It doesn't change the fact that there was a national censorship program. Its effectiveness isn't what you were asking for.
It wasn't a 'censorship program'. It was theatrics. If they wanted you to shut up (or prevent you from, say, distributing pamphlets), they'd have either just shot you or put you in jail. There isn't a dire need for censorship in a police state.
The song and dance that happens every time a racist or bigot is rightly dumped from a show is ridiculous. Is anyone less for it? No. Does it mean that the next step somehow is the government or A&E plotting to invade Poland? No.
When the government actually wants to shut you up, they'll do it with guns & batons, and there won't be much room for discussion on the matter (and, after they're done, I guarantee you that all of the 'free speech!' advocates will gladly talk about how much you deserved it. Dumb hipsters!)
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
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.
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.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
That may be the goosiest thing anyone written in this thread and considering some of the "poor unfortunate white people" comments that's a pretty lofty bar to set.
That so many people have been able to speak in either direction about some millionares in lousiana's rights shows the extent to which we should take any claim of first amendment suspensions.
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
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?
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
I'm sure 99% of america would be fine if bigot'd morons lost their jobs. And I'm perfectly fine with companies firing people for their outspoken opinions that can make a company look bad, same way if someone at mcdonalds told you the food at burger king was better they could be fired. Or if the person at Bob's Blowjob and Burgers told you that Sally's Slit Sucking and Salads offered the better deal.
To enforce a world where someone saying something god damn idiotic (and lets not pretend what Robertson said was not idiotic it was, on several view points) would be the greatest restriction on freedom since the speed limit.
15 years ago, the majority of the country would probably have been fine with all of the openly gay people losing their jobs. The majority is not always right, that's why we as a society have generally decided that some protections of free speech and expression are a good thing, even if the speech is unpopular.
We can certainly debate about whether this case falls under those protections - I've already said that I don't think it does. But the idea that we just don't need those protections anymore because we're all right-thinking and would never punish anyone who doesn't deserve it is...questionable.
To what extent are you okay with losing your job because your employer decided that something you said on the internet was stupid?
Well, we can quibble all day over the definition of censorship, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is such a thing as non-government suppression of free speech. If someone (for example) succeeds in getting a person fired based on their 'offensive' opinion, then that is absolutely a free speech issue in my mind. It's economic intimidation intended to silence and the person, and to chill others who might share the same view. It's not an effort to converse or educate or rebut, it's applying economic pressure to try to punish people for expressing viewpoints that others disagree with.
Yes, their freedom to express themselves is being restricted. It doesn't take a government to do it. If we get a world where every job does that, where you can't put food on the table unless you hold the 'correct' set of opinions and self-censor every possible offensive comment, then you've reached the exact same world as the one where the government is censoring speech. You get the exact same result. I don't see why we should be against it when it's done by a government, but okay with it when it's done by a corporation or internet mob.
IF he didn't like the TV deal he was offered he didn't have to sign the contract. Every tv contract has image clauses that says your statements reflect the company and you can be held accountable if they damage it's image.
This isn't a person who was fired from an office job for a drunken facebook photo. Literally his job is public relations for the TV Station. If they don't like the PR he's giving they can fire him.
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.
I think it's not censorship, and that censorship is not a net good, and that you are fundamentally wrong as fuck about the net good of censorship. Your heckler's veto can get dunked on, and you probably hate it when it's done for reasons you don't like.
I think this dude was rightly silenced by A&E because they want to protect their brand. I think what he said is both wrong and foolish. I think an uproar over it is great.
I also think the level of snark in this OP will make this my last post on the topic.
Network censors are a thing.
So if somebody on a TV show makes a joke about, for example, how minorities act in a movie theater, and the network censors say that joke isn't gonna fly, write something else, were they not censored?
If a network doesn't want to say something, can you force them to say it? If no, then the answer to your question is "no".
No, this is not censorship. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you protection from the repercussions of your speech, nor does it guarantee you a platform.
We've been seeing a sort of "free speech maximalism" as of late that I think is ultimately corrosive to free speech.
This is still censorship. A private company can censor someone, they just can't violate your First Amendment rights.
No, it's not, because to say that it's censorship is to claim that he somehow had a right to the company's platform.
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. " https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
Probably not the popular opinion here, but I find the term "white trash" to be racist and am disappointed by its cavalier usage in this forum at times.
"White Trash" isn't racist. Its classist. Additionally its very hard to be racist towards white people (for a variety of reasons we that aren't worth going into right now). Additionally the only use of it i've seen was the white guy who used the term to describe himself, so its triply hard to get upset at its use.
It can be classst or racist depending on the context (I've pointed this out before but no one seems to care, it also has a negative context toward minorities (I.e. you have to distinguish trashy whites). No one is asking you to get upset about it. That doesn't mean it should be used in civil discourse. Seems like a fairly straightforward thing.
Also please note, that in none of my statements have I argued against the existence of white priveledge, or war on whites, or any such nonsense.
1) The fact that the term "White Trash" is distinguishing between white people should be a pretty good indication that its not racist. Racist terms distinguish between race. Classist terms distinguish between class.
2) the fact that the term was used by the person we are excoriating for being racist, in reference to himself, makes it doubly hard to get upset at its use. Generally disparaging terms can be "owned" by those people that they disparage because the term ceases to become a negative distinguishes and instead becomes a recognition of a shared plight or culture. This is why black people can use the N word and white people cannot. Because the context changes when a black person uses the word as when a white person uses the word, just as the context of "white trash" changes when a poor person from a trailer park culture uses the word as compared to someone who lives next to Central Park.
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
Because there isn't really anything else that can be done?
Do you propose tarring and feathering them? A public caning? Burning down their house and taking their kids away?
'Racist' isn't a protected class. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
And no one has prevent Robertson a fucking millionare from saying a god damn thing, the company he was making money through suspended him because shockingly they didn't want to be associated with a bigot.
I don't even know why you are trying to attach this to gay people losing their jobs for being gay other than you clearly don't understand the difference between bigotry and homosexuality.
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.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
That may be the goosiest thing anyone written in this thread and considering some of the "poor unfortunate white people" comments that's a pretty lofty bar to set.
That's exactly how I see it. We have this pervasive problem in our society that everyone knows is terrible... and yet it won't go away for some reason. and whenever an opportunity to stomp on it comes up, a crowd starts talking about 'free speech' and how they're definitely not racist, but apparently they enjoy hearing a whole lot of racist things because they sure don't want it to go away. I suspect that they just don't want to be called racists and so don't use the language themselves, which is quite different.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
You're being sarcastic, but yes, that is my position. People should be able to say things that you find offensive without society punishing them. If you are offended by their words, the remedy would be for you to speak out against them, or rebut them, or try to educate them, or simply ignore them.
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.
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.
You have a right to be a serial killer as long as you don't actually kill people, serially or in parallel
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.
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!
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.
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.
I had the pleasure of going to Christmas dinner with my parents last night, who discussed the 'Homosexual Kremlin' at A&E alongside all the idiot hippies on the island and how the 'jig was up now' on global warming because we got snow this winter.
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
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.
I think it's not censorship, and that censorship is not a net good, and that you are fundamentally wrong as fuck about the net good of censorship. Your heckler's veto can get dunked on, and you probably hate it when it's done for reasons you don't like.
I think this dude was rightly silenced by A&E because they want to protect their brand. I think what he said is both wrong and foolish. I think an uproar over it is great.
I also think the level of snark in this OP will make this my last post on the topic.
Network censors are a thing.
So if somebody on a TV show makes a joke about, for example, how minorities act in a movie theater, and the network censors say that joke isn't gonna fly, write something else, were they not censored?
If a network doesn't want to say something, can you force them to say it? If no, then the answer to your question is "no".
No, this is not censorship. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you protection from the repercussions of your speech, nor does it guarantee you a platform.
We've been seeing a sort of "free speech maximalism" as of late that I think is ultimately corrosive to free speech.
This is still censorship. A private company can censor someone, they just can't violate your First Amendment rights.
No, it's not, because to say that it's censorship is to claim that he somehow had a right to the company's platform.
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. " https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
Probably not the popular opinion here, but I find the term "white trash" to be racist and am disappointed by its cavalier usage in this forum at times.
"White Trash" isn't racist. Its classist. Additionally its very hard to be racist towards white people (for a variety of reasons we that aren't worth going into right now). Additionally the only use of it i've seen was the white guy who used the term to describe himself, so its triply hard to get upset at its use.
It can be classst or racist depending on the context (I've pointed this out before but no one seems to care, it also has a negative context toward minorities (I.e. you have to distinguish trashy whites). No one is asking you to get upset about it. That doesn't mean it should be used in civil discourse. Seems like a fairly straightforward thing.
Also please note, that in none of my statements have I argued against the existence of white priveledge, or war on whites, or any such nonsense.
1) The fact that the term "White Trash" is distinguishing between white people should be a pretty good indication that its not racist. Racist terms distinguish between race. Classist terms distinguish between class.
2) the fact that the term was used by the person we are excoriating for being racist, in reference to himself, makes it doubly hard to get upset at its use. Generally disparaging terms can be "owned" by those people that they disparage because the term ceases to become a negative distinguishes and instead becomes a recognition of a shared plight or culture. This is why black people can use the N word and white people cannot. Because the context changes when a black person uses the word as when a white person uses the word, just as the context of "white trash" changes when a poor person from a trailer park culture uses the word as compared to someone who lives next to Central Park.
1) If that is the only context it was ever used it, you'd have a point. However, it's historical usage indicates multiple uses, both by whites and blacks. The context can change as you've pointed out. I contend that it can be both.
2) You may not have seen my original post, but I was chastising forumers using it to describe people, not the duck dynasty people. Clearly there are bigger issues than them calling themselves white trash. I've said this before, but the term doesn't really offend me. Honestly, very little does. My point is that we're generally above using racist (and/or classist if you don't find my position even remotely compelling) perjoratives.
Well, we can quibble all day over the definition of censorship...
No, we actually cannot, and arguing about the definition of censorship in this thread will hereafter be infractable.
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.
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
Because there isn't really anything else that can be done?
Do you propose tarring and feathering them? A public caning? Burning down their house and taking their kids away?
'Racist' isn't a protected class. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.
Yeah, it isn't.
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.
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.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
That may be the goosiest thing anyone written in this thread and considering some of the "poor unfortunate white people" comments that's a pretty lofty bar to set.
That's exactly how I see it. We have this pervasive problem in our society that everyone knows is terrible... and yet it won't go away for some reason. and whenever an opportunity to stomp on it comes up, a crowd starts talking about 'free speech' and how they're definitely not racist, but apparently they enjoy hearing a whole lot of racist things because they sure don't want it to go away. I suspect that they just don't want to be called racists and so don't use the language themselves, which is quite different.
Yeah, you're right. It's not possible for someone to actually believe that the 2nd Amendment should be equally applied to both speech we agree with and disagree with. I mean, the world would be so much better if the government was just able to "stomp on" any speech they deem to be worthy of being stomped on. There's no way that could backfire since everyone know that the people in power will always use their power for the greater good.
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
You're being sarcastic, but yes, that is my position. People should be able to say things that you find offensive without society punishing them. If you are offended by their words, the remedy would be for you to speak out against them, or rebut them, or try to educate them, or simply ignore them.
This puts a pretty ridiculous burden on companies that find out they're employing people with terrible ideas or ideologies.
It's absolutely ok for people around you, even those that employ you, to bail on you if you start saying crazy or hateful things.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
If you want to try to start a campaign to make an employee promoting the cuteness of puppies and kittens a PR nightmare for their employer, be my guest.
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.
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
You're being sarcastic, but yes, that is my position. People should be able to say things that you find offensive without society punishing them. If you are offended by their words, the remedy would be for you to speak out against them, or rebut them, or try to educate them, or simply ignore them.
Freedom of association is not only a thing, it's one of the five core freedoms of the First Amendment.
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?
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?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
You're being sarcastic, but yes, that is my position. People should be able to say things that you find offensive without society punishing them. If you are offended by their words, the remedy would be for you to speak out against them, or rebut them, or try to educate them, or simply ignore them.
This puts a pretty ridiculous burden on companies that find out they're employing people with terrible ideas or ideologies.
It's absolutely ok for people around you, even those that employ you, to bail on you if you start saying crazy or hateful things.
So if we get a world where every employer does that, where you can't put food on the table unless you have a set of opinions that matches the norm of the town/city/state you're in, how is that any different from a world where the government patrols for thought crimes? Either way, you either choose not to say anything unpopular anywhere, or you choose to not be able to live effectively in society?
Remember, it's not always your opinions that will be popular. There are a lot of towns in the US right now where if an employee worked openly for trans advocacy people might not like it. Maybe they'd even stop coming into the store that the person worked at. Would an employer be justified in firing a trans advocate under those conditions? What if the person was only advocating trans issues while 'off the clock', but everyone knew about it because of the internet?
Posts
It wasn't a 'censorship program'. It was theatrics. If they wanted you to shut up (or prevent you from, say, distributing pamphlets), they'd have either just shot you or put you in jail. There isn't a dire need for censorship in a police state.
The song and dance that happens every time a racist or bigot is rightly dumped from a show is ridiculous. Is anyone less for it? No. Does it mean that the next step somehow is the government or A&E plotting to invade Poland? No.
When the government actually wants to shut you up, they'll do it with guns & batons, and there won't be much room for discussion on the matter (and, after they're done, I guarantee you that all of the 'free speech!' advocates will gladly talk about how much you deserved it. Dumb hipsters!)
Why stop there
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.
That may be the goosiest thing anyone written in this thread and considering some of the "poor unfortunate white people" comments that's a pretty lofty bar to set.
pleasepaypreacher.net
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?
15 years ago, the majority of the country would probably have been fine with all of the openly gay people losing their jobs. The majority is not always right, that's why we as a society have generally decided that some protections of free speech and expression are a good thing, even if the speech is unpopular.
We can certainly debate about whether this case falls under those protections - I've already said that I don't think it does. But the idea that we just don't need those protections anymore because we're all right-thinking and would never punish anyone who doesn't deserve it is...questionable.
To what extent are you okay with losing your job because your employer decided that something you said on the internet was stupid?
IF he didn't like the TV deal he was offered he didn't have to sign the contract. Every tv contract has image clauses that says your statements reflect the company and you can be held accountable if they damage it's image.
This isn't a person who was fired from an office job for a drunken facebook photo. Literally his job is public relations for the TV Station. If they don't like the PR he's giving they can fire him.
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.
1) The fact that the term "White Trash" is distinguishing between white people should be a pretty good indication that its not racist. Racist terms distinguish between race. Classist terms distinguish between class.
2) the fact that the term was used by the person we are excoriating for being racist, in reference to himself, makes it doubly hard to get upset at its use. Generally disparaging terms can be "owned" by those people that they disparage because the term ceases to become a negative distinguishes and instead becomes a recognition of a shared plight or culture. This is why black people can use the N word and white people cannot. Because the context changes when a black person uses the word as when a white person uses the word, just as the context of "white trash" changes when a poor person from a trailer park culture uses the word as compared to someone who lives next to Central Park.
Because there isn't really anything else that can be done?
Do you propose tarring and feathering them? A public caning? Burning down their house and taking their kids away?
'Racist' isn't a protected class. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.
Yeah they should be free to say disgusting and offensive things without repercussion.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't even know why you are trying to attach this to gay people losing their jobs for being gay other than you clearly don't understand the difference between bigotry and homosexuality.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's exactly how I see it. We have this pervasive problem in our society that everyone knows is terrible... and yet it won't go away for some reason. and whenever an opportunity to stomp on it comes up, a crowd starts talking about 'free speech' and how they're definitely not racist, but apparently they enjoy hearing a whole lot of racist things because they sure don't want it to go away. I suspect that they just don't want to be called racists and so don't use the language themselves, which is quite different.
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?
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
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.
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.
You're being sarcastic, but yes, that is my position. People should be able to say things that you find offensive without society punishing them. If you are offended by their words, the remedy would be for you to speak out against them, or rebut them, or try to educate them, or simply ignore them.
It doesn't? A business can (and should be able to) fire you for saying tons of different stuff.
You have a right to be a serial killer as long as you don't actually kill people, serially or in parallel
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.
When in doubt, on the clock, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
pleasepaypreacher.net
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.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I had the pleasure of going to Christmas dinner with my parents last night, who discussed the 'Homosexual Kremlin' at A&E alongside all the idiot hippies on the island and how the 'jig was up now' on global warming because we got snow this winter.
So I'm kinda mad.
Why stop at making sure racists can't hold down a job? with today's technology the possibilities are limitless
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.
1) If that is the only context it was ever used it, you'd have a point. However, it's historical usage indicates multiple uses, both by whites and blacks. The context can change as you've pointed out. I contend that it can be both.
2) You may not have seen my original post, but I was chastising forumers using it to describe people, not the duck dynasty people. Clearly there are bigger issues than them calling themselves white trash. I've said this before, but the term doesn't really offend me. Honestly, very little does. My point is that we're generally above using racist (and/or classist if you don't find my position even remotely compelling) perjoratives.
No, we actually cannot, and arguing about the definition of censorship in this thread will hereafter be infractable.
Yeah, it isn't.
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.
Yeah, you're right. It's not possible for someone to actually believe that the 2nd Amendment should be equally applied to both speech we agree with and disagree with. I mean, the world would be so much better if the government was just able to "stomp on" any speech they deem to be worthy of being stomped on. There's no way that could backfire since everyone know that the people in power will always use their power for the greater good.
It's absolutely ok for people around you, even those that employ you, to bail on you if you start saying crazy or hateful things.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
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.
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.
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.
hell nobody even advocates actual legal penalties for generalized comments like the ones under discussion here
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.
If you want to try to start a campaign to make an employee promoting the cuteness of puppies and kittens a PR nightmare for their employer, be my guest.
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Freedom of association is not only a thing, it's one of the five core freedoms of the First Amendment.
So, the government's job isn't to actually protect anyone - it's just to clean-up the mess left afterward?
So if we get a world where every employer does that, where you can't put food on the table unless you have a set of opinions that matches the norm of the town/city/state you're in, how is that any different from a world where the government patrols for thought crimes? Either way, you either choose not to say anything unpopular anywhere, or you choose to not be able to live effectively in society?
Remember, it's not always your opinions that will be popular. There are a lot of towns in the US right now where if an employee worked openly for trans advocacy people might not like it. Maybe they'd even stop coming into the store that the person worked at. Would an employer be justified in firing a trans advocate under those conditions? What if the person was only advocating trans issues while 'off the clock', but everyone knew about it because of the internet?