4 ms·

> The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what

> The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what we're doing fundamentally different. It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal; the latter is the fundamental right of every person to decide who they associate with.

lmm 3y ago
> It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal; the latter is the fundamental right of every person to decide who they associate with. "Illegal" is just a word; if the village locks you in a cage, or hangs you, it doesn't make any real difference whether they signed some pretty documents first or not. And if rather than hanging you they "exercise their fundamental right to decide who they associate with" and refuse to sell you food, or allow you to forage on their land, well, you end up just as dead. Extreme example obviously, but that's the direction we're heading in. We already recognise that enough individuals choosing not to associate with someone adds up to a denial of that person's rights, otherwise we would never have antidiscrimination laws.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > Extreme example obviously, but that's the direction we're heading in. It's really not. There's no slippery slope here; the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. We can, in fact, draw a line between "refuse to do business with someone" and "let someone end up dead", and say that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter is not. This is not an argument against freedom of association. > We already recognise that enough individuals choosing not to associate with someone adds up to a denial of that person's rights No, we don't. We recognize that choosing not to associate with someone because of some specific protected characteristics is discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics, and we've decided to create narrow exceptions to freedom of association to prevent discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics. There are many other characteristics for which you are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone. You are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone because they promote hatred towards others, for instance, just as you can refuse to employ someone because they can't or won't do the work you're hiring for. That doesn't mean they should starve to death or get no medical care. Everyone should have food and medical care. By all means, let's fix that in our society, and have it not be tied to employment. That would solve many problems.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > There's no slippery slope here; the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. We can, in fact, draw a line between "refuse to do business with someone" and "let someone end up dead", and say that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter is not. This is not an argument against freedom of association. You've already got plenty of documented cases of e.g. person gets fired, loses medical coverage, has to start rationing insulin, dies. So the slippery slope is real. > No, we don't. We recognize that choosing not to associate with someone because of some specific protected characteristics is discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics, and we've decided to create narrow exceptions to freedom of association to prevent discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics. Right, and the rationale for that is that discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics was so widespread that it crossed the line from freedom of association to denying people their rights. At least that's what I was told here. (Also note that many lists of specific characteristics that should be protected, e.g. in the UN declaration of human rights, explicitly include political opinions in their list alongside things like race and religion; omitting that in US law seems like a historical oversight rather than real social consensus) > That doesn't mean they should starve to death or get no medical care. Everyone should have food and medical care. By all means, let's fix that in our society, and have it not be tied to employment. That would solve many problems. If and when you've fixed that, that will be a good argument for at-will firing. But until then it isn't.

lmm 3y ago

> It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal; the latter is the fundamental right of every person to decide who they associate with. "Illegal" is just a word; if the village locks you in a cage, or hangs you, it doesn't make any real difference whether they signed some pretty documents first or not. And if rather than hanging you they "exercise their fundamental right to decide who they associate with" and refuse to sell you food, or allow you to forage on their land, well, you end up just as dead. Extreme example obviously, but that's the direction we're heading in. We already recognise that enough individuals choosing not to associate with someone adds up to a denial of that person's rights, otherwise we would never have antidiscrimination laws.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Extreme example obviously, but that's the direction we're heading in. It's really not. There's no slippery slope here; the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. We can, in fact, draw a line between "refuse to do business with someone" and "let someone end up dead", and say that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter is not. This is not an argument against freedom of association. > We already recognise that enough individuals choosing not to associate with someone adds up to a denial of that person's rights No, we don't. We recognize that choosing not to associate with someone because of some specific protected characteristics is discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics, and we've decided to create narrow exceptions to freedom of association to prevent discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics. There are many other characteristics for which you are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone. You are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone because they promote hatred towards others, for instance, just as you can refuse to employ someone because they can't or won't do the work you're hiring for. That doesn't mean they should starve to death or get no medical care. Everyone should have food and medical care. By all means, let's fix that in our society, and have it not be tied to employment. That would solve many problems.
- lmm 3y ago
  > There's no slippery slope here; the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. We can, in fact, draw a line between "refuse to do business with someone" and "let someone end up dead", and say that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter is not. This is not an argument against freedom of association. You've already got plenty of documented cases of e.g. person gets fired, loses medical coverage, has to start rationing insulin, dies. So the slippery slope is real. > No, we don't. We recognize that choosing not to associate with someone because of some specific protected characteristics is discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics, and we've decided to create narrow exceptions to freedom of association to prevent discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics. Right, and the rationale for that is that discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics was so widespread that it crossed the line from freedom of association to denying people their rights. At least that's what I was told here. (Also note that many lists of specific characteristics that should be protected, e.g. in the UN declaration of human rights, explicitly include political opinions in their list alongside things like race and religion; omitting that in US law seems like a historical oversight rather than real social consensus) > That doesn't mean they should starve to death or get no medical care. Everyone should have food and medical care. By all means, let's fix that in our society, and have it not be tied to employment. That would solve many problems. If and when you've fixed that, that will be a good argument for at-will firing. But until then it isn't.