Free speech and thinking or selective "sensivity"?

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Alan Aspie, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    I don't think you mean this. If an employee at a minor hockey association is a NAMBLA member and loudly trumpets the benefits of man-boy love, and you have a kid who wants to play hockey, you wouldn't contact the association and say you can't sign your kid up as long as someone who advocates man-boy love is employed there? That would seem cruelly disproportionate?

    I don't think so. So I expect you're padding the balance sheet in the other direction, when you're thinking of examples, making the original speech not so ugly and not so connected to the employment.

    There are loads of factors to consider... way too many for absolutes to work.

    Separate them, sure. But when they come into conflict, who wins?
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  2. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    Because it's an attack on a person's livelihood, which I think should qualify as disproportionate punishment for simply having an opinion or belief you don't like.

    I think *you* are getting freedom of speech confused. Attacking a person's livelihood by getting them fired is not the same as simply being able to say you disagree with their political opinion. Having a conversation, having a dialogue or debate, is what freedom of speech means to me. What you're describing shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech, and isn't the same as boycotting at all. Otherwise how is what you're describing any different from making any other threats, one of the main categories freedom of speech explicitly does not cover?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 12:05 AM
  3. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    That would have nothing to do with his right to say it. That would have to do with a concern for my son's safety, and the fact that this NAMBLA member may commit a crime (I don't know much about NAMBLA or *exactly* what they advocate, for the record). He has the right to say what he wants to say though, assuming it isn't a threat or call to violence. If he threatened my child I would report that incident to his manager.

    Plus, again, I think you're conflating boycotting ("I won't give my money to this association, and instead I'll go to a different one") with "This person needs to be fired". It's possible to boycott without targeting an individual with an ultimatum.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 12:09 AM
  4. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    911
    Location:
    London
    But - to use your earlier example - if you're saying to someone who's gender-fluid that there are only two genders, they don't see that as you disagreeing with their political opinion. They see it as you disagreeing with their right to exist.
     
    BayView likes this.
  5. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    Yes. He has the right to say it. I'm really not talking about rights. I'm talking about proportionate responses.

    So you would refuse to do business with the organization, but you wouldn't tell them why? You wouldn't take steps to ensure that this person didn't come into contact with other people's children? Well, to quote you from page one, "Such lazy complacency won't cut it for me."
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  6. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    And they can go on existing and pretend they're not one of the two genders.
     
  7. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    Freedom of speech does not cover violence. You're trying to expand that exception in a way that the law does not support. And I don't think you've thought through the immense consequences of what you're proposing.
     
  8. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    ...no, I think the point here is that YOU would have no right to call for him to be fired. Because that element of your freedom of speech has been eliminated, at your request.
     
  9. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    Correct. Unless this person actually did something that I believe needs to be reported, whether that be to their manager, the police, or both, I would simply take my business elsewhere. If I was ever asked, I would explain why.

    But just because he's a member of NAMBLA doesn't mean he's actually going to commit a crime. I'd be concerned about the potential, but that potential is not enough for me to justify launching a crusade to have him fired.
     
  10. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    And when your insistence that they are one of two genders causes substantial problems for them in their lives, then your right to say that will be taken away, if we follow the precedent of what you yourself are requesting.

    You are trying to outlaw speech that causes substantial harm to others. That's going to come back and bite you.
     
  11. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    Okay. I don't share your complacency about the potential for child abuse, but I accept that you have the right to make this decision about your own behaviour.

    And I respect other people's rights to make different decisions about their behaviour. It's all about freedom, right?
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  12. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't see it as my right to fire him, since he doesn't work for me. And as you suggested with the "protected class" route, the employer theoretically wouldn't be able to fire an employee over something they said outside and unrelated to work.
     
  13. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    911
    Location:
    London
    And you don't care that people have suffered harm because people like you have said stuff like that? But you do care that one day you might lose your job because you've hurt someone in that way? Is that where the line's drawn?
     
    ChickenFreak and BayView like this.
  14. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    Who said you had a right to fire him? You have a right to express--free speech--your desire that he be fired.
     
    BayView likes this.
  15. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    You can identify as whatever you want, and I can choose whether or not to recognize that.

    The context for this is slightly different because it goes into the realm of science, and science has not reached a definite consensus on gender, contrary to the popular belief of left and right wing ideologues.
     
  16. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    But I don't think he should be fired for being a member of NAMBLA, and expressing an opinion.
     
  17. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    That's a disagreement between you and the guy's boss. But it's the boss's ultimate decision, right? Under the current system?
     
  18. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    Right, which is why I agreed that the best compromise here is Chicken's suggestion, that there simply be a protection for speech made outside and unrelated to one's place of employment. Because I can't force people to abide by my personal way of living, but I do see this as being a legitimate problem.

    There have been numerous cases in the gaming industry where developers who interact with the community on their Facebook or Twitter have had to remove their place of employment from their profiles, or (perhaps preferably) add a disclaimer that the opinions they share are not condoned or reflected by the company. So in other words, if you don't take one of these steps, you need to act like you're "in uniform" so to speak, representing the company.

    This gets messier when you start talking about how these developers treat the fans on their social media, as opposed to the opinions they share, say, about politics or religion.
     
  19. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    So in order to protect the freedom of the employee, you'd infringe on the freedom of the employer.
     
  20. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    If the point you're making is that sometimes somebody's freedom has to be infringed, you succeeded. But you didn't change my mind.
     
  21. Alan Aspie

    Alan Aspie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    515
    If a company seeks for public funding in stock markets, it is not private in a meaning of privately owned. It's publicly owned and under laws and regulations which tell what it can and can't do.

    Publicly owned company has a duty to earn money to it's stock owners - all of them. If it tells big customer segments to fuck off it forgets it's legal duty.

    No it is not.

    Publicly owned companies being well regulated and seeking financial good for all their stock owners is capitalism.
     
  22. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    911
    Location:
    London
    For one thing, targeting niches rather than the general market is often more profitable. That wouldn't necessarily be the case here but you could definitely make a business argument for it. I still maintain a conservative-only version of Facebook would be a gold mine.

    For another thing, they wouldn't be telling big customer segments to fuck off. Their customers are the people who buy the ads. The people they'd be telling to fuck off in this hypothetical are more akin to a product they've decided to discontinue because they felt it did more harm than good.

    And for a final thing, it's all academic anyhow because despite Foxxx's feelings of oppression, it is a hypothetical. None of these platforms are throwing people out just for being conservative. They're throwing people out for being hateful rabble-rousers. Moose posted a load of links further up the thread that show left-wingers get banned too.
     
    BayView likes this.
  23. big soft moose

    big soft moose All killer, no filler. Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    10,264
    Likes Received:
    11,298
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    Indeed and before foxx says that these are leftwing propaganda one of the links is from breitbart
     

Share This Page