3 ms·
I agree, but I'd also like to add a more specific cause to this idea. Like you say, technical measures aren't a bad idea either, but only drag things on. My po
by rlpb 13y ago
I agree, but I'd also like to add a more specific cause to this idea. Like you say, technical measures aren't a bad idea either, but only drag things on.
My political view is this: both the right to communicate and the privacy of communications need to be treated as a fundamental human rights, just as freedom of speech is currently treated.
Then there are subjective measures. Breaching these rights may be warranted in certain specific situations (just as free speech is), but the current processes don't seem to go far enough to protect us. Even freedom of speech seems to have been curtailed too far in recent years. We need to have the political will to push back on this. But this can only happen if, first, we add freedom of communications and privacy of communications to our list of fundamental human rights.
- walshemj 13y agobut in the us freedom of speech is not universally applied ie you employer can sack you for what you say for example "oh maybe we should organize a union" or maybe "the NHS model is a good idea" Any changes need to apply universally and not just to the government.
- rlpb 13y agoI don't think this matters. Since I'm advocating privacy of communications, you could arrange to use trusted third parties and encryption such that others would not know what you've been saying, or with whom you've been communicating. It's perfectly reasonable for an employer to monitor communications while on their premises, and it is generally illegal for them to wiretap your home without you knowing about it.
- lmickh 13y agoThat is pretty much the definition of freedom of speech universally applied. You are free to say what you want and your employer is free to say things like "you're fired." Freedom of speech != speech without consequence.
- walshemj 13y agoYou would be fine with the Government throwing you in jail for what you said then. By that argument the Weiße Rose in ww2 Germany had free speech but they still got beheaded for it. the UNHC defination is "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Note the "without interference"!
- lmickh 13y agoYou couldn't have setup a worse strawman. Congrats for making the jump straight from employee/employer relations to Nazis. Governments throwing you in jail, intimidating you, or out right killing you all disrupt your right to free speech. An employer exercising his free speech by firing you in no way prohibits your free speech. You can still tell everyone you want that you should form a union. No one is interfering to keep you from doing so. Please tell me you don't actually equate those two scenarios. consequences != interferences
- walshemj 13y agoFiring you for free speech is a serious chilling effect NO? did you not read the "Without Interference" part of article 19 Another example is the Chinese allowed protestors against the Olympics in special zones - they of course arrested them after - that is not free speech. Possibly you ought to update the constitution in line with the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights like most of the first world countrys have.
- mpyne 13y agoIt's funny you should mention the Nazis... have you ever tried to deny the Holocaust in Germany? Maybe publish anything glorifying the Nazi Party? If so, how did the German Government treat you?
- forgottenpaswrd 13y agoBut if your employer says "You are fired" he will need someone to replace you. Most people don't know that in some jobs it takes half a year or an entire year of salary to train someone new to their new job until they start being productive to the company. It is also something employers do not love to do, firing people is hard emotionally. Most of them are not sociopaths. How do I know? I had been and I am "employer" myself.