5 ms·

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

by umvi 6y ago

krapp 6y ago
Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate with someone's potential employer and argue that they should not be hired. If literally every employer decides not to hire someone based solely on what that mob says, then (notwithstanding how ridiculous that scenario would be in real life) that's possibly a labor rights issue more than a free speech issue.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      "things you think are false" and "libelous" are, in the US, vastly different standards.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        I'm familiar with the standards and I stand by my assessment with full confidence. Twitter mobs routinely make up facts and spread completely unfounded misinformation that is demonstrably contrary to what evidence suggests. That's 3/4 of the criteria right then and there. [0] To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Now what you need to do is show damages. Lost your job? Deplatformed or demonetized? Vendors, partners, or clients cut ties? Victim of harassment (online or otherwise)? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        You haven't demonstrated negligence. Nor did you demonstrate that the statement was made seriously. Elon musk called someone a "pedo guy" because he moved to Thailand, and was found to be fine because a reasonable person wouldn't take the statement seriously. Threading the needle between protected hyperbole and protected good faith mistakes is practically speaking not feasible. Negligence is a higher standard than what you seem to believe. Keep in mind, making an accusation not totally supported by evidence is not defamation. In the US, it falls on the defamed to both prove that the accusation is false and prove that the accuser knew it was false. Not that they had doubts or uncertainty, but that they knowingly lied. Making an ultimately incorrect acusation based on incomplete evidence isn't legally negligent.
        Proziam 6y ago
        [0]Negligence is "a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances." Essentially, it comes down to what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would probably not invent claims without evidence. Let's take the Kyle Rittenhouse case as the example since it's so recent and visible. The Twitter mob openly calls this individual a murderer, white supremacist, and terrorist, among other things. They also invent and distribute "facts" which are material to the case such as where the individual got the AR-15 used during the event, and the circumstances surrounding its use. [1]Significant effort is undertaken to obfuscate the truth through the editing of video footage and censoring of contrary opinions. > Elon musk called someone a "pedo guy" because he moved to Thailand, and was found to be fine because a reasonable person wouldn't take the statement seriously. This is clearly not the case when dealing with situations like the above, and many others which lead to individuals being deplatformed, harassed, or physically threatened, or even attacked. There can be no doubt that claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry are taken seriously by all the major platforms and society as a whole. It is common knowledge that such claims cause harm. A reasonable person would not make damaging claims without any supporting evidence, manufacture fake evidence, or aid in the distribution of either. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence [1] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-a-mass-murder-wont-allow-posts-in-support/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-...
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      A very focused rider required on contracts that employment can't be terminated due to political speech outside of work hours. Make that one of a small handful of similar riders required by companies to hire 'union' members and I think you'd end up with a LOT of people joining that union. It would remove a lot of leverage of the twitter mobs if they know ahead of time the target is protected.
      - krapp 6y ago
        Define "political speech," bearing in mind that everything that can be proven not to be "political speech" under that definition is implicitly fair game as grounds for termination in this case.

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

by umvi 6y ago

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

krapp 6y ago

Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate with someone's potential employer and argue that they should not be hired. If literally every employer decides not to hire someone based solely on what that mob says, then (notwithstanding how ridiculous that scenario would be in real life) that's possibly a labor rights issue more than a free speech issue.

mrkstu 6y ago
And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
- Proziam 6y ago
  I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    "things you think are false" and "libelous" are, in the US, vastly different standards.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      I'm familiar with the standards and I stand by my assessment with full confidence. Twitter mobs routinely make up facts and spread completely unfounded misinformation that is demonstrably contrary to what evidence suggests. That's 3/4 of the criteria right then and there. [0] To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Now what you need to do is show damages. Lost your job? Deplatformed or demonetized? Vendors, partners, or clients cut ties? Victim of harassment (online or otherwise)? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        You haven't demonstrated negligence. Nor did you demonstrate that the statement was made seriously. Elon musk called someone a "pedo guy" because he moved to Thailand, and was found to be fine because a reasonable person wouldn't take the statement seriously. Threading the needle between protected hyperbole and protected good faith mistakes is practically speaking not feasible. Negligence is a higher standard than what you seem to believe. Keep in mind, making an accusation not totally supported by evidence is not defamation. In the US, it falls on the defamed to both prove that the accusation is false and prove that the accuser knew it was false. Not that they had doubts or uncertainty, but that they knowingly lied. Making an ultimately incorrect acusation based on incomplete evidence isn't legally negligent.
        Proziam 6y ago
        [0]Negligence is "a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances." Essentially, it comes down to what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would probably not invent claims without evidence. Let's take the Kyle Rittenhouse case as the example since it's so recent and visible. The Twitter mob openly calls this individual a murderer, white supremacist, and terrorist, among other things. They also invent and distribute "facts" which are material to the case such as where the individual got the AR-15 used during the event, and the circumstances surrounding its use. [1]Significant effort is undertaken to obfuscate the truth through the editing of video footage and censoring of contrary opinions. > Elon musk called someone a "pedo guy" because he moved to Thailand, and was found to be fine because a reasonable person wouldn't take the statement seriously. This is clearly not the case when dealing with situations like the above, and many others which lead to individuals being deplatformed, harassed, or physically threatened, or even attacked. There can be no doubt that claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry are taken seriously by all the major platforms and society as a whole. It is common knowledge that such claims cause harm. A reasonable person would not make damaging claims without any supporting evidence, manufacture fake evidence, or aid in the distribution of either. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence [1] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-a-mass-murder-wont-allow-posts-in-support/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-...
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    A very focused rider required on contracts that employment can't be terminated due to political speech outside of work hours. Make that one of a small handful of similar riders required by companies to hire 'union' members and I think you'd end up with a LOT of people joining that union. It would remove a lot of leverage of the twitter mobs if they know ahead of time the target is protected.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Define "political speech," bearing in mind that everything that can be proven not to be "political speech" under that definition is implicitly fair game as grounds for termination in this case.