4 ms·

If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day

If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Once you believe that then really all we are doing is haggling about where the line should be… which is something we’ve been doing for generations. Even if we’re not talking about official action and are talking about group vigilantism, I think we’d agree that if someone had well documented nazi and racist activities outside of work that it would be ok for people to ostracize that person? That just leads back to haggling about boundaries and that’s very hard to sort out without being very specific.

lmm 3y ago
> If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. Plenty of respected countries with strong civil liberties don't have US-style free speech laws. Holocaust denial in Germany is a crime, but you'll absolutely get full due process first. > I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Merely ten or twenty years ago it would've been very mainstream to say that people have every right to be as cruel or mean as they like as long as they don't cross from word to action, and that while private individuals might well shun someone who was known to be cruel and mean in their private capacity, it would be a bizarre overreach for an employer to fire them because they were cruel and mean off the clock, or a business to refuse to serve them because they were cruel and mean outside of their relations with that business. > Even if we’re not talking about official action and are talking about group vigilantism, I think we’d agree that if someone had well documented nazi and racist activities outside of work that it would be ok for people to ostracize that person? I think it's obviously ok for people to not want to be friends with a person like that, and to not allow them in their social clubs. Equally I think it would obviously not be ok to lock them up, confiscate their property, or deny them medical treatment - certainly not without full due process, and even then, political opinions (again, as long as they remain opinion and don't pass from speech to act) are something explicitly recognised as a human right in the UN charter. In a country with a strong social safety net, refusing to employ someone doesn't come close to any of that - but in a country where no job means no medical coverage and a real risk of losing access to food and shelter...
carlosjobim 3y ago
> I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. A real-life and current example I know of is a person who was fired from a HVAC-type job (fixing stuff outdoors) in retaliation for becoming politically active and running for office locally. I don't consider that a symptom of a healthy economy. In a healthy economy, you wouldn't be able to spare these kind of workers as a business. Note that this person's political platform was in no way agitating against his employer or against the interest of his employer.

lmm 3y ago

> If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. Plenty of respected countries with strong civil liberties don't have US-style free speech laws. Holocaust denial in Germany is a crime, but you'll absolutely get full due process first. > I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Merely ten or twenty years ago it would've been very mainstream to say that people have every right to be as cruel or mean as they like as long as they don't cross from word to action, and that while private individuals might well shun someone who was known to be cruel and mean in their private capacity, it would be a bizarre overreach for an employer to fire them because they were cruel and mean off the clock, or a business to refuse to serve them because they were cruel and mean outside of their relations with that business. > Even if we’re not talking about official action and are talking about group vigilantism, I think we’d agree that if someone had well documented nazi and racist activities outside of work that it would be ok for people to ostracize that person? I think it's obviously ok for people to not want to be friends with a person like that, and to not allow them in their social clubs. Equally I think it would obviously not be ok to lock them up, confiscate their property, or deny them medical treatment - certainly not without full due process, and even then, political opinions (again, as long as they remain opinion and don't pass from speech to act) are something explicitly recognised as a human right in the UN charter. In a country with a strong social safety net, refusing to employ someone doesn't come close to any of that - but in a country where no job means no medical coverage and a real risk of losing access to food and shelter...

carlosjobim 3y ago

> I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. A real-life and current example I know of is a person who was fired from a HVAC-type job (fixing stuff outdoors) in retaliation for becoming politically active and running for office locally. I don't consider that a symptom of a healthy economy. In a healthy economy, you wouldn't be able to spare these kind of workers as a business. Note that this person's political platform was in no way agitating against his employer or against the interest of his employer.