General News The Fight for Free Speech

But thoughts do not get punished. Turning them into actions (including words), which make others feel unsafe, unwanted or poorly valued, should create negative consequences.

And Aldrick was hardly heartlessly condemning people to death; he quite clearly made room for redemption through genuine apology and remorse for one's actions.

And I very strongly object to the wanton mention of genocide when the consequences of such speech are usually targeted against neo-Nazis, slavery apologists and the like. There is no introduction of thought crime here. Nobody has actually advocated criminalisation of negative speech so far.

 

Oh my bad I didn't realize that advocating for refusing any place of work to anyone who's ever said anything racist so they cannot recieve any income, therefore not eat and ultimately starve to death slowly over time wasn't something you could call messed up. Since we don't like them, they aren't people and don't have any basic human rights, how stupid of me to forget


What is a "Genuine" apology? Who decides what is/isn't a genuine apology? Do you vote on that? If so, what percent passes verses fails? Do they apologize in general, or do they have to go through each and every instance and apologize for their words ( and indirectly their thoughts )? Again, what are the rules here?

This idea is a poorly thought out system doomed to failure, and if ever enacted would result in lots of people dying.

Also...you've still not offered me a reasonable justification for why a company couldn't fire someone for posting pro-lgbt or anti-racist posts online. If you can fire someone for a view you disagree with, than they should also have the right to fire you for yours.

 

Except that your scenario of death is not going to occur if we assume that they have the opportunity to apologise (in a way that indicates that they understand the consequences of their actions, not simply the "I apologise that I was caught out" route, which isn't actually that complicated and should allow the benefit of the doubt, so that your concerns about who is to define apologies are met) and that some sort of welfare state exists. It's really rather melodramatic of you to play that card and it entirely lacks responsive content to others' posts. Formal apologies and striving to ensure that a cooperative, safe workplace is possible are necessary and normal parts of life and needn't be criticised for censorship.

I would also like to point out the discrimination in employment faced by LGBT+ people and certain racial groups; the same discriminatory behaviour being punished is what causes people to be out of a job and without their dignity. I do not see why the discriminatory behaviour should be in any way protected when it leads to workplace cultures that exclude or refuse to hire people because of innate characteristics.

The content of any such posts should really make it self-explanatory. Is anyone devalued or made to feel unsafe, that is a clear warning sign that an employee is not suitable for working within a company that values people regardless of their inherent characteristics or culture. A post criticising racism is a far cry from sacking an LGBT+ activist for their opinions, which you should very well know.

There is no equivalence to be made here.

 

Yes I get my "death" scenario is a bit extreme, but it comes for a purpose. I don't like the idea of someone's words/thoughts being used as the basis for whether or not they are allowed to participate in society. Even if their words suck, and you hate them for them it's still their mind, their thoughts, and their choice to think and speak that way. The system you want to create is an attempt to FORCE them to give up their thoughts, and when we start building systems that try to Force and control though the countdown begins for that to spread further and further until it becomes something more akin to a totalitarian rule where you're only allowed to think/say whatever someone else is dictating for you. You cannot control this system. It cannot be controlled. You defined it as "devaule and made to feel unsafe" well what if a corrupt political system ( like the one we have ) says that being against war "Devaules our soldiers and makes them feel unsafe" and then they say it's acceptable to fire and punish people for being anti-war (unless of course they apologize genuinely for their thoughts...I mean words)? Words are easily misrepresented and misused by corrupt people in power to take something with good intentions and twist it into something bad. My problem lies more in the where it leads more than what you want to do initially.

 

If their thoughts are designed so that they damage the ability for all to feel and be safe in society, then I do not want that choice to be protected. I want that choice to be renounced when it poses danger to others.

There is always a logical discussion to be had; nobody will be thrown into prison or onto the streets simply because I say "I find this devalues me". Your example of soldiers is obviously rather impossible to reasonably support; because it could not be justified, it would invariably fall flat. On the other hand, expressing your belief that veterans should not receive housing is a very justifiable reason for sacking. As it stands, it is incredibly hard for those who are discriminated against to have justice and be given the platform to express their voice and what they need.

Those you are arguing against would only seek to introduce more balance; the status quo allows discrimination to occur without major consequence for the person responsible.

I don't see how this would spiral out of control and won't take your word for it that it would, unless external circumstances were to become so bad that this would no longer be the actual issue.

 

I'm actually pretty sure they aren't, but they wouldn't be the ones getting handed the keys to this.

That would be going to a guy who was bought and paid for by some corporation.

 

Hate? No. I don't hate them. Hatred is a negative emotion that is self-destructive, and it hurts the holder just as much as it hurts the person it is directed at--I do not engage in hate. Anger? Yes. I channel that anger in a positive way, that leads to me to take action toward fixing the problem.

Hatred would cause me to enjoy their suffering. I don't. Hatred would make it impossible for me to allow them to redeem themselves. I feel none of those things. All of the harm they suffer is self-induced as a result of their actions. If they don't like the harm that is caused, then they have the option of modifying their actions. If they refuse, then they are actively choosing the consequences. If they are making the choice to be punished rather than repent and make amends, why should I feel bad? It's their choice, not mine. You mistake this indifference as some form of hatred, and it is not.

Actions and beliefs are not unrelated. One inherently leads to another. Does it mean that the particular person being targeted will engage in a hateful action? Well, I would argue that saying something racist *IS* a hateful action, but let's be more specific. Let's say someone is staunchly anti-trans*. They have an online webpage identifying trans* people, and actively encouraging people to harass them on social media and in person. Basically, they are seeking to create a climate in which they feel unsafe. Will they themselves ever engage in violence against trans* people? I don't know. However, I do know that allowing them to continue to exist without consequences contributes to a climate in which someone might feel emboldened to take hostile action against trans* people.

These type of people help create a culture and a climate in which anti-trans* bigotry can thrive. You end that bigotry by applying pressure to them, those close to them, and those associated with them. You make the culture they seek to create unsustainable. Even if we were to fail to shut them down, we have organized, and we have perhaps frightened off others who might seek to follow in their footsteps.

There is no "thought crime" -- we have no ability to read someones mind. They have to actually in some way voice those thoughts for us to know anything about them. Voicing those thoughts requires them to take some form of action.

There is no "crime equivalent to genocide" because genocide is only equivalent to itself. It is also a crime that requires us to murder people. I do not advocate murder, because that is against the law and I would not risk one of our own being sent to prison. I do advocate for self-defense, of course, and if the attacker happens to die in the process then I am not overly concerned. My concern in such circumstances would be for the victim, if the attacker valued their life they wouldn't have attacked in the first place.

Forcing someone to change their actions does not require us to murder them. I can quite assure you, that if we ever did put someone in the position where they were literally starving to death, then they would do what is necessary to change their behavior and beliefs. They would repent and seek to make amends. I would be there welcoming them back into the fold, offering them their first taste of food and water, and then nudging them onto the proper path toward redemption.

In order for the system to work, there must be a path to find redemption. Once they've repented and are seeking to make amends, they can become useful allies to the cause, simply because they have more to prove than others. In fact, such individuals are likely to be transformed into fanatical supporters of the cause, and would champion what took place. This is no different than what happens to people who get "redeemed" after converting to Christianity or some other religion.

If I have to first break them before I can change them I'll do it every single time. There is usually no better advocate for the cause than a former enemy.

Simple Thoughts -

Your problem is that you are idealistic. You believe that we can co-exist with vile people who seek to cause us harm, ruin our lives, and even kill us. Whether or not they actually act on those beliefs is not relevant, because by accepting the premise that such beliefs can be tolerated we ALLOW for a culture and society to exist that legitimizes the very people who seek to cause us harm.

You are not looking at the big picture. You are more concerned about individuals, rather than people as a whole. I am more concerned about the society and culture in which we live--what it looks like, who it harms, who it protects, who benefits, and who loses. If you tolerate bigotry and allow it to be acceptable, you create a culture and society that is bigoted. People still get hurt, but it will not be the perpetrators of bigotry, it will be their victims.

This is why I hold the position that I do. It is to protect the innocent, who have done nothing to deserve hatred and intolerance. It is to restore balance and justice to our society and our culture. I don't deny that individuals may get hurt as a result. However, that is the inevitable result of conflict. It's like going to war and living in a delusion that your bombs are not actually going to occasionally kill innocent people who've done nothing wrong. In these types of situations, you have to determine whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits. In my mind, it is an easy choice, because the people who get targeted are individuals who have been proven to be guilty, and the damage done does not have to be permanent if they repent and seek to make amends.

As a result, I can sleep easy at night. You may disagree with the means through which the ends are accomplished, but you cannot stand before me and tell me a better way to achieve them.

 

People on here are becoming increasingly ridiculous. This approach to combating homophobia and intolerance will do nothing other than repel people from our cause because they don't want to be affiliated with far-left lunatics. It simply isn't appealing to the general public, and will never happen.

 

The notion that freedom of speech should extend to protect people from losing their jobs regardless of what they say is what's ridiculous to me. Freedom of speech was never set forth so people could say whatever they want whenever they want without any ramifications at all.

I am a business owner, I have an obligation and responsibilities to both my customers and to the hundred or so people I currently employee. This extends past homophobia, past racism and past sexism.

If someone makes an ignorant comment such as "all fat people are lazy" and does so in a manner that any single customer or any single staff member is made aware my obligation is to them and the rest of the customers/staff not to the one making the comment.

Should I immediately fire them for it? What if it's the third or fourth time a comment has been made? What about if I've previously sent them to sensitivity classes/had detailed meetings with my hr department? Should the "well it's free speech they can say whatever they want" really apply.

 

Yeah let's say you can combat freedom of speech and fire someone for it but at the same time where do you draw the line. It becomes a complicated mess and many people can be found hypocritical or biased because of it. I see taking action against freedom of speech turning into a mess of lawsuits. I mean seriously how do respect someone's ability to fire someone for something they said without thinking of the fact there maybe a political bias or even a personal bias involved.

What if someone where to have this opinion that their family, friends, coworkers all accepted and he believed it to be acceptable and gets a job in a new environment and mentions a opinion that gets some people offended and maybe even his boss and gets fired for it. Now first of all unless you truly know your boss or coworker very well i would never state my very personal beliefs unless i know they would react fine to them. But personally if any beliefs is not affecting their job performance and they are not harming anyone or their property with those beliefs they should not be fired for it.

 

That "affecting their job performance" is also murky waters in all other areas the "fat people are all lazy" person may perform their job exceptionally but their attitude and statements of such may affect the ability of those around them to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities.

If in a private conversation with me someone expresses a thought like the example I've used I'd express how ignorant it is and ask it not be shared where it could have a negative impact on the business ie co-workers, customers.

However if they stated it loudly in front of customers/co-workers or put it to social media where it's been spread around and they've also used that avenue to mention where they worked my reaction would be much different.

A teacher posts on Facebook that little Jane Smith in her fourth grade home room is "dumb and smells funny", something that gets seen by all that access her Facebook or gets shared to the point where perhaps other parents of students or even little Jane's parents see it -this is not something that freedom of speech is there to protect.

If someone uses Twitter to openly badmouth their boss or the people they work with, company they work for this again is not something freedom of speech is set to protect. That they can behave as such and still have a job.

 

Those are good points. But What if someone expressed a simple opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Not begin overtly offensive in anyway way but they simply expressed those beliefs in general on social media or at work and they get fired for it. Don't me wrong I understand that someone's opinion or beliefs can make a work environment hostile and uncomfortable but how can you argue that somebody's statement is offensive while showing there is no bias involved.

Let's say Susan wrote a post on Facebook supporting a pro-life cause and than Jim wrote a post on Facebook mocking someone who is pro-life and the boss or other co workers may of seen both of those. Now let's say the boss sees Susan's post and is deeply offended by her pro life stance but see's nothing wrong in Jim's stance. Susan gets fired for her basic right of freedom of speech while Jim does not. That is clearly biased and if it could be proven i would sue someone for violating my right to express my opinion.

Of course if they are clearly threatening someone or someone's property on social media or in the work environment sure they can get fired but for expressing a simple opinion that is just wrong. So still where do you draw the line on freedom speech and ensuring everyone gets equal treatment.

That goes same for arguing that you can fire someone for being lgbt. If you can fire someone for a basic opinion than how hypocritical would we be as a community to fire people for having a different view that does no harm to anyone in the workplace or their customers. All this kind of mess is why i don't bring my personal thoughts or life into the work place in the first place.

 

These two paragraphs...read them again and imagine you were talking about a religion please.

That is about as Cult as you get.

Sorry, but that's literally the mindset that makes dictatorships and theocracies.

Holy...just wow O.O

---------- Post added 11th Aug 2015 at 04:48 PM ----------

Are you talking about them saying this During work hours? Or are you talking about them saying this after work hours?

That is my question.

If during work hours your employees are bound to the rules of yoru company, but on their own personal time they are free people allowed to think/say what they want.

 

Free speech does not give one the right to spew hate speech. The US allowed a Fred Phelps to spread his hatred; Canada did not. In your own home you can say what you like, but not in public if it inflames hatred towards a group. I think religious people have the right to say they feel homosexuality is wrong or not supported in the Bible. They do not have the right to say homosexuals are evil or dirty or disgusting. I don't think atheists should say awful things about all Christians or Jews or Muslims either. If you hear a pastor say that about a homosexual person, you need to speak up against him or else go to a more loving church. In Canada, we can file a hate speech grievance against him or her.

 

But I don't think that - in fact, I am a pretty big proponent against the whole 'I can say whatever I want because free speech' spiel (hence why I agree with the UK Home Office for banning WBC from entering here) - but how people express their opinions makes a significant difference to their intentions, I think. For example, if a person in an office decided to go on a rampage and yelled 'Black people are scum, kill fags, women deserve to be raped', then yeah, understandably their job would probably be on the line - and they could be arrested here for doing that in a public area - but if a Christian simply disagrees with homosexuality, but doesn't incite hatred against them, then I see no reason why that individual should lose their job - and the idea that anyone should be left to starve to death seems like something a mentally unhinged person would say. I wouldn't condone that treatment even for the most hardened criminals.

Also, a significant number of Muslims here think it would be perfectly acceptable to stone homosexuals to death - it's unlikely they will ever change their viewpoint - but I see a lot of people going to great lengths to defend their right to that viewpoint because it's their religion. I've always defended Muslims against unduly harsh criticism, but that seems like the type of double standard certain individuals would have.

 

My question is what is the difference between hate speech and free speech It means something different to different people so how do do define the different in speech. What if there is a bias in how someone fires a person based on their free speech. They tolerate a pro abortion message but if they hear someone has a anti abortion message they fire them on the spot. You can fire people for hate speech and sure some forms of hate speech should be stopped but like I say again and agin where do you draw the line and make sure supervisors, bosses, managers, or even human resources is not forming a biased opinion towards a certain belief. If a beliefs was stated in general content not meant to demean others or make others uncomfortable and it does not affect their job they should not be fired. If people can fire someone for basic free speech than they could also fire someone for being lgbt. It becomes a complete mess and i rather never state my personal beliefs in the workplace unless it was appropriate to do so. It has no place anyway while at work. Unless you of course work at a place that deals with political or religious issues than that is another story.

 

I find myself very surprised I touched off such a heated debate despite saying something I felt was fairly uncontroversial. Reading the whole conversation, I guess I'm dismayed by a number of things--the moral evaluation standards being applied, the side issues taken up, and the mischaracterization of my position.

At the top, I feel I should start with some basic mentions of where I stand on the matter. I know that I have a reputation here of being strident and forceful in stating my view, being uncompromising, being unsympathetic towards concerns shared by those who disagree with me, and I know that, taken together, those things give me the appearance of being a troll. People more willing to give me the benefit of the doubt nevertheless think I skirt on the edge of Poe's Law.

But, in this case, I hope people will hear me out and credit me for at least having a considered view motivated by a desire to protect people from suffering, even if you think I'm mistaken about the means to achieve it.

I hope to start with a few things we can agree on at a minimum. One. Free speech is a paramount value that we need to support in the legal system of our society, for without it, the ability to maintain and build on free and open society suffers considerably. Two. We recognize that speech is incredibly powerful and that it can do great damage and cause much suffering in addition to working feats of goodness, community building, and societal developments. Three. That despite the fact that speech can at times hurt people, not just any kind of speech and not just any kind of harm merits a restriction of speech. Four. A violation of someone's freedom of speech is a violation of someone's rights that we undertake because of their speech. Five. We have a right of freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate, and we have the right of contract, including the right not to have a contract and to terminate our contracts, and finally we have a right to spend our money as we see fit (subject to contractual obligations).

Notice in the above I didn't specify the exact parameters of these principles. The devil may be in the details, especially in Principle Three. All that I'm saying is that the parameters exist. We can disagree about the extent of the limits, but if we don't agree at a minimum on those five things (within some parameters strictly between always and never), then I don't really know what to say to you.

If that's the case, I'm not really talking to you, not because I have any animus towards you or think you're unsafe to be around and converse with, but simply because I don't know what I need to say to reach you. So if you think freedom of speech is not that important, or it's contingent, I'm not talking to you. If you think speech can never do harm, I'm not talking to you. If you think that negative speech, even discriminatory or hate speech deserves legal sanction, I'm not talking to you. If you think there's a way to violate someone's right to free speech other than by violating another right they have, for example by imprisoning them or forcing them to do community service (restricting their liberty), or by fining them money (violating their property), then I'm not talking to you; because calling someone an asshole isn't restricting free speech, taking their post down on your blog isn't restricting free speech, and not shopping at someone's business isn't restricting their free speech. Finally, if you think that association should be forced, I'm not talking to you.

If you're still on board at this point, then the only kind of disagreement we can be having over freedom of speech is one about what personal liberties are with respect to association and contract and what economic liberties are with respect to how people must spend their money.

Let me now turn to the nuance of the argument.

We've already agreed that people can spend their money how they want. Now, obviously this is subject to constraints. If I signed a contract, I may have debts or regular payments I have to make. If I do not make those payments, then that's breach, or non-performance. I also can't buy stuff that's illegal, like a machine gun. And, if I want to drive a car on our roads, I must have liability insurance. But I can buy a laptop, or not, if I choose to. I can go buy coffee at a particular coffee shop, or not, if I choose to.

What happens when I decide not to buy coffee at Starbucks? I don't really like Starbucks. I prefer local coffee shops. Not because I'm a "buy local" hippie liberal, but because I like the taste better, and the atmosphere. But when I don't buy coffee at Starbucks, I don't hope for them to fail as a business. In other words, I'm not boycotting them; I'm making an economic decision based on my preferences.

Boycotting looks different. When I don't buy anything at Wal-Mart, I do hope they fail as a business, unless they change their business practices. What it means to boycott a business is to make a political decision to withhold one's trade from a business and to advocate others do the same. If a boycotter is successful in her aims, and if the business refuses to comply with her demands, then the business will be utterly destroyed, and this will result in serious hardship and loss to company leadership, investors, and potentially, destitution to its employees. Those who boycott are out for change, or they are out for blood. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. What would a feeble way of trying to weasel out of this conclusion look like? "Well, I won't want to destroy Wal-Mart, I'm just trying to put pressure on them to treat their employees more fairly, to provide them with benefits and to respect collective bargaining rights. If we just get enough people to do it, Wal-Mart will be forced to change their practices." But "putting pressure" is fundamentally and obviously coercive. We're not using aggressive violence, and we're not breaking a law, but we are applying force. If I'm boycotting a business, then I'm committed to its annihilation unless the business complies with my demands.

So where I'm confused is, we've said that it's *okay* to boycott, but it's *not* okay to fire someone for a reason related to something they've said, even though the tangible results of a successful boycott (with a non-compliant, unrepentant business) are exactly the same as firing someone. We're talking about potential financial ruin here either way.

Let's think for a moment why it's okay to boycott despite how destructive and coercive it can be. Simply put, it's because people can't force me to spend money I don't want to spend, and they can't force me to associate in a way that I don't want to associate. And these rights are unassailble.

Why then, especially given the potential consequences, should employment be any different? Why should an employer be forced to associate with an employee she deems toxic to her business? The employer is exercising a right of free association and of contract by having the employee. The employee has no liberty interest that staples his face to her payroll teat.

There are things an employee can say completely off the clock that should get them fired, despite any apparent ability they have to perform their job. I could work an administrative front desk position for a Jewish organization. But if I'm widely known to be anti-Semitic, Jewish customers will possibly flee the business, and my Jewish coworkers, on discovering my closeted anti-Semitism, would feel unsafe on the job. No matter how polite and professional I am to people who come in, and no matter how organized I am and perfectly performing in my job duties, the things I have said utterly destroy the community's confidence in the organization. In my own life, I work for a government agency. It's absolutely unacceptable for me to go around joking about auditing people we don't like, because that destroys the public confidence. Similarly, we can't have KKK members, Nazi sympathizers, or homophobes or transphobes who say "queers get what's coming to them" on the police force. We can't have racist 911 telecommunicators. We just can't do it.

I want end with some sympathetic remarks about people who have fucked up and how they can change. Contrary to popular opinion, there is compassion in my heart. I certainly don't advocate, despite being quite aware of the logical consequences of my own view, that people should starve to death just for one homophobic or transphobic remark. If a person is fired from her job for hateful remarks or publications that are brought to light by a researcher, I would advocate that we need to pay close attention to that individual. We should look for signs of contrition and err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. The point of boycotting, just like the point of firing an employee who is toxic to an organization, is not to wantonly destroy everything and everyone. It's to effect an adjustment in behavior that could not otherwise be achieved through reason, argument, having been first duly undertaken by patient and compassionately regarding means.

Two arguments I'm not answering here are the Line-Drawing Argument or the Identity of the Enforcer Argument. If you want a rebuttal on either, post a question to my wall.

~ Adrienne

 

I really couldn't disagree more, see my teacher example from an earlier post. If you work for me you represent my company whether it's during working hours or not. If you stand on a soap box on your own time while it's known you where you work and speak in a manner that could alienate the customers/staff and make them not want to continue to be customers or not want to work in the same environment I'm sorry but your freedom of speech doesn't out weigh the comfort of the others I employee or the ones who choose to spend their money in my business.

---------- Post added 11th Aug 2015 at 11:18 PM ----------

I agree there needs to be some common sense between a simple statement of belief/view than something inflammatory. My problem is with this notion of "anything said is freedom of speech".

 

I'm really unsure how this gets so convoluted.

"Freedom of speech" means freedom without arrest. That's always been the case. That's what the exceptions still refer to.

So until I see people getting arrested for flying a confederate flag or put in prison for hanging a gun above their TV, I'm not going to believe that the Left is destroying freedom of speech.

But that doesn't mean that people making hit-lists of transpeople and mass shooters should stay in public. Those are crimes, and there are historical reasons why they are considered crimes.

It also doesn't mean that people waving "Homo sex is sin" signs shouldn't be mocked by various Deadpool cosplayers waving around "Bow to Zod".

Freedom of speech means freedom without arrest.
It doesn't mean freedom without consequence.

And what's more is that people are what need to be protected, not ideas.

Why?

 

Agreed, because those represent a distinct, concrete threat. It's the difference between calling Comcast to say "Your company sucks and I hope it tanks" and "I'm going to blow up your HQ at 11am next Sunday." Opinions cannot be criminalized; expressions that tend to incite panic are another deal entirely.

I generally call myself extremely supportive of the Bill of Rights and a broad interpretation of them. But as has probably been said, the right to say what you want to say doesn't mean it's a get-out-of-jail-free card and that people can't object to you on non-government levels.