Extremism versus free speech
In Vox, Cameron Peters reported:
Why conservatives’ favorite Twitter alternative has disappeared from the internet (Jan 11, 2021)
Parler hasn't disappeared exactly, just received less exposure, being referenced/broadcast less. They advertise themselves as "Where Free Speech Thrives", "The premier global free speech platform". And others have found them (continually) hosting extremist speech (of the sort that can incite action).
According to someone out there (AA), "the system is rigged" (by "Great Resetting Fascists"). Their slant leans heavily towards the extremist political right being heard, being broadcast, including hordes of anonymous zealots. Might be worth noting that many semi-radicals (or conservatives or religious groups for that matter) suppress non-conforming expression.
Free expression itself doesn't differentiate. Yet, free speech doesn't mean that others must listen. With the amount of expression/speech these days, individuals will have to filter some out in any case.
Free speech allows that I may hear something that I otherwise couldn't, something that I might want to hear. On the other hand, free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences, one might be called out and deplatformed for continually lying for example.
There are no simple answers it seems, and, meanwhile, AA will continue to see (or claim) "Fascists" oppressing them.
Why conservatives’ favorite Twitter alternative has disappeared from the internet (Jan 11, 2021)
Parler hasn't disappeared exactly, just received less exposure, being referenced/broadcast less. They advertise themselves as "Where Free Speech Thrives", "The premier global free speech platform". And others have found them (continually) hosting extremist speech (of the sort that can incite action).
According to someone out there (AA), "the system is rigged" (by "Great Resetting Fascists"). Their slant leans heavily towards the extremist political right being heard, being broadcast, including hordes of anonymous zealots. Might be worth noting that many semi-radicals (or conservatives or religious groups for that matter) suppress non-conforming expression.
Free expression itself doesn't differentiate. Yet, free speech doesn't mean that others must listen. With the amount of expression/speech these days, individuals will have to filter some out in any case.
Free speech allows that I may hear something that I otherwise couldn't, something that I might want to hear. On the other hand, free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences, one might be called out and deplatformed for continually lying for example.
There are no simple answers it seems, and, meanwhile, AA will continue to see (or claim) "Fascists" oppressing them.
Comments (123)
I’ve always despised this statement. It’s untrue and is often used to justify censorship.
Free speech does mean speech is free from consequences, and it ought to be treated that way. Censorship, for instance, is the consequence of people who do not like some kinds of speech. It is not the consequence of the speech itself, nor could it be. Being “called out” or “de-platformed” is the consequence of the censor, not the speaker. The censorship of Socrates was not the consequence of his speech, but of the fear of lesser men.
Parler was denied access to the app stores, to Amazon web servers, and the concerted effort to suppress its rise worked quite well.
We can think whatever we want.
We can't do whatever we want.
Speech, looks like, is intermediate between thinking and acting and so the riddle of free speech takes shape! For instance, I can think "I'll pinch Anderson's wallet" and no one will care (because no one can know that); I can actually steal Anderson's wallet and be brought to book; when I say "I'll pinch Anderson's wallet", I'm immediately a prime suspect in the event Anderson's wallet is stolen.
We can think whatever we want because, fortunately, nobody can get into our mind. This is one of the purest civil rights of humankind which still remains. If one day an intellectual develops a program which allows us to read other's minds everything would be over...
We shoul defend the ability of having inner thoughts and keep safe our secrets.
Free speech is just spreading lies for good politicians. I have given up modern free speech or democracy itself
Free speech no longer exists in our modern era. Fascism is an over used word on Twitter vocabulary. Press, social media and Google algorithm controls and processes what we should think. A real free speech only exists in the ordinary conversation you may have with your neighbour about oil or taxes. Since the moment one person opt for being a public figure he would never have free speech because he would depend on the mass, thus, the unknown Twitter accounts which created him.
It is sad but... You have to be careful if you want to share a free speech in nowadays.
Quoting NOS4A2
Too simplistic, there's more to the story, but it's not that free speech/expression ought to be ditched of course. (Once upon a time I'd have said that the only way to respond to speech is more speech.)
Quoting jorndoe
There can already be consequences. You might have to assume bona fides speakers, and soundly judging listeners, for example.
, right, it's not quite a trivial matter.
Quoting javi2541997
Sure it does; otherwise Chomsky would have been gagged. ;) Those things you mention haven't stopped/prevented Trump from speaking, they just took away his use of their platforms to do so (mentioned in the article).
Quoting javi2541997
:up:
Anyway, Peters use verbiage like "a nexus of extremism", "has a problem with far-right violence", to describe Parler. Couldn't they have told their posters to chill out and discuss things (maturely)?
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting jorndoe
There doesn't seem to be an appropriate concept in psychology for my views, so I'll describe it: When it comes to thoughts, it all boils down to one simple truth which is that they're, for the most part, spontaneous and involuntary. The best word to describe it is found in the art world viz. automatism.
That being so, we can't be/shouldn't be held accountable for our thoughts.
The next thing I wanna talk about is what are known as filters. These serve as checkpoints, they exist between thinking and speaking & thinking and doing. Not everything we think is spoken and not everything we think is done. Free will, if it exists, is a checkpost where only those thoughts that have a valid permit (good, useful, etc.) are allowed to pass through into speech & action territory.
The beauty of free speech is that when people are allowed to freely criticize faulty ideas, these processes will happen naturally and no arbitration is required.
If ideas can hold up to the scrutiny of the entirety of free discourse, they likely hold some merit.
In addition, free speech allows you to hear things you may want to hear, but perhaps more importantly hear the things you do NOT want to hear, but NEED to hear.
So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, I can't ask her to leave? So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him? So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? Of course speech has consequences.
This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing.
So if I'm at work and I express the opinion that Jewish and black people are inferior to white Christians and ought not be allowed to marry then it would be wrong of my boss to fire me for my remarks?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1518670485202128898.html
Anyone who tries to speak about 'free speech' but has nothing to say about capitalism has nothing worth saying about free speech and can be ignored forever.
Assuming those are one's genuinely held beliefs and one expresses them in a manner that isn't disruptive, I believe one should not face legal consequences (which is what being fired from one's job is), unless it constitutes a breach of the terms of employment as agreed upon in the employment contract.
Social consequences is a different matter. Of course people may treat someone differently for their radical ideas. That's their right.
So it's OK for some social media company to remove your account should you violate whatever terms and services or community guidelines you implicitly agree to in signing up?
That is a complicated issue that must not only take freedom of contract and freedom of speech into account, but also social media's role as a public forum, and the almost monopolistic position it has gained in public discourse.
And also what is being said. Should a government official be allowed to publish state secrets? Should I be allowed to knowingly and falsely accuse someone of having committed some heinous act and incite vigilante justice? Should you be allowed to post pornography on some popular website that children frequently visit?
Unrestricted freedom of speech wouldn't be a good thing and shouldn't be allowed.
I don't think that is primarily important, and I'll explain why:
Quoting Michael
Of primary importance here is the agreement of the official not to reveal confidential information - not what is being said.
If an outside individual stumbles upon sensitive information pertaining the government, should they be arrested for sharing it? I think not.
Quoting Michael
The demonstrable damage one is inflicting upon another is of primary importance - not what is being said.
People gossip all the time with malign intent. A sadly human trait.
Quoting Michael
Presumably the terms of service would disallow such a thing, and my previous reservations about public forums and monopolies on free discourse do not seem to apply in this situation.
Again, of primary importance here seems to be the disruptive nature and potential damage inflicted upon children. "What is being said", i.e. sharing porn, is not in itself problematic.
Quoting Michael
I don't think any of these examples constitute a restriction on free speech. Rather, in the first example it simply means to act according to the terms one has agreed to.
In the second and third, it is not about speech but about being willfully disruptive and/or harmful.
I don't get that. The only thing they've done that's disruptive is expressing their opinion. Redefining free speech to support your argument is not a valid argument.
It’s up to you. That’s the point. You determine your actions, and therefor any penalties you dish out are the consequence of your principles and decisions, not of the words. Sorry, but speech does not have the consequences you claim it does.
[irony]Yes, yes, I agree. You've won the argument. By redefining the meaning of "free speech," "consequences," "words," and "sorry." Clever rhetorical tactics. [/irony]
You didn’t even make an argument, and resort to sarcasm when challenged. Not even clever.
Irony.
Quoting NOS4A2
It was definitely clever.
My words are so consequential that you can only write in questions and sarcasm.
Not really. It’s an important point because censors ban speech, as if it was the speech that cause this or that problem. But speech has no such causal factors. The speech ought to be left alone.
You said free speech has no consequences. I responded that I disagreed expressed as rhetorical questions. You responded by saying my kicking someone out of my house because of what they say is not a consequence of that speech. I responded, ironically and cleverly, pointing out that you had redefined the meaning of the word "consequence." Then you responded saying that I had not made a serious argument. Then I responded with this post.
I said speech is free from consequences. The consequence of that sentence, apparently, was for you to quote it out of context, to which you responded with a flurry of questions and an assertion of the opposite. My speech then caused you to resort to sarcasm.
:lol:
Irony.
True that, but "I'll kill you" is quite a different kettle of fish from me actually killing you, oui? Then there's libel/slander; in Japan, dishonor meant seppuku/harakiri.
The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression.
Any and all reactions to those benign activities are born in those that react to them, and thus a consequence of themselves.
Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, but a justification for censorship at worse. The idea that the world and posterity might lose a great work of literature because someone cannot control their rage is a tragedy.
This is an utterly pedantic and useless interpretation of the meaning of the word "consequence" in this context. Any normal person understands what is meant by the phrase "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences". It's a way of saying that even if it's not illegal for you to say something you're at risk of being shunned or fired or de-platformed etc. – and rightfully so.
It’s an utterly useless and contradictory phrase, not so different than “freedom of speech but not freedom from censorship”. Maybe come up with something better.
I don't like censorship, I don't like free speech either!
I agree with all of this.
You either believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. Censors should crawl out from under the rocks and be proud of who they are.
Is this one of those "arguments" you were talking about earlier?
Another question? Is this an interview?
Well said, truth is what we find after investigating enough and evaluating enough epistemic defeaters.
If certain hypothesis, bakground data and evidence are not to be discussed, then we can't claim to have found truth.
*A politician has most likely been involved in the murder of a critical citizen because he was seen on a CCTV leaving the murder scene with bloody hands.
*The victims family tries to talk to the politician but he says he won't speak to them.
*The police has chosen not to investigate the crime properly(to protect the politician and his friends);
*The police tells the public no crime has been committed and the citizen must have died because of natural causes;
*The courts are expected to be corrupt and refuse to make logically correct inferences based on the evidence if the victim's family would try to do a private prosecution due to either bribed judges or judges who are afraid of consequences ;
*The media is corrupt and owned by the politician or friends of him and won't help the family.
*The victim's family members use their freedom of speech and start to speak out publicly that they suspect the politician to have been involved the murder of their family member and that the police, courts and media are all corrupt and protects the politician by not performing proper investigations as well as ignoring strong evidence.
The politician brings the victim's family members to court and sues them for defamation. He claims he is innocent based on the police's words that the victim must have died due to natural causes. It has hurt his feelings and reputation to hear that he is accused by the victim's family members, defamation laws exist to protect one's reputation and therefore the court should sentence the family members to pay him a big compensation as well as being thrown in jail for a year(he refers to their accusations as being extreme and has really hurt his feelings and reputation).
How would you help the victims family to argue for the right to freedom of speech on this matters?
So, other people, and any group or organization, may restrict speech as they please, without violating any legal right, provided they aren't government agents or agencies. They may boycott, they may shame,they may bully, they may condemn, they may prohibit others from speaking at their meetings or on their property or using their social media, provided they don't break the law.
We can claim that we have a non-legal right to free speech all we please; we may claim to have a right to anything we like for that matter, we may claim that "there ought to be a law" to no purpose. There's nothing to prevent us from seeking to restrict hateful, bigoted, stupid, speech provided we don't break the law, and there's no obligation that it be tolerated. There's no more reason to tolerate such speech than there is to tolerate such conduct.
There’s plenty of reasons why Socrates ought not have been censored, and his views tolerated.
Not only is it wrong to censor a man, kill him, for specious fears that he might corrupt the youth, but it is wrong to deny others the opportunity to hear him, the choice of which is no business of the censor’s.
Such actions also deny history and posterity the same opportunity—we will never know what other wisdom he might have shared if his views were tolerated. It is, as Mill said, to rob humanity.
Censorship weakens truth, as Milton said, by prohibiting and licensing her strength.
So it may be legal to engage in censorship, but there is plenty of reasons to tolerate views, at least more so than reasons to censor them, which is invariably premised on personal fears and other subjective feelings.
Socrates was challenging the authority of the state, Athens. It was intentional. They gave him the opportunity to stop and he refused. Was Athens right? Maybe, maybe not. But imagine the harm done by Mr Trump saying our election system cannot be trusted.
“Imagine”…this is all the censor can do, imagine a future in which speech inflicts harm, corrupts the youth, but in all likelihood merely conflicts with his own views.
Trump using violence is hardly a trivial matter. His speech incites the violence and it is deliberate. By the way, new here. Are most people in England?
The “incitement” doctrine is an exercise in magical thinking, in my mind. If one can incite violence, one should be able to incite me to accept a contrary view, or perform any other activity for that matter. Can someone’s words make you commit violence?
The website is in English, is all I know.
Yes. Trials for these insurrectionists are arguing exactly that.
The trial of Socrates is an example of state action (prosecution sanctioned by the state). He was also accused for his association with Alcibiades, considered an enemy of the state, and with the Thirty Tyrants, an oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta led by Critias, the first cousin of Plato's Mom.
We should be concerned with government regulation and restriction of speech, and that concern may motivate and justify limits on governmental power even as to offensive speech. But otherwise, there's nothing about the flaunting of hate, or racism, or sexism which warrants their protection.
Ahahaha.
Seems like the fascists are not sending their best.
State censorship, mob censorship, church censorship—a distinction without a difference. We should be concerned about their censorship and for the same reasons. One act of censorship is a thousand-fold more destructive than any sentence ever uttered.
Many despots have suppressed views they don’t like, and no flaunting of power and priggery warrants its defense.
And Putin gave the order, “Nuke the fuckers.”
Examples to the contrary have been given, though.
Reduction to a trivial rule doesn't quite work.
, speech isn't all propositional; showed as much.
Freedom of expression is a starting point, but not really the end of it.
(I kind of like true speech myself, but that's not the end of it either.)
Returning to the article linked in the opening post, exposing hordes of crazies to the mad ramblings on Parler didn't sit well with Amazon, so they were told to go do their thing elsewhere.
(edited for content)
So free speech or censorship = anarchy or oppression (consequences).
Why is life so complicated? :chin:
My point isn't that speech must be censored, but that there's no "right" to say whatever one wants, no matter how stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted it may be. There's nothing about stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted speech which renders it so worthy or so significant or so sacred that restriction of it is improper. For example, I have no "right" to say that Jews (or any other people) should be exterminated, or are subhuman. There's no obligation to consent to such things being said. In most cases people won't raise a fuss, knowing that malicious idiots abound and feeling that they're not worth the effort. But there's no moral or legal basis on which it can be legitimately maintained that such speech is unobjectionable.
France has laws making it illegal to lie about the Armenian Genocide happening.. This is because Turkey spreads lies and propaganda and denies they committed genocide.
The moral and practical basis for free speech is well-established, well-argued, even ancient, especially where the legal basis has yet to catch up. The moral and practical basis for censorship, on the other hand, is utterly threadbare.
You do have the right because I and others bestow you that right. This right has little currency in a censorial and querulous culture, no doubt, and it’s not backed by any vested interest like a state or corporation, but it exists.
Similarly, there is no right to censor such views, nor any obligation to consent to censorship. This is why it is so odd to see so many try to undermine the principle of free speech but say nothing of censorship, premised as it is on its own kind of bigotry, hatred, and immorality.
Nothing could go wrong when the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish dissent from it.
Whole world, every historian, says the Armenian Genocide is fact. There is no controversy. Just Turkey lying about their responsibility.
And so true is this fact that it is illegal to say otherwise.
Do you have examples? The SEP article starts with:
You mentioned Mill earlier (and several times in the past), whom the SEP article also mentions:
If there is to be free speech then it should not be allowed to be thwarted by being shouted out. The contemporary version of this includes one or a small number of individuals flooding a topic.
As to Socrates: the issue was not free speech. He recognized a responsibility for what one said and he took that responsibility seriously, all the way to his death. His responsibilities were divided and in tension - both to the city and to the search for truth. Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and others came up with ways to deal with this tension, but it has never been eliminated.
threat to free speech is not so much extremism as it is censorship and propaganda.
It's difficult to define the scope of extremism when censorship and propaganda play major role.
Can you give an example of censorship?
There is no need for an example, censorship is well known method with a well known outcome.
Weird.
You've bestowed nothing on me, nor has anyone else. The U.S. Constitution merely provides that Congress shall not adopt a law abridging the freedom of speech. That's been extended to state and local government through the 14th amendment. Even the legal right of freedom of speech is, in fact, only a prohibition of state action. It bestows nothing; it isn't a grant.
It's interesting that Mill himself advocated the restriction of speech, to the extent that voting may be construed as speech. So, he proposed that the votes of the better educated and professional citizens count for more than those of the uneducated, and supported the notion of a "clerisy" as suggested by his friend Coleridge--a nationally endowed elite which would guide the opinions of the public.
There's no right to be an idiot, a fraud, a bigot, a liar or to act or speak like one. It's merely the case that one doesn't often run afoul of the law by being one, and does so only in certain circumstances.
JS Mill, John Milton, Meiklejohn, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Voltaire, Emma Goldman, Orwell, Huxley, Karl Jaspers, Arendt, Paine, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Chomsky…there are plenty of arguments for free speech from a vast array of important thinkers. One ought to at least consider them, place them next to the opposition, and see which prevails.
Of course there are limits on speech. If there wasn’t there wouldn’t be censorship, and therefor no need to argue in favor of free speech. But I’m making prescriptive statements, not descriptive ones. The fact of slavery, for instance, is no argument against its abolition, just as the fact of limits on speech is no argument against the absence of such limits. So I repudiate the article and Fish’s book.
I have bestowed it; I’ve conferred it; I’ve granted it; and I bestow it on everyone. I give you the right to be a fraud, a bigot, a liar. Reject it all you wish, but I will uphold my end of the bargain nonetheless.
Mill’s arguments for free speech are far better than his arguments for voting and other statist schemes—a Benthamite through and through. We are talking about one and not the other, after all.
Quoting T Clark
The framing isn't obvious?
Why didn't you write "... and expresses an opinion about gay people I disagree with"?
Now suddenly it is a lot less obvious that this person did something that shouldn't be protected under the right to free speech. (Though one is always entitled to ask people to leave their house, of course)
Quoting T Clark
Why didn't you say "... and expresses an extreme political opinion"?
Should this person now be immediately fired? I think not.
Quoting T Clark
Why didn't you say "and curses, swears and used inappropriate language in a fit of anger"?
You may agree that your way of framing certainly nudges us into a certain direction, doesn't it?
You're either consciously doing this, or perhaps more worrying, this happens subconsciously and this is how you perceive people you strongly disagree with; as people that are inherently unreasonable and disruptive, and that cannot be talked with in a polite way, or simply asked to keep their views to themselves or not share them in an antagonistic way.
I'm getting the impression that you are not interested in free speech at all, but instead wish to see people punished that hold opinions you strongly disagree with. That's why you seem so eager to frame such individuals in a way that can justify your desire for their punishment.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
So @T Clark asks something like "if my employee tells me to fuck off and die then should I be allowed to fire him?" and you respond by suggesting something like he rephrase his question as "if my employee talks to me then should I be allowed to fire him?"
It seems to me that it's you that is trying to frame things in a way that nudges us into a certain direction.
The specific situations that @T Clark mentions are relevant. It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. It might not be OK to suspend someone for shouting and swearing when in a moment of understandable duress, but OK to suspend someone for frequently shouting and swearing because that's just their natural personality.
Even Mill allowed for limits on speech.
[quote=On Liberty]In opposition to this it may be contended, that although the public, or the State, are not warranted in authoritatively deciding, for purposes of repression or punishment, that such or such conduct affecting only the interests of the individual is good or bad, they are fully justified in assuming, if they regard it as bad, that its being so or not is at least a disputable question: That, this being supposed, they cannot be acting wrongly in endeavouring to exclude the influence of solicitations which are not disinterested, of instigators who cannot possibly be impartial—who have a direct personal interest on one side, and that side the one which the State believes to be wrong, and who confessedly promote it for personal objects only. There can surely, it may be urged, be nothing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering matters that persons shall make their election, either wisely or foolishly, on their own prompting, as free as possible from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for interested purposes of their own.
...
The interest, however, of these dealers in promoting intemperance is a real evil, and justifies the State in imposing restrictions and requiring guarantees which, but for that justification, would be infringements of legitimate liberty.[/quote]
His examples were gambling and alcohol, but a more topical example would be soliciting the interference of counting electoral votes.
And as previously mentioned from the SEP article, his harm principle can apply to restrict certain kinds of speech (which might be what he is applying in the above example).
But you're right. I am trying to nudge you, towards being able to see things in perspective, so you too may one day formulate a worthwhile opinion on something as fundamental as free speech.
We're not quite there yet, it seems.
I disagree.
Any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, assuming they're expressed in a non-disruptive manner, and not a direct threat of or call to violence.
Reason being, whatever lowest common denominator of humanity is represented by governments would have to arbitrate what we consider reasonable limitations on free speech.
Wielding power over speech in a responsible manner and being able to estimate what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable" are things that governments (and indeed most individuals) have time and again proven to be incapable of.
Furthermore, it testifies of a fundamental distrust in the individual's ability for reason if one believes that free speech can lead to dangerous ideas taking hold. Usually ideas that are labled as such are dangerous to those who would rather hang onto their power. It's that distrust of the individual in which we find the roots of authoritarianism and all the suffering it brings.
It is in the crucible of free discourse that extreme ideas get tested and discarded. That's the power of free speech. It is in a climate of censorship that extremism thrives, usually by pointing at other extremists as an excuse to censor criticism.
You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence?
Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes.
It is possible that expressing certain opinions constitutes a breach of contract, which would make losing one's job a legal consequence one has agreed to as a result of them signing the contract.
Though, it should be noted that freedom of expression is a human right and is thus unalienable, therefore cannot be suspended as part of a contract.
And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism?
No, I don't think that.
I just thought I'd point out that freedom of expression is a human right, thus unalienable and not suspended as the result of a contract.
What two parties agree upon consensually to be the terms of their contract is none of my business.
In the real world people can just make up another excuse and ‘let them go’ so that is a ‘social consequence’ of not adhering to what most people regard as reasonable social behaviour.
The reason it is a ‘slippery slope’ (more so than my example) is that MANY people have differing views about what is and isn’t a proper manner to speak and behave. Some people can view merely raising a topic as a ‘micro aggression’.
Going back to day-to-day life if you talk to someone with ill intent and ridicule and belittle them THEN act uppity when they punch you in the face … well, you suffer the ‘social consequence’ of your behaviour. The legality of such things is irrelevant too. People act as they see fit to act NOT by some rulebook written by a group of others.
Free speech allows everyone to see where others stand (to a degree) and treat them accordingly. Being ‘fired’ directly for holding opposing views to someone that doesn’t relate to the workload is illegal surely? I am not saying they should not ‘fire’ them only that they should not be allowed to ‘fire’ someone for expressing an opinion about something that doesn’t effect their work. Preaching and politicking … I think that is an area where the employee should be warned to keep such things out of the workplace rather than just fired outright.
What these arguments amount to is that expressing one's privately held beliefs can be sufficient reason for someone to end up unemployed or without a voice.
Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job.
The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with?
Fear or a desire for control, neither of which are good councillors for reasoned thought. (And both of which are the prime movers of human evil)
If I'm not obligated to hire someone then I'm not obligated to retain their employment.
Or would you say that if I have to choose between a Nazi and a non-Nazi when hiring then I ought not be allowed to choose the non-Nazi simply because I don't like Nazism?
If that contract states one is able to fire an employee at any time, for whatever reason, then that's part of it.
But you're ignoring the fundamental question here:
Quoting Tzeentch
A bit too confrontational for comfort, perhaps?
Why isn't the bigot content with just keeping his mouth shut?
It's an irrelevant question really. He wants to call a black person a nigger and I want to fire him in response. That's it. My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. Why I don't want to keep a bigot as an employee isn't the topic.
You have the inalienable right not to be imprisoned or fined without good reason and you have the inalienable right to express your opinion, therefore it is wrong for you to be imprisoned or fined for expressing your opinion.
However you don't have the inalienable right to use Twitter or be employed by me, therefore it isn't wrong for me to fire you or for Twitter to suspend your account for expressing your opinion.
Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be.
But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult.
Another attempt to justify your desire for punishment, which reaffirms the need for my question to be answered.
Fine, then "black people are inferior to white people and do not deserve equal rights or respect."
Quoting Tzeentch
Obviously, but in this case we're assuming that the repercussions are legal. What we're debating is whether they're ethical.
My employee expresses that opinion. I don't want to employ someone with that opinion. I have the legal right to fire him as per the contract. He does not have the inalienable right to be employed by me. Therefore I have the right to fire him. That's it.
Sorry. If a gift isn't accepted, it's not a gift. Similarly, a bargain, like a contract, must be agreed to by the parties. And, since you're not in a position to keep me from speaking, you can't "allow" me to speak. It's as if you were to claim that you allow me to breathe, or eat.
I’m aware of Mill’s ideas. I don’t think the harm principle should apply to speech.
It’s true. Your business is yours and no one has a right to be employed by you, and you have every right to fire anyone. But the fact of having the right to fire someone for their opinions doesn’t mean that it is right to fire someone for their opinions. Though it’s up to you and no one else how you should operate your business, you should not fire someone because you don’t like his opinions.
It’s not a gift or a bargain or a contract. I was merely using the idiom “uphold my end of the bargain” to say that I will fulfill my obligation. Perhaps that idiom is too American. My apologies.
I will not seek sanction or punishment for your speech. I will also defend you from those who would seek your sanction or punishment. No casuistry will convince me to do otherwise.
Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me?
What would be the right thing to do?
Tell them to "grow a heart", to get lost, call the cops, ...
(This sort of thing can get increasingly problematic the younger the listeners.)
If someone were to do that in our house, then we might get into a quarrel/skirmish, or we might show them the door, which sooort of is what Amazon (and Apple, Twitter, Facebook) has done, to return to Peter's article.
Consequently, let's just say they'd be abusing freedom, that their particular speech isn't worth protecting ( :up:), more like the opposite.
That's not due to being against free speech.
The slippery slope () is what makes it non-trivial.
Quoting Tzeentch
You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like, but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you?
They don't lose their right to free speech.
I'm saying that an employer ought be allowed to fire their employee for being a Nazi and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts that violate their terms of service.
I've never said that private opinions should matter to me so your question is irrelevant.
How do you get from "employers ought be allowed to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism" to "other people's private opinions should matter to you and I want people with private opinions I dislike to be unemployed and censored"?
The question you refuse to answer is why these opinions matter so much to you.
I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. Nowhere have I said that private opinions should matter.
I also believe that an employer ought have the right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism, and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts if they violate their terms of service. Nowhere have I said that it ought be illegal for Nazism to be expressed or for Twitter's terms of service to be violated.
I'm sure they matter to people, but why?
Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor)
But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood.
That begs the question why.
Ask them, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't need a "way out".
Quoting Tzeentch
No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. I'm not suggesting that people be physically prevented from expressing their opinion or imprisoned or fined.
That doesn't seem to be what you're arguing at all.
Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.
Should you now fire them?
Quoting Michael
Clearly you do.
Lets say you're working hard trying to provide for your family, but then news reaches my ears you have some funny ideas about freedom of expression.
Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions?
I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them.
If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. You're not obligated to continue working with and paying a racist, as you are suggesting.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, I'm not saying that you should fire me, I'm saying that, as my employer, you have the right to fire me. Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. It is acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that black people are inferior to white people but maybe not acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that Thai food is nicer than Spanish food.
Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are.
Quoting Michael
Then what are you saying people should do? And why?
Quoting Michael
Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion?
Quoting Michael
And who should be the arbiter of this?
People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable".
We're not talking about legal rights but ethical(?) rights. The argument often made is that we have a "natural" right to speech and so laws against speech are wrong. My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not saying people should do anything.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology. If it doesn't bother you then don't fire them. But if it bothers another employer then they have the right to fire their employee.
Quoting Tzeentch
Us. We're the arbiter of everything. Who decided that we have the right to free speech in the first place? That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all.
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If a person is caught lying on the witness stand, they can be punished by law for perjury. That is clearly the government restricting a person's "free speech".
Lies seem to be extremism, at least in court. If a business lies to customer's about its product, they can also be legally liable. But white lies to your wife or husband? They seem fine. If you yell "Fire!" in a theater and people rush out and get hurt, that also doesn't seem protected. I suppose its about the risk and cost to people that certain lies cause which would break the idea of "free speech".
I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that.
And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? If roles were reversed, would you feel the same way, or does it only apply when you agree with what is deemed reasonable and what isn't?
Quoting Michael
Mankind's history is near entirely comprised of unreasonable lapses of moral judgement.
Ironically, the fact that at one point certain enlightened individuals understood the value of free speech is one of few exceptions to an atrocious track record that doesn't suggest even the slightest ability to responsibly wield power of any kind, let alone power over fundamental human rights.
You wouldn't let a toddler play with a scalpel.
The right to not be required to accept another person's labour and the right to not be required to give money to another person.
No, the general principle is:
An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions
I then apply this principle to specific cases:
[b]Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible
Therefore, an employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or anti-semitic opinions[/b]
Do you disagree with one or both of the premises?
Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations?
Quoting Michael
Premise 1, obviously.
And while I would agree with premise 2, I wouldn't trust anyone with the power to decide what is considered racist, sexist or what have you. My moral opinions I hold to guide my own behavior, and I don't expect or desire others to follow it, except of their own volition.
Is "I like Hitler" a racist, homophobic or anti-semetic remark? Yet I'm sure such a remark would incur your wrath as an employer, would it not?
As I have mentioned before, for the sake of argument it is legal to fire the employee for expressing such an opinion. We're not discussing legality here.
Quoting Tzeentch
So am I obligated to accept labour from (and compensate accordingly) someone who expresses morally reprehensible opinions? Do I not have the right to choose who works for me?
Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.
If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal.
In many cases, you don't because you do not have the right to refuse employment to someone on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other of a number of protected characteristics. The point, with regards to terminating employment on the grounds of voiced opinion, cannot be argued on the basis of a purported freedom to employ and fire whomever one feels so inclined to employ/fire without also asserting that such legislation ought be revoked.
We already restrict who an employer can refuse to hire (or fire) to protect potential employees from unfair discrimination, at least some of which are opinions (religion, for example) not only unavoidable characteristics like race.
So if we've already conceded that people's holding, and legitimate voicing, of certain opinions can be a protected characteristic in equality law, then the only outstanding matter is that of which opinions ought to benefit from such protection - ie which opinions is it considered legitimate to hold (in opposition to your employer, such that they are prevented from using them against your employment) and which it is not.
Specifically on the question of firing people for expressing certain opinions, then, the argument is over whether a new opinion ought be part of the list of protected opinions, or whether an existing protected opinion really ought not be on the list.
Many contracts include provisions regarding conduct, and social media companies include terms of service for the same. So I assume you accept that Twitter can suspend accounts for saying such things as "all Muslims are terrorists" given that their terms of service explicitly prohibit such speech?
It is acceptable to refuse to hire someone for expressing morally reprehensible opinions
And of course there are other acceptable reasons for refusing to hire someone (demanding too high a salary, not being capable, there not being a job opening, etc.), with things such as gender, sexuality, and religious affiliation not satisfying any such reason (except in special cases).
So you're right to call out my overgeneralization.
So I guess their expenses should be paid for by taxes? Although by which country? It's headquarters are in the USA, so I guess it's American taxpayers who should foot the bill, but then there's global access to it, so maybe it needs to come out of the UN's budget?
Or alternatively start up a new social media company that allows more freedom in what you can say, and try to compete against Twitter and let the free market decide. I think there's something called Parlor that's trying to do that. If people want to listen to what you have to say then they can use that, and if not they can stay on Twitter.
That's a bit obscene.
Twitter doesn't impede your right to speech. The existence of Twitter doesn't take away other methods of expressing your opinion. Start your own blog or newspaper, or go out onto the streets with a soapbox, or find some other social media company (like Parlor) that lets you say more things than Twitter.
And you didn't answer my question. If Twitter is a public forum then should the taxpayer (of which countries?) fund its expenses?
It certainly does, and Twitter and platforms like Google have already been reprimanded on this issue.
That's what it means to live in a digital age.