3 ms·

Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been

by krapp 3y ago

Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo. Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest. [0]https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-legacy-racism-birmingham-opinion-carroll/ https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-leg...

fargle 3y ago
sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing. in this case they were: - not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people. - in a private space. in a private office in a private space. - in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them. i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees. would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.
xcv123 3y ago
Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous. Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees. If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.

by krapp 3y ago

fargle 3y ago

sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing. in this case they were: - not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people. - in a private space. in a private office in a private space. - in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them. i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees. would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.

xcv123 3y ago

Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous. Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees. If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.