7 ms·

Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. Most importantly, accusations of bias are also not a valid reason to

Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. Most importantly, accusations of bias are also not a valid reason to fire a journalist. There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful. Of course, America has the coercive institution of at-will employment, ruining any attempt at fixing it this way. A good step would be filling class action defamation suit against a class running a smear campaign over barely public and irrelevant things. Consequences for setting up mobs. While platform is not liable, the users are. That could make some people think twice before doing it.

dTal 5y ago
You're going to sue me for running, in my head, the program "if misbehave, then boycott"? Because that's all it takes to be a member of a "mob". Or you're going to sue me for passing on information of <misbehavior>, even if it's true, because you're afraid of being cancelled? That's a fairly horrifying dystopia you're painting. Nobody has to incite a mob. It just happens. It's collective action. There's no one to sue, unless you feel like suing everyone.
- JackMorgan 5y ago
  I was discussing an individual being attacked for personal thoughts posted in the past. If a company supports things you don't, sure, just don't support that company. But when a group tries to get a person fired for something unpopular that they said in the past, then using a mob to get them fired is vigilante justice.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    But a group trying to get someone fired for what they did or said in the past is the individuals in the group exercising their own protected political speech. It's difficult to see how that can be made illegal without curtailing political speech itself.
    - jimmydorry 5y ago
      It is indeed difficult to see how cancelling can be made illegal without curtailing political speech itself. If there was an easy solution though, it would probably already be in place.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      If firing for speech is made illegal, then a boycott will be ineffectual and thus not happen. You don't have to outlaw the speech of the mob, just the ability for a company to fire someone over someone's past statements.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        The effectiveness of the boycott is a function of relative power levels, not whether the corporation can take action to adjust the issue. If it's made illegal to fire people for speech, I doubt people would have any qualms (assuming they have the purchasing power and scale) with driving the corporation to bankruptcy. Another corporation will take its place.
        AstralStorm 5y ago
        It's very hard to boycott a company into bankruptcy this way, and it never worked. Maybe a tiny startup, by scaring off backers. It's much easier to scare their PR HR to fire a person or do superficial changes. Companies have more power than a random employee, unless we're talking CEO level.
        hackinthebochs 5y ago
        The point isn't the power over the corporation, the point is the power over the individual. But if the law makes it so they have no power over the individual, the motive to boycott won't exist.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts. This is the only thing giving "cancellation" any teeth - otherwise, how could a mob "get someone fired"? Why would any company bow?
    - Udik 5y ago
      > Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts... Otherwise why would any company bow? Because firing someone is cheap. It's not "damage control", it's virtue signalling, as costly as it is for others to express their outrage on twitter.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
ashtonkem 5y ago
> Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up. > There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful So you would use the power of the state to suppress speech in the name of free speech? I don’t think you’ve thought through the long term consequences of this.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > any other requirements are purely made up. Protection from the government punishing you over political speech is "purely made up" as well. All laws in all countries are "purely made up", humans made them so.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    It’s fairly obvious from the context that we’re talking about the American tradition of free speech, and the jurisprudence around it. So in this case “made up” means “there is no case law to support your assertion about how the principle of free speech should work in American law”. I find an attempt to assert that all laws are made up kind of lazy side stepping of bother the issue at hand and kind of annoying. Furthermore, even if one just decides to YOLO a few centuries of American jurisprudence on the matter, one will quickly find oneself either advocating for authoritarianism, or recreating our existing speech system from scratch. Those are the only two logical outcomes that can come from an assertion that one parties speech should be suppressed in order to “protect” (promote, imho) the speech of another group.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > It’s fairly obvious But why? Do people from other countries deserve to have their digital pasts weaponized? That was absolutely not obvious to me.
      - 5y ago

dTal 5y ago

You're going to sue me for running, in my head, the program "if misbehave, then boycott"? Because that's all it takes to be a member of a "mob". Or you're going to sue me for passing on information of <misbehavior>, even if it's true, because you're afraid of being cancelled? That's a fairly horrifying dystopia you're painting. Nobody has to incite a mob. It just happens. It's collective action. There's no one to sue, unless you feel like suing everyone.

JackMorgan 5y ago
I was discussing an individual being attacked for personal thoughts posted in the past. If a company supports things you don't, sure, just don't support that company. But when a group tries to get a person fired for something unpopular that they said in the past, then using a mob to get them fired is vigilante justice.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  But a group trying to get someone fired for what they did or said in the past is the individuals in the group exercising their own protected political speech. It's difficult to see how that can be made illegal without curtailing political speech itself.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    It is indeed difficult to see how cancelling can be made illegal without curtailing political speech itself. If there was an easy solution though, it would probably already be in place.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    If firing for speech is made illegal, then a boycott will be ineffectual and thus not happen. You don't have to outlaw the speech of the mob, just the ability for a company to fire someone over someone's past statements.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      The effectiveness of the boycott is a function of relative power levels, not whether the corporation can take action to adjust the issue. If it's made illegal to fire people for speech, I doubt people would have any qualms (assuming they have the purchasing power and scale) with driving the corporation to bankruptcy. Another corporation will take its place.
      - AstralStorm 5y ago
        It's very hard to boycott a company into bankruptcy this way, and it never worked. Maybe a tiny startup, by scaring off backers. It's much easier to scare their PR HR to fire a person or do superficial changes. Companies have more power than a random employee, unless we're talking CEO level.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        The point isn't the power over the corporation, the point is the power over the individual. But if the law makes it so they have no power over the individual, the motive to boycott won't exist.
- dTal 5y ago
  Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts. This is the only thing giving "cancellation" any teeth - otherwise, how could a mob "get someone fired"? Why would any company bow?
  - Udik 5y ago
    > Companies fire such people pre-emptively, out of fear of such boycotts... Otherwise why would any company bow? Because firing someone is cheap. It's not "damage control", it's virtue signalling, as costly as it is for others to express their outrage on twitter.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Political speech, in particular, is supposed to be protected from this kind of treatment. No, it is not. It is supposed to be protected from the government punishing you over it, any other requirements are purely made up. > There's also an intermingling of private and public sphere, and firing someone for private legal behavior because some internet hive mind started a smear campaign also should not be lawful So you would use the power of the state to suppress speech in the name of free speech? I don’t think you’ve thought through the long term consequences of this.

jhgb 5y ago
> any other requirements are purely made up. Protection from the government punishing you over political speech is "purely made up" as well. All laws in all countries are "purely made up", humans made them so.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  It’s fairly obvious from the context that we’re talking about the American tradition of free speech, and the jurisprudence around it. So in this case “made up” means “there is no case law to support your assertion about how the principle of free speech should work in American law”. I find an attempt to assert that all laws are made up kind of lazy side stepping of bother the issue at hand and kind of annoying. Furthermore, even if one just decides to YOLO a few centuries of American jurisprudence on the matter, one will quickly find oneself either advocating for authoritarianism, or recreating our existing speech system from scratch. Those are the only two logical outcomes that can come from an assertion that one parties speech should be suppressed in order to “protect” (promote, imho) the speech of another group.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > It’s fairly obvious But why? Do people from other countries deserve to have their digital pasts weaponized? That was absolutely not obvious to me.
    - 5y ago