3 ms·
That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blackl
by twoodfin 13y ago
That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it.
But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion?
I would like to say: I respect your right to not hire someone you believe to be a Communist, but I don't believe you're acting in the best interests of society as a whole when you choose to allow someone's personal political activities to inform your hiring decisions.
- nostromo 13y agoMcCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.
- bunderbunder 13y agoIn particular, it's probably no coincidence that Hollywood adopted its blacklisting policy immediately after the HUAC started going after major Hollywood figures. Congress had sent a clear message that the First Amendment did not apply to anyone who was perceived to be friends with a communist, and Hollywood responded with what was probably originally an act of self-preservation. That kind of authoritarian curtailment of freedom of expression and freedom of association is precisely why I railed against the idea of drawing any lines up above. When we start talking about drawing lines we're implicitly talking about criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It's the first well-intentioned paving stone in a road that leads directly to tyrannies such as McCarthyism.