4 ms·

There's this odd idea in the discourse that protest is supposed to be convenient to everyone, particularly the decision makers that the protest is meant to infl

There's this odd idea in the discourse that protest is supposed to be convenient to everyone, particularly the decision makers that the protest is meant to influence. You see this in the "free speech zones" and other nonsense. But it's also just simply obvious and freely admitted. They were protesting inside Google buildings, which gives lee-way for their arrest and firing. Both sides are calculating that arrest and firing helps their cause.

paxys 3y ago
There are political protests that happen in a free democratic society and protests that happen in a multi-trillion dollar capitalist corporation. I have no idea why people think they should or will be treated the same. The Google constitution does not give employees the right to free speech or the right to stage public protests.
- rstat1 3y ago
  No but the US one does, and its the only one that matters in this particular case.
  - scheme271 3y ago
    The US constitution applies to the US government. For a while, there were questions as to which parts and how much of it applied to state governments. The constitution doesn't really apply to private individuals and organizations, which is why a company can do things like ban neo-nazis from their platforms.
    - coredog64 3y ago
      While it’s technically correct that the First Amendment only applies to the US government, it is also true that Americans are (or were) understood to have broad free speech rights that included all facets of life. Were that not the case, the Hollywood blacklisting of known or suspected Communists would be a nothing-burger and not a cause célèbre.
      - otterley 3y ago
        Nobody at the time called Hollywood blacklisting a First Amendment violation. In fact, the First Amendment offered pretty weak protections for content once deemed pretty subversive, yet considered banal today, until the 1969 Brandenberg Supreme Court decision. For example, in the 1920s you could be criminally prosecuted for openly sympathizing with the Communist party and that was deemed just fine. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). It shouldn’t be lost on anyone knowledgeable of legal history that every conservative who relies on modern “free speech” principles to insulate themselves from liability for disseminating bullshit to achieve their political gains has a “liberal activist court” to thank for the privilege.
- ambrozk 3y ago
  This is textbook civil disobedience. They believed they could not quietly aid an ongoing injustice, so they loudly protested in the full knowledge they would be punished. This is how protest is supposed to work.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

paxys 3y ago

There are political protests that happen in a free democratic society and protests that happen in a multi-trillion dollar capitalist corporation. I have no idea why people think they should or will be treated the same. The Google constitution does not give employees the right to free speech or the right to stage public protests.

rstat1 3y ago
No but the US one does, and its the only one that matters in this particular case.
- scheme271 3y ago
  The US constitution applies to the US government. For a while, there were questions as to which parts and how much of it applied to state governments. The constitution doesn't really apply to private individuals and organizations, which is why a company can do things like ban neo-nazis from their platforms.
  - coredog64 3y ago
    While it’s technically correct that the First Amendment only applies to the US government, it is also true that Americans are (or were) understood to have broad free speech rights that included all facets of life. Were that not the case, the Hollywood blacklisting of known or suspected Communists would be a nothing-burger and not a cause célèbre.
    - otterley 3y ago
      Nobody at the time called Hollywood blacklisting a First Amendment violation. In fact, the First Amendment offered pretty weak protections for content once deemed pretty subversive, yet considered banal today, until the 1969 Brandenberg Supreme Court decision. For example, in the 1920s you could be criminally prosecuted for openly sympathizing with the Communist party and that was deemed just fine. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). It shouldn’t be lost on anyone knowledgeable of legal history that every conservative who relies on modern “free speech” principles to insulate themselves from liability for disseminating bullshit to achieve their political gains has a “liberal activist court” to thank for the privilege.
ambrozk 3y ago
This is textbook civil disobedience. They believed they could not quietly aid an ongoing injustice, so they loudly protested in the full knowledge they would be punished. This is how protest is supposed to work.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]