For those who say it's fine if boycotting businesses based on the political opinion of one employee leads to his or her firing, would you defend such a boycott if the boycotters were doing so because of an employee's protected category such as the employee's race, sex or religion?
Apparently you are unable to make a distinction between "it's fine" and "it's protected by free speech".
Apparently you are unable to make a distinction between "it's fine" and "it's protected by free speech".
Apparently, you agree that the behavior of mobs and boycotters is wrong, immoral. That those behaviors are bad for society.
If not a free speech issue, what would you call the problem with their behavior?
Apparently you are unable to make a distinction between "it's fine" and "it's protected by free speech".Apparently, you agree that the behavior of mobs and boycotters is wrong, immoral. That those behaviors are bad for society.
If not a free speech issue, what would you call the problem with their behavior?
I don't agree that boycotts are bad for society. I think that the morality of a boycott depends on the how and why. I know, to reasonable to feel outrage about...
For those who say it's fine if boycotting businesses based on the political opinion of one employee leads to his or her firing, would you defend such a boycott if the boycotters were doing so because of an employee's protected category such as the employee's race, sex or religion?
I just don't get why you free speech bros keep thinking these whatabouts are gotcha questions.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It does not prohibit people from boycotting a business because of an employee's race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
So if you don't want to buy from a company because they hire blacks, women, Hebrews, etc., you don't have to. That's your right and your freedom not to.
Would I "defend" such a boycott? Again, what I "defend" is your right to do it, although I personally would not join you and would probably be on the other side counterprotesting you.
It says a lot about you free speech bros if you really think that people who espouse legal free speech
-support Twitter and Facebook banning Notsees but would be against them banning Anne Tifa's.
-support boycotts when they come from "the l3ft" but would be against them if they came from "the r!ght."
Our guy did terribly on every issue, has approval of 36-40% and is behaving like a dictator. What should we do?
Talk about cancel culture, confederate statues and PC. I mean, how many people have lost their livelihood because of cancel culture (out of 165 million)?
I hate Twitter, but when I read “Twitter wants X fired,” what does that even mean? 1000, 2000 or even 5000 people want someone to be fired? OK, so? This is a country of 330 million.
Grow up!
For those who say it's fine if boycotting businesses based on the political opinion of one employee leads to his or her firing, would you defend such a boycott if the boycotters were doing so because of an employee's protected category such as the employee's race, sex or religion?Apparently you are unable to make a distinction between "it's fine" and "it's protected by free speech".
What do you mean? That boycott would also be protected by free speech under the First Amendment. Those workers would still enjoy their Civil Rights Act protections as well, so firms who caved in would also be in trouble with the Government. Have you ever considered the same would happen if political leaning was added as a protected class?
Our country is in deep troubles on so many levels, and in one of its worst years in modern history. A virus is killing 1000 people every day and has already killed 140k.
And what do we do? Talk about Uhlig, Cook, Doleac and statues. Enough with this childish behavior. These people are not important at all at the national level.
For those who say it's fine if boycotting businesses based on the political opinion of one employee leads to his or her firing, would you defend such a boycott if the boycotters were doing so because of an employee's protected category such as the employee's race, sex or religion?I just don't get why you free speech bros keep thinking these whatabouts are gotcha questions.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It does not prohibit people from boycotting a business because of an employee's race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
So if you don't want to buy from a company because they hire blacks, women, Hebrews, etc., you don't have to. That's your right and your freedom not to.
Would I "defend" such a boycott? Again, what I "defend" is your right to do it, although I personally would not join you and would probably be on the other side counterprotesting you.
It says a lot about you free speech bros if you really think that people who espouse legal free speech
-support Twitter and Facebook banning Notsees but would be against them banning Anne Tifa's.
-support boycotts when they come from "the l3ft" but would be against them if they came from "the r!ght."
Exactly, if people want to boycott firms demanding them to break the law it's their right. But guess what, those firms have a legal obligation to comply with the law, and would think it many, many times over before giving boycotters what they want since they would be opening themselves up for harsh penalties. Why is it fine, then, that the Government steps in to punish firms who cave in to such a boycott but it is somehow not fine if the Government steps in to punish firms who fire employees after boycotts are declared (or even threatened) over whatever political leanings they may have? If it's just a matter of whatever the law reads, then just change the law, add political leaning as a protected class, and that's about it.
Note that in this case I'm not talking about the right to boycott. And yes, I would also not defend such boycotts in either case. What I'm referring to is about whether firms should have a right to comply with the boycotters' demands. They at least don't if they imply a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
"I hate Twitter, but when I read “Twitter wants X fired,” what does that even mean? 1000, 2000 or even 5000 people want someone to be fired? OK, so? This is a country of 330 million."
The big mystery to me is why so many employers give in to this because, as you point out, the fraction of the customer base ranting on Twitter is tiny. And, those who haven't laid down don't seem to have suffered much or at all, especially universities. Goya will be an interesting experiment.
If it's just a matter of whatever the law reads, then just change the law, add political leaning as a protected class, and that's about it.
I'm still flabbergasted that none of you seem to show any appreciation for why some classes are protected and others aren't. You all vaguely concede that the decision wasn't random and there were reasons, but you insist that the reasons were "politically" motivated and leave it at that.
And you're right. It was a political process with political motivations...based on history. Slavery wasn't abolished until 1865. Segregated schools existed until 1954. Jim Crow didn't end until 1965. Given this history, you'd have to be very tone deaf to think that race was included as a protected class just because of "politics."
Political affiliation and/or beliefs don't come close to race, religion, or national origin. Ironically, the clamor among you free speech bros to push for political beliefs being protected is a manifestation of the culture of victimhood that originated from "the l3ft."
You really think that in a time when "the r!ght" controls the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, that you are victimized and in need of protections. That's just snovvflaking at its worst.
If it's just a matter of whatever the law reads, then just change the law, add political leaning as a protected class, and that's about it.I'm still flabbergasted that none of you seem to show any appreciation for why some classes are protected and others aren't. You all vaguely concede that the decision wasn't random and there were reasons, but you insist that the reasons were "politically" motivated and leave it at that.
And you're right. It was a political process with political motivations...based on history. Slavery wasn't abolished until 1865. Segregated schools existed until 1954. Jim Crow didn't end until 1965. Given this history, you'd have to be very tone deaf to think that race was included as a protected class just because of "politics."
Political affiliation and/or beliefs don't come close to race, religion, or national origin. Ironically, the clamor among you free speech bros to push for political beliefs being protected is a manifestation of the culture of victimhood that originated from "the l3ft."
You really think that in a time when "the r!ght" controls the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, that you are victimized and in need of protections. That's just snovvflaking at its worst.
Right, the decision not to include political leanings into the mix came as a result of the history of discrimination in the US based on the currently protected classes such as race, sex, religion, nationality, ethnicity, veteran status, socioeconomic status, etc. Yet it's not like history ended in 1968 or something, it's 2020 and as of today the cancellers are demanding the firing of people based on their political affiliation. Why shouldn't it be added as a protected class as well? Other countries with a history of political conflicts (and politically motivated firings) in fact do add that as a class to protect. Will America have to do the same given the current environment?
To Mr “political affiliation”...this concept is so incoherent that it’s not even worth considering. But, here you go. You can be a member of the same political affiliation as someone else and say very different things. That why speech matters. People can say (or do) different things in response. Affiliation and speech are not inextricably linked as you seem to think. Your linkage is so silly that the protection would be worthless. Please find someone worth arguing about.
I keep suggesting that the proper way to handle that concern is not to add "political speech" as a protected class, but to enhance employment protections more broadly such that employees can only be fired for just cause.
But because "enhanced employment protections" has socialist connotations, the free speech bros don't like it.
I don't agree that boycotts are bad for society. I think that the morality of a boycott depends on the how and why. I know, to reasonable to feel outrage about...
Threatening a company with boycotts to fire someone because that person has a different opinion than yours is immoral and is bad for society.
Let's say that two groups have different opinions. Using threats is not how we will find which opinion is closer to the truth (after all, we can never say we have reached the truth). It will only make it so that the opinion of the strongest is the one that will be accepted. If the strongest side happens to be farther from the truth, what will be the result? Error will persist and society will worsen.
If you can't allow a different opinion to be heard, how will you ever know when you are wrong?
But this is the strongest case. Let's suppose someone is in error. Should we destroy the life of the one who is in error or should we help that person get closer to the truth with stronger arguments?
I keep suggesting that the proper way to handle that concern is not to add "political speech" as a protected class, but to enhance employment protections more broadly such that employees can only be fired for just cause.
But because "enhanced employment protections" has socialist connotations, the free speech bros don't like it.
Earlier in the thread, you agreed that the behavior of cancellation mobs is immoral and leads to a worse society. In the long run, would you agree that the best way to fix that would be to teach people how to behave in a morally correct way when it comes to disagreements?
To Mr “political affiliation”...this concept is so incoherent that it’s not even worth considering. But, here you go. You can be a member of the same political affiliation as someone else and say very different things. That why speech matters. People can say (or do) different things in response. Affiliation and speech are not inextricably linked as you seem to think. Your linkage is so silly that the protection would be worthless. Please find someone worth arguing about.
It's not silly, political firings have been an issue in countries that have lived in military dictatorships. I am from one, and nowadays firings based on ideology (not just party affiliation, but ideology) are generally regarded as discrimination under my country's law (the land of the Chicago Boys).
People can indeed say things in response, it's part of free speech. They can also call for boycotts even. But if companies will face no costs for complying with the boycotters'demands, then this will have a chilling effect on speech. That's the truth. It did when blacklists of communists in Hollywood were a thing in the '50s, and it does when cancellers start making their own blacklists as well.
I keep suggesting that the proper way to handle that concern is not to add "political speech" as a protected class, but to enhance employment protections more broadly such that employees can only be fired for just cause.
But because "enhanced employment protections" has socialist connotations, the free speech bros don't like it.
At-will employment doesn't mean employers can fire employees for any reason, as some posters mentioned earlier.
Good job also ignoring the fact that the boycott threats also come with an implicit threat of actual damage, either through cyber attacks (mostly DDoS, because skids) and even real violence, especially in the wake of recent riots via protests.
And, I’m still looking for answers on the TI front, it seems pretty clear that you have a 3rd party interfering with a contract in which they are not party.
At-will employment doesn't mean employers can fire employees for any reason, as some posters mentioned earlier.
For the most part, it actually does. The only exception is that you can't fire employees for a "bad" reason (race, religion, etc.) That aside, you can fire them for any other reason, including no reason at all.
I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.
I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.
This would lead to huge problems in the job market.
It would be necessary to have courts specialized in labour relations. And in the end, they would make it nearly impossible to fire someone, since the standard of evidence necessary for that would be very high.