It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of speech, what does it mean to you.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Exactly it is up the organisations themselves (within the limits of employment law). My point is that you are not protecting free speech by puting restrictions on the right to reply. ( Not the point you were making but others were).

If Joe has the right to make idiotic statements on line then people also have the right to say he should be sacked. I would not agree with either point in this case but both should have the right.




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

If people don't have the right to say Joe should be beaten to a pulp, or his wife and kids should be thrown into the street then they don't have the right to call for Joe to get sacked over something he said.


That isn't freedom of speech, that is freedom to ruin someone's life because they hold an opinion that differs to yours.

The idea that it is somehow morally equivalent is dead wrong.

A debate isn't one person saying something and another threatening them, is it?


People need to learn that using the threat of violent action against someone they disagree with is anathema to civilisation, it retards us as a whole and is, potentially ruinous in the long term.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Beating someone to a pulp is illegal.

Firing someone is not (as long as rules are followed).



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Beating someone to a pulp is illegal.

Firing someone is not (as long as rules are followed).


As I pointed out earlier, getting someone fired is far more ruinous than beating them up though.

It's a question of morality, not merely legality.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Beating someone to a pulp is illegal.

Firing someone is not (as long as rules are followed).


As I pointed out earlier, getting someone fired is far more ruinous than beating them up though.

It's a question of morality, not merely legality.



Agree about the morality but how would you stop it?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

As I said before, by educating this behaviour away.


Make people understand that it is utterly reprehensible behaviour. Start in schools and teach kids about real diversity, where different opinions are tolerated, even if they aren't liked.


Eventually this kind of thing will be a rare event rather than the common one it is now.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Beating someone to a pulp is illegal.

Firing someone is not (as long as rules are followed).


Oh, but it very much can be illegal to fire someone.

If Joe says he happens to be gay, then it is illegal to fire Joe for being gay.

But if Joe says he happens to be racist, then it is NOT illegal to fire Joe for saying he is racist.

In both cases, how Joe looks, acts, etc., on the job matters not one whit. All that matters is what Joe has said and how others perceive Joe to be based on what Joe has said.

BUT, it is illegal to fire Joe for saying one thing and NOT illegal to fire Joe for saying the other.

And in today's society, there are groups of people who will take advantage of that fact, and they will go even further. They will construe some opinions to be racist, sexist, hompohobic, etc., and they will use those opinions to get people fired just for what they have said ... or even what groups they may have donated their own personal money to in the past (ask Brendan Eich of Mozilla) ... no matter how those personal, private actions or opinions may or may not affect their professional behavior on the job itself.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Personally I don't think someone should be fired for their personal beliefs unless it affects their job. That said if someone is an outright racist there are probably very few jobs it wouldn't potentially affect.

I am also not going to cry myself to sleep at the thought of bigots being discriminated against.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko

Personally I don't think someone should be fired for their personal beliefs unless it affects their job. That said if someone is an outright racist there are probably very few jobs it wouldn't potentially affect.

I am also not going to cry myself to sleep at the thought of bigots being discriminated against.


And that's your innate intolerance talking.

How do you know? For all you know, you work with people you would consider to be ists and isms all day, every day and don't know it ... much like you could work beside a gay person or pee with a transgender and not know it.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think I can live with being intolorent of bigots. Does that make me a bigotist or bigotphobic?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko

I think I can live with being intolorent of bigots. Does that make me a bigotist or bigotphobic?


Considering the loose standards of what it takes to make a "bigot" these days, then it may well.

For some these days, all it takes to make one a bigot is for them to say they want to enforce immigration law, for example, and there are those who will call you a bigoted xenophobe and racist. If you say you believe that traditional marriage is the best model for raising kids, some will call you a bigoted homophobe. If you say you don't want a gender fluid person using the same locker and changing rooms with little kids of the opposite gender, you are suddenly a bigoted transphobe.

And, of course, as soon as someone brands you a bigot, then you are fair game for being put out of a job and having your life destroyed by those same people. That is basically what happened to Brendan Eich.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Brendan Eich had the right to be against gay marriage.

Customers of Mozilla equally had the right not to use a product of a company they believed was being run by a homophobe.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Maybe not a direct answer to your question, but the reason the founding fathers placed the right to free speech in the Constitution was their belief in the "marketplace of ideas." First of all, many ideas that at first seem to be heretical turn out to be correct. Second of all, when people are allowed to speak in public, then others of differing view points will be able to counterpoint their speech. When this is not done, then nonsensical ideologies, like Naziism, will be forced into the shadows. In the shadows, the assumptions and arguments made by the holder of these beliefs will go unchecked and may be able to develop a powerful enough following to actually do harm. Lastly, the open market place of ideas is a great valve to animosity. When a person is allowed to expound on their frustrations and resentments a certain amount of energy is taken out of that anger and therefore is less likely to result in harmful behavior. When their speech is not universally accepted, they may rethink their opinion as well.

If you truly believe a person is expounding mistruths or hatred, then the best thing to do is to allow them to speak publicly. In that way the market place can raise up and defeat the arguments and points that are misguided. Further, unless you are holding your beliefs in a religious fashion, meaning with faith and not based on facts or reason, than you are better for having listened because you just might learn something.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

What is a bigot? You hold no pre-conceived notions about anyone? I call bs.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko

Brendan Eich had the right to be against gay marriage.

Customers of Mozilla equally had the right not to use a product of a company they believed was being run by a homophobe.



But it wasn't the customers boycotting that got him forced out. There was no time for actual market forces to make any kind of decision. It took less than a week for the campaign to get him forced out. There is not time there for any actual market action to play out.

Someone found out that years before he got the job he was in, he donated a nominal sum of his own money to a group that supported traditional marriage.

So they outed this ... and they created a firestorm that resulting in his firing. There was no actual market hit to Mozilla at all.

Contrast that with Target. Target decided to proactively open their restrooms and locker rooms to transgenders, including the gender fluid. Months later and the store has taken a massive market hit. The policy was quietly retracted, but it took months for the market forces to play out and force that retraction in favor of a long-term plan to put family restrooms in every store.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Bit if a difference between a tech company and Target.

Eich resigned (probably before he was pushed) so clearly he and the board felt it was serious enough.

Anyway what would you propose, should the rights of those (including many employees) to protest his appointment be restricted?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Truth.

Either all speech is free, or none is. No one is required to listen, nor agree, as they choose.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko

Bit if a difference between a tech company and Target.

Eich resigned (probably before he was pushed) so clearly he and the board felt it was serious enough.

Anyway what would you propose, should the rights of those (including many employees) to protest his appointment be restricted?


Considering those same people had been working with him with no issues prior to someone telling them about that donation years earlier?

What was the point?

Did knowing that change their interactions with him up to that point? Did his interactions with them suddenly become bigoted because they found that out? Was them knowing that likely to change anything about how he dealt with them in the future?

Nope. It was all in the past. If Eich was going to be super bigot, he was already going to be behaving that way toward his gay employees. The fact that they had to have someone else spill the beans on that donation tells you how professional Eich was in his day to day dealings. NO ONE KNEW until he was "outed."

So your contention that a modern version of a "bigot" who needs to be fired can't hide it or help it is simply false.

In other words, the real modern bigots are the ones wearing sheep's clothing and pretending to hunt wolves like Eich.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Pretty sure the bigots are still the ones trying to deny others rights And fair treatment based on their sexuality or race.

As far as I am aware there was not exactly deluge of support from within the company for him which may suggest his conduct wasn't as professional as you suggest.

None of which changes the fact that I agree that people shouldn't lose their jobs just because of an opinion or some stupid statement they might have made in the past.

If people have the right to say what they want then that surely includes the right to say someone is unfit for a job because of their views. If we give as close to absolute free speech as possible then that is one of the inevitable consequences. Unless you have a solution you would like to offer?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join