Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I don't agree that it's his 'right' to be a bigot or a racist anymore than it's anyone's 'right' to be a liar, cheat, scam artist, etc.
Um, as long as you aren't doing something illegal, like defamation of character or inciting a riot, it is your right to lie. Same with cheating - it's not illegal to cheat in a friendly game of scrabble, or on your wife...if you cheat on your taxes, it's illegal and not your right. Being a scam artisst, by definition generally means engaging in illegal activity, so no...it's not your right.
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose here or what your point even is. We've already got laws about inciting violence and defamation of character and so on.
It's someone's right to be a bigot, just like it was (or should have been) someone's right to support the civil rights movement or the communist party or women's suffrage or gay rights when those were things that pretty much everyone hated and was opposed to. Of all the stupid things about our country, Freedom of Speech isn't close to the top of the list of things that need to go away.
I really, really cannot comprehend what it takes to get to this place, where you're comparing civil rights to Neo-Nazi ramblings or homophobia or revisionism. One group was fighting for the rights of a minority demographic, the others are trying to trample all over those right via de facto mob rule. The things have a Goddamn ocean between them - proposing that a bridge might connect them is nonsense.
The same freedom that took homosexuals from being disgusting deviant freaks that were hated by the vast majority of society to a legitimate community today is the same freedom that allows people to speak out against it.
You can't have one without the other.
Yes, it sucks that bad people benefit from it, but having government censorship of speech is one of the most effective ways for that de facto mob to trample on the rights of the minority. Without a voice, the minority will never be able to gain any support.
I don't think there will ever be a time where an employees ability to say stupid things will be protected. Even the most progressive of people do not see that a cause worth pursuing, because in the great list of things employers do to their employees that's not even the slightest % of an issue.
When in doubt, on the clock, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Except we now live in a world where your employer can see most everything you ever say online. All that stuff is recorded. And employers don't seem to particularly care if you're on the clock or not when you say it.
All the more reason to not say abhorent garbage that can be directly tracked back to you. In a way it would be pleasant if people actually thought for the briefest moment before saying something horrible.
Also I doubt you would be fired as an employee for posting on your facebook that you just ate the greatest steak ever, unless you worked at PETA or something.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Yeah or a Communist or a Socialist or a Trade Unionist.
OR if your an abortionist. Or you voted for that N***** in the white house.
Look as long as you agree with your boss in all things you'll be fine. But if he finds out you hold unpopular opinions he gets to fire you. SImple as that and that's what makes america the greatest country in the world.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I suspect the point of disagreement is whether it's okay in general to fire someone for their unpopular opinions. I personally think it's probably okay in this specific case due to the nature of the job, but I'd be very much against a world where it happened with every job; a world where an employer can and will fire you because you said something unpopular on your own time, out of the office.
Granted we pretty much already live in that world, so to some extent I'm just pissing in the wind. But eventually the pendulum of corporate power might swing back the other way towards individual rights, right?
They're not getting fired for unpopular opinions. They're not getting fired for saying "Star Wars is a bad movie." They're saying "gay people are going to fuck your children and dogs".
That's not an "unpopular opinion". It's disgusting and vile and they should be ostracized from society so they fucking learn a godamn lesson.
But you know what, if you worked for Lucas Films and went on...Entertainment Tonight? and said "Star Wars is a bad movie" right before the Phantom Menace came out...as CORRECT as you would be, it would still be right of Lucas to can your ass.
Context matters. That's why a rapper or comedian can say things that would get a news anchor canned in a second or end a politician's career.
Look, some opinions are just wrong. Racism is wrong. So is hating on gays. But it's not the government's job to step in and tell people to shut up. Now, it is their job to arrest and convict people who gay bash or are in lynch mobs or burn churches, etc. Even people whose speech incites violence.
But this is a private matter that's handled properly through an 'image' clause that likely exists in this asshat's contract with A&E.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I suspect the point of disagreement is whether it's okay in general to fire someone for their unpopular opinions. I personally think it's probably okay in this specific case due to the nature of the job, but I'd be very much against a world where it happened with every job; a world where an employer can and will fire you because you said something unpopular on your own time, out of the office.
Granted we pretty much already live in that world, so to some extent I'm just pissing in the wind. But eventually the pendulum of corporate power might swing back the other way towards individual rights, right?
They're not getting fired for unpopular opinions. They're not getting fired for saying "Star Wars is a bad movie." They're saying "gay people are going to fuck your children and dogs".
That's not an "unpopular opinion". It's disgusting and vile and they should be ostracized from society so they fucking learn a godamn lesson.
But you know what, if you worked for Lucas Films and went on...Entertainment Tonight? and said "Star Wars is a bad movie" right before the Phantom Menace came out...as CORRECT as you would be, it would still be right of Lucas to can your ass.
Context matters. That's why a rapper or comedian can say things that would get a news anchor canned in a second or end a politician's career.
Look, some opinions are just wrong. Racism is wrong. So is hating on gays. But it's not the government's job to step in and tell people to shut up. Now, it is their job to arrest and convict people who gay bash or are in lynch mobs or burn churches, etc. Even people whose speech incites violence.
But this is a private matter that's handled properly through an 'image' clause that likely exists in this asshat's contract with A&E.
So, the government's job isn't to actually protect anyone - it's just to clean-up the mess left afterward?
Protect from what?
Violence? Sure, it's their job.
Someone with opinions they disagree with? No. It's not the government's job to protect your views from being challenged by people with differing opinions. Regardless of how asinine those differing opinions may be.
EDIT - in the oversimplified false dichotomy you gave, anyway.
And as I said before this wasn't him saying this stuff on the street it was a GQ Interview. PART OF HIS JOB IS PR FOR THE A&E Brand. He wasn't doing that interview for his health it was PR for the show. And in saying shitty things he was DOING HIS JOB WRONG
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Why stop there
What are you talking about? If an employee does something public that can severely hamper your business, you're saying the company should not be permitted to fire them?
That rule can be easily twisted to fire secretaries for endangering the boss's marriage and etc
you can't fire somebody because they are a threat to your profit point blank. They have certain civil protections against being fired solely for your interests and can get you back with a civil suit
I'm trying to imagine the conversation that would be had when an employer, who could be gay himself, or employs gay people, is told he's not allowed to end the employment of someone who says that all homosexuals will burn in hell. That is the definition of a hostile work environment.
How would a woman feel about having to work beside a man who says all women are sluts who should be beaten by their husband and have no business being outside the kitchen?
Yes, employers can fire employees for hate speech.
of course you can fire anybody that works for you, but gate speech is complicated enough to allow room for them to get you back
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Yeah or a Communist or a Socialist or a Trade Unionist.
OR if your an abortionist. Or you voted for that N***** in the white house.
Look as long as you agree with your boss in all things you'll be fine. But if he finds out you hold unpopular opinions he gets to fire you. SImple as that and that's what makes america the greatest country in the world.
I work in Washington State, at will employment they could fire me for having the wrong color shoes on. Same flip, I could walk off today and go wonder the wilds like that kid who died up in alaska.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything! And definately don't say reprehensible shit to the media if you work in television, isn't that right Charlie Sheen? Martin Bashir? Alec Baldwin? Keith Olbermann? Dan Rather?
The list shes goes on for days boyos.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Why stop there
It doesn't? A business can (and should be able to) fire you for saying tons of different stuff.
Why stop at making sure racists can't hold down a job? with today's technology the possibilities are limitless
Sure lets do that, the less racists with jobs, the less chance they have to move their genes on and eventually they would die off.
Takes too long.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Do people think there should be actual criminal penalties for saying the kind of thing this gentleman from duck dynasty is saying?
I don't see anyone saying anything about criminal penalties. I see people saying the opposite that what you say should not get you fired and thats just plainly ridiculous.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Let's say there's a hypothetical employee. Here are some scenarios:
A) The employee works for public relations of a company that has a strong interest in maintaining a positive image. The employee, on the clock, says something racist.
Same scenario, but says the racist thing "off the record" to an interviewer.
C) Same scenario, but the comment is made to some coworkers while outside smoking on break.
D) The employee works as a fry cook at McDonald's and is saying racist things while handing out burgers while covering for the usual front-of-house guy.
E) Same as D, but is said to a reporter investigating the restaurant for something unrelated (let's say, to see if the restaurant gets cleaned regularly behind the counter, I don't know) while off the clock.
F) Same as E, but the employee doesn't realize they are talking to a reporter.
G) The PR employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
H) The McDonald's employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
Which of these should or could get the employee fired? Assuming we have whichever hypothetical laws you want.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can say he was "censored" if nothing else because he made the comments in an interview for print, not on the show. The show was never an avenue for him to make those comments. He reads a script.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Why stop there
It doesn't? A business can (and should be able to) fire you for saying tons of different stuff.
Why stop at making sure racists can't hold down a job? with today's technology the possibilities are limitless
Sure lets do that, the less racists with jobs, the less chance they have to move their genes on and eventually they would die off.
Takes too long.
I plan on living forever, I have time out of mind on my side.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think you can say he was "censored" if nothing else because he made the comments in an interview for print, not on the show. The show was never an avenue for him to make those comments. He reads a script.
I bet you this is not the first time Robertson has said something fuck awful (and its not since again there is a 2010 interview in which he says homosexuals have murder in their hearts), I'm sure A&E was pretty well aware of things he spouts, they've just edited them for tv and probably told him to keep his mouth shut, he didn't and here we are.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Why stop there
It doesn't? A business can (and should be able to) fire you for saying tons of different stuff.
Why stop at making sure racists can't hold down a job? with today's technology the possibilities are limitless
Sure lets do that, the less racists with jobs, the less chance they have to move their genes on and eventually they would die off.
Takes too long.
I plan on living forever, I have time out of mind on my side.
Better not let any racists know
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Yeah or a Communist or a Socialist or a Trade Unionist.
OR if your an abortionist. Or you voted for that N***** in the white house.
Look as long as you agree with your boss in all things you'll be fine. But if he finds out you hold unpopular opinions he gets to fire you. SImple as that and that's what makes america the greatest country in the world.
So, then, if I understand you correctly, you believe that any firing that results from speech is unjust?
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Let's say there's a hypothetical employee. Here are some scenarios:
A) The employee works for public relations of a company that has a strong interest in maintaining a positive image. The employee, on the clock, says something racist.
Same scenario, but says the racist thing "off the record" to an interviewer.
C) Same scenario, but the comment is made to some coworkers while outside smoking on break.
D) The employee works as a fry cook at McDonald's and is saying racist things while handing out burgers while covering for the usual front-of-house guy.
E) Same as D, but is said to a reporter investigating the restaurant for something unrelated (let's say, to see if the restaurant gets cleaned regularly behind the counter, I don't know) while off the clock.
F) Same as E, but the employee doesn't realize they are talking to a reporter.
G) The PR employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
H) The McDonald's employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
Which of these should or could get the employee fired? Assuming we have whichever hypothetical laws you want.
That little part at the end about "hypothetical laws"? If you want to even pretend about "being clear just so you understand" you need to be a lot more specific about that. Laws matter.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I don't agree that it's his 'right' to be a bigot or a racist anymore than it's anyone's 'right' to be a liar, cheat, scam artist, etc.
Um, as long as you aren't doing something illegal, like defamation of character or inciting a riot, it is your right to lie. Same with cheating - it's not illegal to cheat in a friendly game of scrabble, or on your wife...if you cheat on your taxes, it's illegal and not your right. Being a scam artisst, by definition generally means engaging in illegal activity, so no...it's not your right.
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose here or what your point even is. We've already got laws about inciting violence and defamation of character and so on.
It's someone's right to be a bigot, just like it was (or should have been) someone's right to support the civil rights movement or the communist party or women's suffrage or gay rights when those were things that pretty much everyone hated and was opposed to. Of all the stupid things about our country, Freedom of Speech isn't close to the top of the list of things that need to go away.
I really, really cannot comprehend what it takes to get to this place, where you're comparing civil rights to Neo-Nazi ramblings or homophobia or revisionism. One group was fighting for the rights of a minority demographic, the others are trying to trample all over those right via de facto mob rule. The things have a Goddamn ocean between them - proposing that a bridge might connect them is nonsense.
And I really, really cannot comprehend how someone can't comprehend the idea that the First Amendment applies to all speech and that only applying it to speech the government deems worthy of protection means that no speech is protected. The government supports the right of people to say unpopular things without fear of retribution from the government. Period. Just because I support this stance doesn't mean that I'm secretly in favor all of the vile and hateful speech anyone has ever said. But a business firing someone for saying something that can damage the company is completely different. Nobody should be throw in jail for telling a journalist that they support the Neo-Nazi movement. And nobody should be surprised when their boss decides that you're creating a hostile work environment and kicks your ass to the curb.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything!
Can you see how some people might think this position presents a free speech issue?
Nope, because at no point has free speech been freedoms for consequence. If you think your speech is so important as to make you the next Mandela, Rosa Parks or Russel Brand, why should you let something like employment, or fear of losing it affect you? See thats the issue with people, everyone wants to be a hero, no one wants to do anything slightly dangerous.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Let's say there's a hypothetical employee. Here are some scenarios:
A) The employee works for public relations of a company that has a strong interest in maintaining a positive image. The employee, on the clock, says something racist.
Same scenario, but says the racist thing "off the record" to an interviewer.
C) Same scenario, but the comment is made to some coworkers while outside smoking on break.
D) The employee works as a fry cook at McDonald's and is saying racist things while handing out burgers while covering for the usual front-of-house guy.
E) Same as D, but is said to a reporter investigating the restaurant for something unrelated (let's say, to see if the restaurant gets cleaned regularly behind the counter, I don't know) while off the clock.
F) Same as E, but the employee doesn't realize they are talking to a reporter.
G) The PR employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
H) The McDonald's employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
Which of these should or could get the employee fired? Assuming we have whichever hypothetical laws you want.
That little part at the end about "hypothetical laws"? If you want to even pretend about "being clear just so you understand" you need to be a lot more specific about that. Laws matter.
I agree that they matter but there are people in here basically saying that at-will employment is something they would do away with or carve out specific exceptions for which do not currently exist. Part of why I'm asking the question is to determine what those carve-outs might be.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
Why stop there
It doesn't? A business can (and should be able to) fire you for saying tons of different stuff.
Why stop at making sure racists can't hold down a job? with today's technology the possibilities are limitless
Sure lets do that, the less racists with jobs, the less chance they have to move their genes on and eventually they would die off.
Takes too long.
I plan on living forever, I have time out of mind on my side.
Better not let any racists know
Sadly my family would clue in at some point.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I don't agree that it's his 'right' to be a bigot or a racist anymore than it's anyone's 'right' to be a liar, cheat, scam artist, etc.
Um, as long as you aren't doing something illegal, like defamation of character or inciting a riot, it is your right to lie. Same with cheating - it's not illegal to cheat in a friendly game of scrabble, or on your wife...if you cheat on your taxes, it's illegal and not your right. Being a scam artisst, by definition generally means engaging in illegal activity, so no...it's not your right.
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose here or what your point even is. We've already got laws about inciting violence and defamation of character and so on.
It's someone's right to be a bigot, just like it was (or should have been) someone's right to support the civil rights movement or the communist party or women's suffrage or gay rights when those were things that pretty much everyone hated and was opposed to. Of all the stupid things about our country, Freedom of Speech isn't close to the top of the list of things that need to go away.
I really, really cannot comprehend what it takes to get to this place, where you're comparing civil rights to Neo-Nazi ramblings or homophobia or revisionism. One group was fighting for the rights of a minority demographic, the others are trying to trample all over those right via de facto mob rule. The things have a Goddamn ocean between them - proposing that a bridge might connect them is nonsense.
And I really, really cannot comprehend how someone can't comprehend the idea that the Second Amendment applies to all speech and that only applying it to speech the government deems worthy of protection means that no speech is protected. The government supports the right of people to say unpopular things without fear of retribution from the government. Period. Just because I support this stance doesn't mean that I'm secretly in favor all of the vile and hateful speech anyone has ever said. But a business firing someone for saying something that can damage the company is completely different. Nobody should be throw in jail for telling a journalist that they support the Neo-Nazi movement. And nobody should be surprised when their boss decides that you're creating a hostile work environment and kicks your ass to the curb.
Just a heads-up: the second amendment is the right to bear arms.
Freedom of Association is covered under the First Amendment. A&E is exercising their right to not be associated with this guy. Since "bigoted rich white guy" contains zero instances of protected status, they get to do that.
Freedom of Association is covered under the First Amendment. A&E is exercising their right to not be associated with this guy. Since "bigoted rich white guy" contains zero instances of protected status, they get to do that.
There is no free speech issue here.
Though, some would probably argue that "A&E" is not a person, despite the ruling of CU, and therefore does not have the same rights granted to me and you under the US Constitution.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything!
Can you see how some people might think this position presents a free speech issue?
Nope, because at no point has free speech been freedoms for consequence. If you think your speech is so important as to make you the next Mandela, Rosa Parks or Russel Brand, why should you let something like employment, or fear of losing it affect you? See thats the issue with people, everyone wants to be a hero, no one wants to do anything slightly dangerous.
So to summarize, employers should be able to control the speech of their employees on and off the clock through threat of being fired, and if anyone is unhappy with that then they can simply be perpetually unemployed. Because if someone's opinions are truly important to them, they won't mind the starvation and poverty. Either way, that a choice they should definitely have to make, between freely expressing themselves and not being impoverished.
I think it's safe to say at this point that you and I have very different ideas about the kind of world we want to live in.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I don't agree that it's his 'right' to be a bigot or a racist anymore than it's anyone's 'right' to be a liar, cheat, scam artist, etc.
Um, as long as you aren't doing something illegal, like defamation of character or inciting a riot, it is your right to lie. Same with cheating - it's not illegal to cheat in a friendly game of scrabble, or on your wife...if you cheat on your taxes, it's illegal and not your right. Being a scam artisst, by definition generally means engaging in illegal activity, so no...it's not your right.
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose here or what your point even is. We've already got laws about inciting violence and defamation of character and so on.
It's someone's right to be a bigot, just like it was (or should have been) someone's right to support the civil rights movement or the communist party or women's suffrage or gay rights when those were things that pretty much everyone hated and was opposed to. Of all the stupid things about our country, Freedom of Speech isn't close to the top of the list of things that need to go away.
I really, really cannot comprehend what it takes to get to this place, where you're comparing civil rights to Neo-Nazi ramblings or homophobia or revisionism. One group was fighting for the rights of a minority demographic, the others are trying to trample all over those right via de facto mob rule. The things have a Goddamn ocean between them - proposing that a bridge might connect them is nonsense.
And I really, really cannot comprehend how someone can't comprehend the idea that the Second Amendment applies to all speech and that only applying it to speech the government deems worthy of protection means that no speech is protected. The government supports the right of people to say unpopular things without fear of retribution from the government. Period. Just because I support this stance doesn't mean that I'm secretly in favor all of the vile and hateful speech anyone has ever said. But a business firing someone for saying something that can damage the company is completely different. Nobody should be throw in jail for telling a journalist that they support the Neo-Nazi movement. And nobody should be surprised when their boss decides that you're creating a hostile work environment and kicks your ass to the curb.
Just a heads-up: the second amendment is the right to bear arms.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything!
Can you see how some people might think this position presents a free speech issue?
Yes, and those people are so focused on the one person that they overlook the rights of everyone else.
You have the right to say bigoted things. That's what freedom of speech is about.
But then I have the same freedom to call your bigotry out. Furthermore, I have the freedom to disassociate with you, because I think you're a bigot. I also have the freedom to associate with others who agree, and we have the freedom to use our collective voice to call you out. We can also use our freedoms of speech and association to disassociate with your employer, and tell them exactly why. And in the end, your employer has the freedom to disassociate from you.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
I don't agree that it's his 'right' to be a bigot or a racist anymore than it's anyone's 'right' to be a liar, cheat, scam artist, etc.
Um, as long as you aren't doing something illegal, like defamation of character or inciting a riot, it is your right to lie. Same with cheating - it's not illegal to cheat in a friendly game of scrabble, or on your wife...if you cheat on your taxes, it's illegal and not your right. Being a scam artisst, by definition generally means engaging in illegal activity, so no...it's not your right.
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose here or what your point even is. We've already got laws about inciting violence and defamation of character and so on.
It's someone's right to be a bigot, just like it was (or should have been) someone's right to support the civil rights movement or the communist party or women's suffrage or gay rights when those were things that pretty much everyone hated and was opposed to. Of all the stupid things about our country, Freedom of Speech isn't close to the top of the list of things that need to go away.
I really, really cannot comprehend what it takes to get to this place, where you're comparing civil rights to Neo-Nazi ramblings or homophobia or revisionism. One group was fighting for the rights of a minority demographic, the others are trying to trample all over those right via de facto mob rule. The things have a Goddamn ocean between them - proposing that a bridge might connect them is nonsense.
And I really, really cannot comprehend how someone can't comprehend the idea that the Second Amendment applies to all speech and that only applying it to speech the government deems worthy of protection means that no speech is protected. The government supports the right of people to say unpopular things without fear of retribution from the government. Period. Just because I support this stance doesn't mean that I'm secretly in favor all of the vile and hateful speech anyone has ever said. But a business firing someone for saying something that can damage the company is completely different. Nobody should be throw in jail for telling a journalist that they support the Neo-Nazi movement. And nobody should be surprised when their boss decides that you're creating a hostile work environment and kicks your ass to the curb.
Just a heads-up: the second amendment is the right to bear arms.
Freedom of speech is the first amendment.
Oh god. The shame. It burns. :oops:
Everybody makes these little mistakes time and again. There's no shame bro.
Incidentally, if someone said that there is no first amendment issue with an employee being fired for their opinions, I would agree. The first amendment deals specifically with government action. But I'm referring to "freedom of speech" as "that thing many of us have agreed is good for society and should be preserved." It seems obvious to me that it doesn't take a government to restrict your speech, or chill the speech of others - anyone with power over you can do it.
Freedom of Association is covered under the First Amendment. A&E is exercising their right to not be associated with this guy. Since "bigoted rich white guy" contains zero instances of protected status, they get to do that.
There is no free speech issue here.
Though, some would probably argue that "A&E" is not a person, despite the ruling of CU, and therefore does not have the same rights granted to your or I under the US Constitution.
I don't think the CU ruling has anything to do with this. The people that make up organizations, like corporations or unions, still maintain their rights in those situations. If those people collectively decide to disassociate with an individual for reasons that don't specifically violate legal protections, then they are within their rights to do so. This is the reason we have things like protected statuses in the first place, because without them you can be punted from any group at any time for any reason. This guy doesn't have them, so he's out of luck.
The issue you get into with that line of thinking is that no one can guarentee you a freedom of speech in everything you do. Freedom of speech in modern society can only at best ever mean the government can not punish you for speaking out, anything else is madness.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
To elaborate on the myth Ender is referencing too--if I had to guess, I think it works like:
"In Soviet Armenia, the Armenians have their first modern country based on their national identity--not to mention sending various Armenians like the Mikoyans to high offices in the government and military to rule over a bunch of non-Armenians. But if they knew Azerbaijanis had a ancestral connection to the Armenian Genocide, they'd refuse to live peaceably next to them, and Moscow won't have that. Quick, censor everything that might suggest Azerbaijanis and other western Soviet Muslims have ancestors involved in that. This will be a net good"
Is that how it works? No, not really. The Soviets built the single biggest monument Armenian Genocide in Armenia. It works more like, "Quick, if any Armenians or Azerbaijanis behave in a way that would serve to provoke violence in the style of the Armenian Genocide, throw their asses in jail for long periods of time and make examples of them." Which is what the Soviets did. Violence (specifically, the threat of arrest) did it, not censorship. Which is not to say that things weren't censored in the USSR, plenty of things were (from political controversy to things like perceived pornography that we also censor), but not for that purpose.
I'm trying to think of other examples--the United States actively censored reports/media in Allied-occupation in Japan that referenced the widespread rape being committed by occupational troops. Presumably their justification was that if the Japanese learned about this, they'd be pissed off the same way the Chinese were pissed off at knowledge of Japanese soldiers committing rape in their occupation--and the post-war government agreed with this sentiment. But it's a pretty flimsy reason, and I'd you'd have a hard time arguing that "Protecting occupation troops from the possibility of harm due to their behavior" was a net good when weighed against, "Subverting justice and allowing occurrences of rape to continue," (unless you were some kind of sociopath).
There are similar examples tied to censorship by an occupational force, and would probably be weighed similarly I think.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything!
Can you see how some people might think this position presents a free speech issue?
Yes.
I can also see how some people might think Los Angeles is the capital of California.
I think part of the problem here is very similar to the way in which lots of people think that if a law is bad, it must be unconstitutional. An employer being able to fire you because you said something stupid to your friends is a bad situation, and I disagree with it, but that doesn't make it a violation of your right to free speech. Even if it's a practice we should, as a society, try to legislate away, that still doesn't make it a violation of the right to free speech.
I mean, I guess it can be considered a "free speech" issue in the same way that me telling my kids not to swear is a free speech issue, but it's still a completely different beast.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Let's say there's a hypothetical employee. Here are some scenarios:
A) The employee works for public relations of a company that has a strong interest in maintaining a positive image. The employee, on the clock, says something racist.
Same scenario, but says the racist thing "off the record" to an interviewer.
C) Same scenario, but the comment is made to some coworkers while outside smoking on break.
D) The employee works as a fry cook at McDonald's and is saying racist things while handing out burgers while covering for the usual front-of-house guy.
E) Same as D, but is said to a reporter investigating the restaurant for something unrelated (let's say, to see if the restaurant gets cleaned regularly behind the counter, I don't know) while off the clock.
F) Same as E, but the employee doesn't realize they are talking to a reporter.
G) The PR employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
H) The McDonald's employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
Which of these should or could get the employee fired? Assuming we have whichever hypothetical laws you want.
Depending on the severity and frequency, all of those things would probably get you anywhere between a talking-to from your boss all the way up to termination because it could be argued that all of them could contribute to a hostile work environment.
Posts
The same freedom that took homosexuals from being disgusting deviant freaks that were hated by the vast majority of society to a legitimate community today is the same freedom that allows people to speak out against it.
You can't have one without the other.
Yes, it sucks that bad people benefit from it, but having government censorship of speech is one of the most effective ways for that de facto mob to trample on the rights of the minority. Without a voice, the minority will never be able to gain any support.
All the more reason to not say abhorent garbage that can be directly tracked back to you. In a way it would be pleasant if people actually thought for the briefest moment before saying something horrible.
Also I doubt you would be fired as an employee for posting on your facebook that you just ate the greatest steak ever, unless you worked at PETA or something.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah or a Communist or a Socialist or a Trade Unionist.
OR if your an abortionist. Or you voted for that N***** in the white house.
Look as long as you agree with your boss in all things you'll be fine. But if he finds out you hold unpopular opinions he gets to fire you. SImple as that and that's what makes america the greatest country in the world.
Protect from what?
Violence? Sure, it's their job.
Someone with opinions they disagree with? No. It's not the government's job to protect your views from being challenged by people with differing opinions. Regardless of how asinine those differing opinions may be.
EDIT - in the oversimplified false dichotomy you gave, anyway.
Do people think there should be actual criminal penalties for saying the kind of thing this gentleman from duck dynasty is saying?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
of course you can fire anybody that works for you, but gate speech is complicated enough to allow room for them to get you back
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I work in Washington State, at will employment they could fire me for having the wrong color shoes on. Same flip, I could walk off today and go wonder the wilds like that kid who died up in alaska.
Don't want to risk your employer firing you for something they don't agree with? Don't say anything! And definately don't say reprehensible shit to the media if you work in television, isn't that right Charlie Sheen? Martin Bashir? Alec Baldwin? Keith Olbermann? Dan Rather?
The list shes goes on for days boyos.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Takes too long.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't see anyone saying anything about criminal penalties. I see people saying the opposite that what you say should not get you fired and thats just plainly ridiculous.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Let's say there's a hypothetical employee. Here are some scenarios:
A) The employee works for public relations of a company that has a strong interest in maintaining a positive image. The employee, on the clock, says something racist.
C) Same scenario, but the comment is made to some coworkers while outside smoking on break.
D) The employee works as a fry cook at McDonald's and is saying racist things while handing out burgers while covering for the usual front-of-house guy.
E) Same as D, but is said to a reporter investigating the restaurant for something unrelated (let's say, to see if the restaurant gets cleaned regularly behind the counter, I don't know) while off the clock.
F) Same as E, but the employee doesn't realize they are talking to a reporter.
G) The PR employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
H) The McDonald's employee posts a racist comment on Facebook.
Which of these should or could get the employee fired? Assuming we have whichever hypothetical laws you want.
Can you see how some people might think this position presents a free speech issue?
Those, among other things, are specific carve-outs in labor law that ARE protected.
So it's a moot point discussing them in a 'but if they can fire you for being racist, they can fire you for <these things we like>'.
*certain and very limited exceptions may apply.
I plan on living forever, I have time out of mind on my side.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I bet you this is not the first time Robertson has said something fuck awful (and its not since again there is a 2010 interview in which he says homosexuals have murder in their hearts), I'm sure A&E was pretty well aware of things he spouts, they've just edited them for tv and probably told him to keep his mouth shut, he didn't and here we are.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Better not let any racists know
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So, then, if I understand you correctly, you believe that any firing that results from speech is unjust?
That little part at the end about "hypothetical laws"? If you want to even pretend about "being clear just so you understand" you need to be a lot more specific about that. Laws matter.
And I really, really cannot comprehend how someone can't comprehend the idea that the First Amendment applies to all speech and that only applying it to speech the government deems worthy of protection means that no speech is protected. The government supports the right of people to say unpopular things without fear of retribution from the government. Period. Just because I support this stance doesn't mean that I'm secretly in favor all of the vile and hateful speech anyone has ever said. But a business firing someone for saying something that can damage the company is completely different. Nobody should be throw in jail for telling a journalist that they support the Neo-Nazi movement. And nobody should be surprised when their boss decides that you're creating a hostile work environment and kicks your ass to the curb.
Nope, because at no point has free speech been freedoms for consequence. If you think your speech is so important as to make you the next Mandela, Rosa Parks or Russel Brand, why should you let something like employment, or fear of losing it affect you? See thats the issue with people, everyone wants to be a hero, no one wants to do anything slightly dangerous.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I agree that they matter but there are people in here basically saying that at-will employment is something they would do away with or carve out specific exceptions for which do not currently exist. Part of why I'm asking the question is to determine what those carve-outs might be.
Sadly my family would clue in at some point.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Just a heads-up: the second amendment is the right to bear arms.
Freedom of speech is the first amendment.
There is no free speech issue here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Though, some would probably argue that "A&E" is not a person, despite the ruling of CU, and therefore does not have the same rights granted to me and you under the US Constitution.
So to summarize, employers should be able to control the speech of their employees on and off the clock through threat of being fired, and if anyone is unhappy with that then they can simply be perpetually unemployed. Because if someone's opinions are truly important to them, they won't mind the starvation and poverty. Either way, that a choice they should definitely have to make, between freely expressing themselves and not being impoverished.
I think it's safe to say at this point that you and I have very different ideas about the kind of world we want to live in.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The thread is moving fast; did you see the question I posed above? I'm curious about your response.
Oh god. The shame. It burns. :oops:
Yes, and those people are so focused on the one person that they overlook the rights of everyone else.
You have the right to say bigoted things. That's what freedom of speech is about.
But then I have the same freedom to call your bigotry out. Furthermore, I have the freedom to disassociate with you, because I think you're a bigot. I also have the freedom to associate with others who agree, and we have the freedom to use our collective voice to call you out. We can also use our freedoms of speech and association to disassociate with your employer, and tell them exactly why. And in the end, your employer has the freedom to disassociate from you.
Unless you work for the government NO IT ISN'T
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Everybody makes these little mistakes time and again. There's no shame bro.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To elaborate on the myth Ender is referencing too--if I had to guess, I think it works like:
Is that how it works? No, not really. The Soviets built the single biggest monument Armenian Genocide in Armenia. It works more like, "Quick, if any Armenians or Azerbaijanis behave in a way that would serve to provoke violence in the style of the Armenian Genocide, throw their asses in jail for long periods of time and make examples of them." Which is what the Soviets did. Violence (specifically, the threat of arrest) did it, not censorship. Which is not to say that things weren't censored in the USSR, plenty of things were (from political controversy to things like perceived pornography that we also censor), but not for that purpose.
I'm trying to think of other examples--the United States actively censored reports/media in Allied-occupation in Japan that referenced the widespread rape being committed by occupational troops. Presumably their justification was that if the Japanese learned about this, they'd be pissed off the same way the Chinese were pissed off at knowledge of Japanese soldiers committing rape in their occupation--and the post-war government agreed with this sentiment. But it's a pretty flimsy reason, and I'd you'd have a hard time arguing that "Protecting occupation troops from the possibility of harm due to their behavior" was a net good when weighed against, "Subverting justice and allowing occurrences of rape to continue," (unless you were some kind of sociopath).
There are similar examples tied to censorship by an occupational force, and would probably be weighed similarly I think.
(Sorry for the tangent. Please carry on.)
Even if you work for the government, ask that lady who got fired when she got Brietbarted how free her speech was.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes.
I can also see how some people might think Los Angeles is the capital of California.
I think part of the problem here is very similar to the way in which lots of people think that if a law is bad, it must be unconstitutional. An employer being able to fire you because you said something stupid to your friends is a bad situation, and I disagree with it, but that doesn't make it a violation of your right to free speech. Even if it's a practice we should, as a society, try to legislate away, that still doesn't make it a violation of the right to free speech.
I mean, I guess it can be considered a "free speech" issue in the same way that me telling my kids not to swear is a free speech issue, but it's still a completely different beast.
Depending on the severity and frequency, all of those things would probably get you anywhere between a talking-to from your boss all the way up to termination because it could be argued that all of them could contribute to a hostile work environment.