Freedom of speech means freedom from repercussions?

[aelf]

The nonprofit director who called Michelle Obama an ‘ape in heels’ has lost her job — for good

...

The decision to fire Pamela Taylor, who was director of the Clay County Development Corp., comes as officials work to keep closer watch on the nonprofit, which uses government funds to provide services to elderly and low-income residents, by placing it under a state agency.

The move was prompted by Taylor’s November Facebook post, in which she celebrated incoming first lady Melania Trump, while calling Obama an “ape in heels.” Robert Roswall, commissioner for the West Virginia Bureau of Senior Services, told The Washington Post that the controversy exposed loopholes in how the nonprofit was being run.

Link

A lot of conservatives are angry about this - not just American ones, mind, but those in other parts of the world who want to be able to say bigoted things without repercussions. "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH??" goes their cry of indignation.

AFAIK, freedom of speech guarantees that you would not be prosecuted by the state, to an extent (there are still hate speech laws in most places, etc). Do you think it should also extend to social consequences? Should there be laws to guarantee that companies can't fire employees for the things they say? Should (small) government police society to ensure that people can say what they want without too much of a consequence - create a society-wide safe space, so to speak?

I can see why it would be good to have laws that protect individuals from the capriciousness of society. Getting fired from your job for insulting the royal family or suggesting that women should drive would offend the sensibilities of most progressives. That said, l think blank-slate liberalism is unworkable. There are going to be some things that are more or less universally (in the present time) bad and some that are not universally bad. We should allow social mechanisms for controlling things that are universally bad (such as racism), but not things that are bad only to a few groups. I think that's the only sustainable way to look at it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Link

A lot of conservatives are angry about this - not just American ones, mind, but those in other parts of the world who want to be able to say bigoted things without repercussions. "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH??" goes their cry of indignation.

AFAIK, freedom of speech guarantees that you would not be prosecuted by the state, to an extent (there are still hate speech laws in most places, etc). Do you think it should also extend to social consequences? Should there be laws to guarantee that companies can't fire employees for the things they say? Should (small) government police society to ensure that people can say what they want without too much of a consequence - create a society-wide safe space, so to speak?

I can see why it would be good to have laws that protect individuals from the capriciousness of society. Getting fired from your job for insulting the royal family or suggesting that women should drive would offend the sensibilities of most progressives. That said, l think blank-slate liberalism is unworkable. There are going to be some things that are more or less universally (in the present time) bad and some that are not universally bad. We should allow social mechanisms for controlling things that are universally bad (such as racism), but not things that are bad only to a few groups. I think that's the only sustainable way to look at it.

We have hate laws in Canada, and yes, people have been fired for inciting hate toward specific minorities. I've mentioned the case of Jim Keegstra, the former (and now dead-and-only-missed-by-his-family-and-fellow-bigots) high school teacher who indoctrinated his social studies students in vicious anti-Jewish beliefs. He forced these kids to regurgitate his beliefs in their essays, and if they didn't comply, they didn't pass the assignment. He was tried and stripped of his teaching license.

As I understand the specific example of the women who posted hate speech against Michelle Obama, the first one violated one of the tenets of the organization she worked for, which was to be nondiscriminatory. Well, she really blew that one. And then for the mayor of the community to back her up? Despicable, both of them. Yes, both of them deserve firing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As before, if the law is not going to limit the hate spewed from your mouth the law should not limit the people who punch you in the nose for it.

 

[Zkribbler]

Should there be laws to guarantee that companies can't fire employees for the things they say?

There are laws requiring company to prevent harassment based upon race, gender, religion, etc. It would be counter productive to have a law saying an employee can't be disciplined for harassing a co-employee, subordinate, etc. because of race, gender, religion.

 

[tetley]

The U.S. has 40-hour work weeks. What you do or say on your own time should be left at that--your own time. If you can be fired for things completely unrelated to the business off the clock (and you can), then I'm going to argue that is a violation of the 40-hour work week. You are in fact on the clock the whole time.

Of course, if you're slamming your boss or leaking secrets off the clock, you are directly impacting the business.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The U.S. has 40-hour work weeks. What you do or say on your own time should be left at that--your own time. If you can be fired for things completely unrelated to the business off the clock (and you can), then I'm going to argue that is a violation of the 40-hour work week. You are in fact on the clock the whole time.

Of course, if you're slamming your boss or leaking secrets off the clock, you are directly impacting the business.

I agree.

I do not have a problem with laws against hate speech particularly those that may inspire others to commit crime; but
when it comes to bigotry that can be interpreted by X as little as Y typing something about Z that X does not agree with.

I regard the "ape in heels" as very rude and in poor taste, but only arguably racist.

And I get the impression that that particular quote was just one of many things that woman had got wrong.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The U.S. has 40-hour work weeks. What you do or say on your own time should be left at that--your own time. If you can be fired for things completely unrelated to the business off the clock (and you can), then I'm going to argue that is a violation of the 40-hour work week. You are in fact on the clock the whole time.

Of course, if you're slamming your boss or leaking secrets off the clock, you are directly impacting the business.

If you are presenting the business as a haven for asshats that directly impacts the business.

 

[JollyRoger]

The U.S. has 40-hour work weeks. What you do or say on your own time should be left at that--your own time. If you can be fired for things completely unrelated to the business off the clock (and you can), then I'm going to argue that is a violation of the 40-hour work week. You are in fact on the clock the whole time.

Of course, if you're slamming your boss or leaking secrets off the clock, you are directly impacting the business.

If they can refuse to hire you because of actions in your past, have you been on their clock all your life?

 

[Berzerker]

As before, if the law is not going to limit the hate spewed from your mouth the law should not limit the people who punch you in the nose for it.

but my freedom ends short of your nose

 

[Timsup2nothin]

but my freedom ends short of your nose

Not if my freedom extends into your unwilling ears...or at least I don't believe that it should.

 

[sophie]

The U.S. has 40-hour work weeks. What you do or say on your own time should be left at that--your own time. If you can be fired for things completely unrelated to the business off the clock (and you can), then I'm going to argue that is a violation of the 40-hour work week. You are in fact on the clock the whole time.

Of course, if you're slamming your boss or leaking secrets off the clock, you are directly impacting the business.

But if those comments spill over and create a toxic, racist, discriminatory work environment, wouldn't that fall into workplace protections? Like if you're a black man and your cubicle-neighbor follows the KKK's twitter or goes on some racist screed on facebook, and you see it, that would damage the work environment, right? You still have to work with this guy, and now you have to work with him knowing that he thinks you are a sub-human. Like the whole reason we have sexual harassment policies is to help ensure that the work environment remains professional and safe for everybody. So surely racist or misogynist acts outside of work that damage the work environment similarly to sexual or racial harassment within it would be subject to the same kinds of punitive measures, no? You're punishing the act because of its result, not because of the act per se.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But if those comments spill over and create a toxic, racist, discriminatory work environment, wouldn't that fall into workplace protections? Like if you're a black man and your cubicle-neighbor follows the KKK's twitter or goes on some racist screed on facebook, and you see it, that would damage the work environment, right? You still have to work with this guy, and now you have to work with him knowing that he thinks you are a sub-human. Like the whole reason we have sexual harassment policies is to help ensure that the work environment remains professional and safe for everybody. So surely racist or misogynist acts outside of work that damage the work environment similarly to sexual or racial harassment within it would be subject to the same kinds of punitive measures, no? You're punishing the act because of its result, not because of the act per se.

If you are presenting the business as a haven for asshats that directly impacts the business.

For those who like choices; Owen was clear, I was concise. Take your pick.

 

[metalhead]

but my freedom ends short of your nose

Not if you're using a gun.

 

[tetley]

If someone spews KKK rhetoric off the clock and he works with a black coworker, then I'm certainly going to keep a close eye on that. But if it's not interfering with the needs of the business, then so long as I've got my business hat on, that's all I care about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If someone spews KKK rhetoric off the clock and he works with a black coworker, then I'm certainly going to keep a close eye on that. But if it's not interfering with the needs of the business, then so long as I've got my business hat on, that's all I care about.

So do you hide this paragon in the back when a black customer comes in? Does the time you invest in "keeping a close eye on that" not have better available use? Please explain how you think this could not interfere with the needs of the business?

 

[metalhead]

If someone spews KKK rhetoric off the clock and he works with a black coworker, then I'm certainly going to keep a close eye on that. But if it's not interfering with the needs of the business, then so long as I've got my business hat on, that's all I care about.

In the social media age, it is pretty much impossible to avoid negative publicity if you employ someone who posts racist things on Facebook or Twitter. Most employers consider that behavior to be interfering with the needs of their business, and rightly so.

 

[BvBPL]

With freedom of speech, people are basically welcome to say whatever they want. Others are welcome to respond in whatever means they see fit. That means the individuals can be held to account for what they say and what they post on social media. This is particularly true for a party that has an important, prominent position, such as here with the director of an organization.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A lot of conservatives are angry about this - not just American ones, mind, but those in other parts of the world who want to be able to say bigoted things without repercussions. "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH??" goes their cry of indignation.

Right, a lot of people seem to think that "freedom of speech" means freedom from responsibility, as well as freedom from repercussions.

Like if you're a black man and your cubicle-neighbor follows the KKK's twitter or goes on some racist screed on facebook, and you see it, that would damage the work environment, right?

I think to some degree it depends on where the activity took place, and whether privacy is a factor. If the information against the cubicle-neighbor was acquired by way of violating his or her privacy, I'd call it "fruit of the poisonous tree." I wouldn't feel totally comfortable holding something someone said in private against them in any kind of formal way (e.g. firing them). Your example provides two important questions that could change things, though:

The first is whether or not social media constitute a public venue. I'm not sure that's been established yet, in courts of law, but my sense is that both Twitter and Facebook can be public. I feel like we're reaching a point where people cannot reasonably be surprised any longer that something they write on social media "leaks out." Eventually it just won't be an excuse, and that might be true already.

The second is that the KKK is a terrorist organization. I don't think following a group's Twitter feed implies support or membership, especially if Twitter is indeed a public square, but if I were an employer and one of my employees seemed to have sympathies for a terrorist organization, I would probably talk to them about it and try to suss out where they stand on things. The racist screed on Facebook - written by the cubicle-mate, not by someone the cubicle-mate had friended on Facebook - would be a greater cause for concern, depending on exactly what was written. On the one hand, people get misunderstood all the time; on the other hand, if you say or write something racist it doesn't entirely matter whether you meant it or not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If someone spews KKK rhetoric off the clock and he works with a black coworker, then I'm certainly going to keep a close eye on that. But if it's not interfering with the needs of the business, then so long as I've got my business hat on, that's all I care about.

So your hypothetical business has no need of a working environment in which all employees feel safe and can expect basic courtesy from their colleagues?

Right, a lot of people seem to think that "freedom of speech" means freedom from responsibility, as well as freedom from repercussions.

Exactly. The tendency here in Canada (we have freedom of expression, which is not the same as freedom of speech) is that along with that freedom comes the duty to use it responsibly and not for the purpose of promoting hate and violence.

This is why a high school teacher was fired and stripped of his teaching license for promoting hatred of Jews to his captive audience of teenage students, and why a recipient of the Order of Canada (an aboriginal man) was stripped of that honor after he went on a public tirade against the Jews. It's also why, during the last provincial election in Alberta and the last federal election here, so many candidates had to drop out after their racist/misogynist Facebook posts and tweets were discovered. Some ridings were left scrambling for candidates as the nomination deadlines approached.

The first is whether or not social media constitute a public venue. I'm not sure that's been established yet, in courts of law, but my sense is that both Twitter and Facebook can be public. I feel like we're reaching a point where people cannot reasonably be surprised any longer that something they write on social media "leaks out." Eventually it just won't be an excuse, and that might be true already.

How can they not be considered a public venue? Most people's accounts are at least partially open for anyone at all to read. It's like writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper; if the letter is printed, it's public. All of my comments on CBC.ca (other than the pinked ones) are public, and CBC says it has the right to use them in any way they see fit (which is why I decided to go with a "real-sounding name" instead of my real RL name when they put in the "real names" policy earlier this year).

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

This is exactly the same principle in my understanding.
http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/27/14088862/cops-arrest-oculus-executive-in-underage-sex-sting

Will this affect that company? Of course, it already has. Executive, even employee, behavior affects the bottom line of the entire company image. That's just a fact you're not going to explain away.

It doesn't even need to be so extreme as "kkk" or whatever. If I have an employee at a bar or restaurant negatively commenting on the fashion sense, or even attitude, of customers, if there's a chance this is going to get back to the customers, I must let that employee go. That is adversely affecting my bottom line, it's unacceptable, I need to fill that position with someone who isn't scaring away customers. I might not come out and say, exactly, this is why I'm less forgiving with that employee, but it's going to come, sooner than later, that I let that person go for what's a valid reason, on which I might let others slip.

You can say it's not fair, but it's not fair to me and my livelihood for the person to be going off half-cocked. It's the way the world operates.

Here's another one.