4 ms·

How many years before we realise that denying the holocaust wasn't wrong? The problem with being fired isn't because of views then, you'd think people with vie

by mavhc 5y ago

How many years before we realise that denying the holocaust wasn't wrong? The problem with being fired isn't because of views then, you'd think people with views that would get them fired would be working to get those laws changed.

PeterisP 5y ago
My position is that the society should decide if something (e.g. denying the holocaust) is punishable. If it is, then we should implement laws against it (as e.g. Germany has done) and punish people for it after establishing their guilt with due process and with the level of the punishment we collectively have decided. And if it is not, well, then people shouldn't be punished until the laws do get changed. I.e. I'm think that making someone unemployable or outcast as a harsh (and perhaps even "cruel and unusual") punishment which should happen only for things the society has explicitly forbidden, and after we have properly established that the accused is actually guilty. Obviously, it's not the situation right now in USA (at least not in the at-will states), where employers have a wide (IMHO too wide) discretion of what they will tolerate for non-job-related acts of employees after work; some will fire antivaxxers, some will fire pro-vaxxers; some will fire holocaust deniers; some will fire people for having an OnlyFans account; etc. (and, crucially, they'll fire them for assuming they are like this, which won't always be true). IMHO this discretion needs to stop, as it the case in some countries with different employment laws. And if we do want to have a harsher treatment for some of those things (e.g. holocaust denial is a good example) than for others, then that distinction should be decided in laws by the whole society, not unilaterally by company owners.
- mavhc 5y ago
  Laws follow public opinion though. The flaw is not the lack of laws about what's punishable, it's the lack of a law to require a standard before firing someone. What if we ask all the other people who work with that people, if they're fine working with a racist, or a plague spreader?

by mavhc 5y ago

PeterisP 5y ago

My position is that the society should decide if something (e.g. denying the holocaust) is punishable. If it is, then we should implement laws against it (as e.g. Germany has done) and punish people for it after establishing their guilt with due process and with the level of the punishment we collectively have decided. And if it is not, well, then people shouldn't be punished until the laws do get changed. I.e. I'm think that making someone unemployable or outcast as a harsh (and perhaps even "cruel and unusual") punishment which should happen only for things the society has explicitly forbidden, and after we have properly established that the accused is actually guilty. Obviously, it's not the situation right now in USA (at least not in the at-will states), where employers have a wide (IMHO too wide) discretion of what they will tolerate for non-job-related acts of employees after work; some will fire antivaxxers, some will fire pro-vaxxers; some will fire holocaust deniers; some will fire people for having an OnlyFans account; etc. (and, crucially, they'll fire them for assuming they are like this, which won't always be true). IMHO this discretion needs to stop, as it the case in some countries with different employment laws. And if we do want to have a harsher treatment for some of those things (e.g. holocaust denial is a good example) than for others, then that distinction should be decided in laws by the whole society, not unilaterally by company owners.

mavhc 5y ago
Laws follow public opinion though. The flaw is not the lack of laws about what's punishable, it's the lack of a law to require a standard before firing someone. What if we ask all the other people who work with that people, if they're fine working with a racist, or a plague spreader?