7 ms·
FTA: >"There are all sorts of contract terms that a jury is required to interpret: 'don't be evil' is not so 'out there' as to be unenforceable," she said. "Si
by NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
FTA:
>"There are all sorts of contract terms that a jury is required to interpret: 'don't be evil' is not so 'out there' as to be unenforceable," she said. "Since Google's contract tells employees that they can be fired for failing to abide by the motto, 'don't be evil,' it must have meaning."
- thaumasiotes 5y agoThat doesn't mean that the meaning can be determined by a court. It can't.
- realce 5y agoAt the very least, certain definitions have been ratified by Google if they've fired anyone for "being evil" - have they?
- AlbertCory 5y agoI can't say for sure, but I would doubt it. They tend to have some other official "cause."
- webkike 5y agoI’d argue that’s the entire point of courts…
- criddell 5y agoSure it can.
- sophacles 5y agoYou keep asserting this, but I remain unconvinced. Can you expand your "argument" from "It can't" to something a little less vague?
- thaumasiotes 5y agoThe US government is prohibited from taking a position on religious questions. The nature of evil is such a question. The government frequently declares that something is "bad", but it is not able to declare that something is "evil".
- sophacles 5y agoYou're silly.
- mewse 5y agoAh yes, for example the “Axis of Bad” [0] that then-President George W Bush famously named shortly after 9/11. Yes, that prohibition on the Government declaring things to be ‘evil’ is absolutely a real thing that exists in the real world in which we all live. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil
- Eelongate 5y agoDetermining what is evil is not the exclusive privilege of religion.
- gretch 5y agoNot the original poster but I think they mean that the point of the law is to approximate morality and have it consistent across society. If a court could look at a situation and determine that it is evil, then what is the point of determining whether it is legal or not? What if you came to the conclusion that something is illegal but not evil or evil but not legal? You pretty much undermine the construct of law in the first place and the existence of the court itself
- mckeed 5y agoThe court doesn't need to determine what it means in an absolute sense, just what Google meant by it (or could reasonably have been presumed to) when they put it in the employment contract.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI'm not trying to sound glib, but a court can 'determine' just about anything. Whether or not the ruling continues to stand in light of appeals and other court rulings is another matter. There are all sorts of seemingly bizarre rulings, like a house being declared "legally haunted". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley
- ransom1538 5y agoStep 1. Hire thousands of social justice warriors. Step 2. Deal with thousands of internal lawsuits related to "social justice" and internal squabbling.
- Eelongate 5y agoEncouraging your employees to be political activists at work, regardless of affiliation, seems firmly in 'stupid games; stupid prizes' territory. I don't think that applies just to progressive activism.
- sigzero 5y agoYeah, it pretty much IS unenforceable.