effect of impingement of freedom of expression, it matters little whether the government paid for the institution directly or not. We subsidize private institutions as a society and we are responsible for and have power over that decision. And b) the spirit of the bill of rights is not being upheld. The whole point of the bill of rights is a realization that in order for a society built on civil liberty and freedom to thrive, there must be limits to the power any institution has to stifle said freedoms. That the law of the land must protect those freedoms for all people, full stop. In short, I am aware of the status quo but I think interpretation is ripe for a modern revamp given trends over the last decade.
      - cycrutchfield 6y ago
        Why are you against the rights of a private company to act as they wish? Are you some kind of commie?
        6y ago
skibidi 6y ago
Same thing happened at my place over pepe emojis. What strikes me is the conversation centered around perceptions. "It makes me feel bad so take it down or else. End of the conversation" No opportunity to "work it out". Everything is confrontational, win or lose kind of thing. Each incident seems benign on its own, but kills soul in the long run. If you're ever caught in that crossfire, the reasonable stance is "just do what they say, don't make a scene, think of your career"