Defending Free Speech in the Private Sphere

[Sigmaleph]

Completely and utterly fucked? No. Would it be better if it wasn't like that? Sure. And I've found that if I'm willing to swallow my pride, work hard, and not afraid to get dirty there are always jobs out there for me. Always. The only time I had any trouble at all finding work was when I still had that pride.

Fred, your hypothetical was way too vague for me to answer. If you'd like to rephrase that I can take a stab at addressing whatever that was.

If you express a fondness for the Jews and your boss sacks you, is he in the wrong?

It depends. It's still extremely broad. Like asking how long is a piece of string. When asked for clarification, you responded red string.

I'm confused here. In what context would it be OK for your boss to fire you for expressing fondness for the Jews? I mean, presumably if you write it in blood in the bathroom wall or stand in the middle of the office with a megaphone shouting about it, but I don't think Fred meant anything like that.

[Lt. Fred]

Maybe you could make a case that government censorship is worse than private censorship, but this isn't an argument in favour of the latter.  Restrictions by business are not voluntary, since everyone has to work. We wouldn't, for instance, accept having sex with your boss as a condition of work as legitimate. So why should political belief be part of the equation?

If you're sacking someone for saying something*, you're doing the wrong thing. You are, in fact, making people less free.

How is being fired for holding certain views any different from being boycotted for holding certain views? If you're boycotting someone for saying something, you're making them less free. After all, everybody's gotta eat, and the company isn't going to hand out wages unless the customers hand out payment.

p.s. Use Tor. What the customer doesn't know won't hurt the company.

It's punching up versus punching down. At least you have to convince a lot of people that this person is loathsome, whereas the business owner can make that decision on his own.

Obviously, some boycotts are illegitimate.

Completely and utterly fucked? No. Would it be better if it wasn't like that? Sure. And I've found that if I'm willing to swallow my pride, work hard, and not afraid to get dirty there are always jobs out there for me. Always. The only time I had any trouble at all finding work was when I still had that pride.

Fred, your hypothetical was way too vague for me to answer. If you'd like to rephrase that I can take a stab at addressing whatever that was.

If you express a fondness for the Jews and your boss sacks you, is he in the wrong?

It depends. It's still extremely broad. Like asking how long is a piece of string. When asked for clarification, you responded red string.

I have a question for you, Fred. We all have to work. Ok, for too many that's true. So if I take that to the next level, does a company have to hire you? Wouldn't being self employed satisfy that need to work?

Sure, if we assumed the economy was structured in a way that would make that efficient, which is isn't.

I don't think this is very complicated, to be honest. Bosses try to sack employees for being liberals (or whatever) all the time. Do you think that is a restriction of free speech?

[rookie]

If you're working for the Palestinian embassy or consulate springs to mind. Or if you're a waiter at a Halal carryout in Little Basra. If you're in your company's uniform to lead people to think you're speaking for the company. If you're a government employee on a government computer. If that's not the only line of the post.

Fred, I'm sure you've read the NLRB's rules and perused various court rulings. In all that, you'll find only one of the above is illegal.

[Lt. Fred]

Is/ought fallacy. Just because something is legal does not make it legitimate. Your boss's ability to sack you if he doesn't like what you say is a restriction on your right to say it.

We might disagree whether that is legitimate or not - in some cases it may even be okay - but mostly no.

[rookie]

I agree that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. And to answer your question, yes political sspeech is protected free speech. Belonging to a political party or having political views is not grounds for dismissal. If that's what you got fired for, is suggest getting a lawyer and fighting that.

[pyro]

It's punching up versus punching down. At least you have to convince a lot of people that this person is loathsome, whereas the business owner can make that decision on his own.

Obviously, some boycotts are illegitimate.

And the whole reason we're having this discussion is because of the possibility of de facto censorship through control of all the venues. If it's possible for all the companies to censor an opinion, it's possible for all the consumers to censor an opinion.

[RavynousHunter]

It's punching up versus punching down. At least you have to convince a lot of people that this person is loathsome, whereas the business owner can make that decision on his own.

Obviously, some boycotts are illegitimate.

And the whole reason we're having this discussion is because of the possibility of de facto censorship through control of all the venues. If it's possible for all the companies to censor an opinion, it's possible for all the consumers to censor an opinion.

I honestly don't see a point where that wouldn't be possible, though.  If enough people come together and agree, then yes, they can completely censor something.  However, getting enough people together to effect such a change would be impractical even under near-ideal circumstances.  The more people you get together, the more likely it is that a major disagreement will form, fracturing the group.  That's basically how Protestantism started.

[TheL]

School wouldn't be a problem if it were free.  Like in the developed world.  It does serve a useful purpose, at least when it comes to STEM majors, as well as law, since most primary/secondary schools in this country barely touch any actual trade schooling, if at all.

Also, the beard (and hair) thing is one of the reasons I'm a software developer.  Nobody gives a single fuck if the guy writing your code has a beard that could put ZZ Topp to shame and hair that drags the ground.  Or lady.  Hell, some places, you don't even gotta bathe.  The place I work for?  You don't even have to wear pants, since its all done on the cloud.  I could literally spend the entire day writing code, buck-ass naked, and nobody would give two damns.  Or know.  Though, my boss would probably laugh at the idea, lol.

This reminds me.  Hubby works from home, and I need to convince him to stop wearing pajama pants at the "office."  Or any pants at all.

[ironbite]

Yeah but then he'll just be trying to play hide the kosher pickle with you.

Ironbite-and won't be able to get any work done.

[pyro]

I honestly don't see a point where that wouldn't be possible, though.  If enough people come together and agree, then yes, they can completely censor something.  However, getting enough people together to effect such a change would be impractical even under near-ideal circumstances.  The more people you get together, the more likely it is that a major disagreement will form, fracturing the group.  That's basically how Protestantism started.

And that's why it's not a de facto violation of the first amendment when someone is fired for saying an opinion. There will always be other companies that aren't run by nutjobs.

[RavynousHunter]

I honestly don't see a point where that wouldn't be possible, though.  If enough people come together and agree, then yes, they can completely censor something.  However, getting enough people together to effect such a change would be impractical even under near-ideal circumstances.  The more people you get together, the more likely it is that a major disagreement will form, fracturing the group.  That's basically how Protestantism started.

And that's why it's not a de facto violation of the first amendment when someone is fired for saying an opinion. There will always be other companies that aren't run by nutjobs.

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

[Lt. Fred]

I agree that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. And to answer your question, yes political sspeech is protected free speech. Belonging to a political party or having political views is not grounds for dismissal. If that's what you got fired for, is suggest getting a lawyer and fighting that.

That's the wrong way of going about it, though. Any sort of restriction on speech is illegitimate unless proven legitimate. Not the other way around.

[rookie]

The law is quite cleat on those matters.

Unless you're talking about not what is, but what should be. If that's the car, then I'd have to agree with you conditionally. Personal comments off a private nature said soaking as a private citizen should in now way effect any job related anything. I agree with you 100%there.  If: in a company uniform; on company resources; working hours; speaking for the company (either officially or in a way that a judge or jury could reasonably think you're speaking for the company); or on a company sponsored event, then there is a bit more leeway for that effecting the morale or bottom line. Then I believe the company should have the right to step in and protect itself.

[Lt. Fred]

The law is quite cleat on those matters.

Unless you're talking about not what is, but what should be. If that's the car, then I'd have to agree with you conditionally. Personal comments off a private nature said soaking as a private citizen should in now way effect any job related anything. I agree with you 100%there.  If: in a company uniform; on company resources; working hours; speaking for the company (either officially or in a way that a judge or jury could reasonably think you're speaking for the company); or on a company sponsored event, then there is a bit more leeway for that effecting the morale or bottom line. Then I believe the company should have the right to step in and protect itself.

Even then the burden is quite high, I think. It would have to be so bad as to impair the ability of the business to provide a service (or good, or whatever it does). Bad mouthing your boss on Facebook is nowhere near enough.

[pyro]

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

Well, yes, firing someone for stupid reasons (read: reasons that don't affect the bottom line) is wrong and stupid.