Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[RandFan]

Good thing then that that isn't happening in this thread as much as you pretend it is.

Actually it is. There are a number of posters who only cite the bad and won't engage in discussion. Their contempt is transparent.

And you should as well.

I have conceded the real problems and not dismissed the complaints. I've been intellectually honest in my expectations. Honest in my admission that I don't share the demands of many of the protestors. I've been more than willing to engage people and discuss the issues by objectively trying to set aside my bias, and at least admitting my bias. I've stated plainly when I thought my bias might be influencing m opinions. Further, I've actually checked a number of my claims before I made them. I do care about the truth and I honestly want to avoid making false claims and not simply parrot talking points.

So the idea that I'm hypocritical in my statement is demonstrably fatuous. You either are not willing to consider what I've said objectively or you simply don't care about the truth. I stand by that statement.

 

[Brainster]

argument by assertion (and wrong)

argument by assertion

Proof please? Please to show that any employer can fire any employee for what the employee says on his or her own time? You must have cause. And BTW, you are ignorant of the law. There is a concept in the law called wrongful termination. An employer cannot fire someone for any reason.



Look, before you pretend to be an expert on something and hold forth to lecture, at least do a modicum of research.

Oh, the irony! You can argue what you think the law should be. But you cannot argue that's what the law is, because I've already provided you with the relevant information.

An employer can fire someone for virtually any reason. See here. The exceptions are relatively trivial and certainly have little to do with freedom of speech:

Under the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can generally fire an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. However, there are some things that an employer can't fire an employee for. Employers cannot fire employees for reasons that would violate anti-discrimination laws. (For more information on employment discrimination laws read the article, "Employment Discrimination Laws You Should Be Aware Of".) An employer also cannot fire an employee for reasons that would violate public policy. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because that employee turned the employer in for violating the law.

This article goes into some pretty good detail:

Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.

As he tells NPR's Ari Shapiro, "Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned.

Check out this employee:

During the 2004 presidential election, Gobbell put a "Kerry for President" sticker on her bumper. When her boss saw it, he said Gobbell could "either work for John Kerry or work for me." Gobbell refused to take the sticker off her car and was immediately fired.

Look, before you pretend to be an expert on something and hold forth to lecture, at least do a modicum of research.

 

[RandFan]

Look, before you pretend to be an expert on something and hold forth to lecture, at least do a modicum of research.

I got spanked a bit on that one. While I think it is absurd that employers have that ability I will concede that I was wrong. Fair enough. I'll eat my crow.

 

[RandFan]

I think it is rather scary that the folks in power have another means of stopping speech they don't like. Wall mart can do what the feral govt can't. They can control your life. What good are the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights if other entities can infringe those liberties? Of what value is free speech if you can't speak? Is freedom really just free from govt intrusion into our lives?

 

[respect]

I think it is rather scary that the folks in power have another means of stopping speech they don't like. Wall mart can do what the feral govt can't. They can control your life. What good are the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights if other entities can infringe those liberties? Of what value is free speech if you can't speak? Is freedom really just free from govt intrusion into our lives?

They can only control your life to the extent that they can choose to end a relationship with you. Walmart can also ban you from shopping at their stores for just about any reason they please.

But let's look at another example. The NFL fired Hank Williams for comparing Obama to Hitler. Do you believe that they violated his right to free speech and control his life?

 

[RandFan]

They can only control your life to the extent that they can choose to end a relationship with you.

When I lost my job my wife and family were evicted from our home. We were nearly homeless. That fact is by no means trivial. And if enough companies choose to decide what you an and can't say on your own free time then they will effectively take away your liberties.

I ask again, what good is liberty if it only means that govt can't control you?

 

[respect]

When I lost my job my wife and family were evicted from our home. We were nearly homeless. That fact is by no means trivial. And if enough companies choose to decide what you an and can't say on your own free time then they will effectively take away your liberties.

I ask again, what good is liberty if it only means that govt can't control you?

Did the NFL violate Hank Williams' rights?

 

[RandFan]

The Declaration of Independence, what good is it?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Not in the Bill of Rights. Not in the constitution at all. Not codified in any way.

What good is the Declaration of Independence? If you don't truly have the right to free speech but you are only free from govt infringement of speech, why call it free?

 

[respect]

Not in the Bill of Rights. Not in the constitution at all. Not codified in any way.

What good is the Declaration of Independence? If you don't truly have the right to free speech but you are only free from govt infringement of speech, why call it free?

Your wife is free to leave you if she doesn't like something you say, does this mean doing so would violate your right to free speech?

Many relationships are strictly voluntary and can be ended for numerous reasons, including not liking something that someone says.

 

[RandFan]

Did the NFL violate Hank Williams' rights?

I think a philosophical argument could clearly be made that they violated the spirit of free speech. Yes. Obviously. Did they break the law? No.

 

[AlBell]

When I lost my job my wife and family were evicted from our home. We were nearly homeless. That fact is by no means trivial. And if enough companies choose to decide what you an and can't say on your own free time then they will effectively take away your liberties.

I ask again, what good is liberty if it only means that govt can't control you?

Luckily we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RandFan]

Your wife is free to leave you if she doesn't like something you say, does this mean doing so would violate your right to free speech?

A flawed analogy. There will be exceptions to any issue but if my way of life is dependent on my wife I can collect alimony.

Many relationships are strictly voluntary and can be ended for numerous reasons, including not liking something that someone says.

But as Brainster points out so well, you can't fire someone for discrimination. a wife could end a relationship if she finds out her husband is Jewish. An employer can't do that. There are obvious exceptions.

 

[RandFan]

Luckily we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[respect]

I think a philosophical argument could clearly be made that they violated the spirit of free speech. Yes. Obviously. Did they break the law? No.

Do you think they were wrong?

 

[respect]

A flawed analogy. There will be exceptions to any issue but if my way of life is dependent on my wife I can collect alimony.

But as Brainster points out so well, you can't fire someone for discrimination. a wife could end a relationship if she finds out her husband is Jewish. An employer can't do that. There are obvious exceptions.

Yes, different relationships have different dynamics.

In terms of employment and the behavior of employees it would be extremely difficult to come up with a one size fits all standard to determine the ethics of firing an employee for something they said outside the workplace.

I don't think that the NFL is out of line for expecting employees to demonstrate good behavior and not do offensive things outside the workplace that could reflect poorly on the organization. Besides firing Williams they routinely suspend and fine players and other employees for breaking laws or saying offensive things. I forget all the details but remember Larry Johnson got himself in trouble for calling his coach a fag on an internet site. Likewise, if a player wants to insult "fags" in general they can expect consequences from the league. Described loosely, if employees embarrass the league they can expect punishment from the league.

I don't know all of the details on this journalist getting fired, but at least generally, news organizations could logically argue that the ability of reporters to do their jobs is compromised if they are demonstrating bias outside the work place. A perception from consumers that they are biased could hurt the ability to sell the product.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think they were wrong?

Impossible to give a blanket yes or no. In the abstract? Absolutely I'd like to live in a world where the NFL wouldn't be held accountable for what their employees say or do during their off time. Pragmatically? In the current system the sentiments of customers count. They, the customers have free speech also. They likely would have suffered financially had they not fired him. Had there been some kind of govt protection then the public would be less likely to hold the NFL accountable as the NFL could have deflected the controversy. That said, let's assume for a moment that there were protections for employees akin to non discrimination laws. I suspect individuals who are deemed spokespersons would be exempt from such protection.

It's a very interesting topic for research and discussion.

 

[leftysergeant]

But let's look at another example. The NFL fired Hank Williams for comparing Obama to Hitler. Do you believe that they violated his right to free speech and control his life?

Williams is a public figure. He was useful to the NFL because he helped attract positive attention to them. A large number of fans liked him.

When he spewed that crap about Obama, he turned off a very large segment of the audience and offended many of the most important people in the NFL, i.e., the players that the audience tunes in to see.

He became a turd in the punch bowl and useless to the organization. He had to go. Forcing them to keep the redneck pig would have violated the rights of NFL management and players and some of the audience.

Firing someone for participating in a politcal movement is a violation of that person's rights when it does not negatively effect the honor and morality or ability of the employer to do business.

 

[respect]

Williams is a public figure. He was useful to the NFL because he helped attract positive attention to them. A large number of fans liked him.

When he spewed that crap about Obama, he turned off a very large segment of the audience and offended many of the most important people in the NFL, i.e., the players that the audience tunes in to see.

He became a turd in the punch bowl and useless to the organization. He had to go. Forcing them to keep the redneck pig would have violated the rights of NFL management and players and some of the audience.

Firing someone for participating in a politcal movement is a violation of that person's rights when it does not negatively effect the honor and morality or ability of the employer to do business.

I would need to know more details to determine if I ethically agree with this woman's firing. As I explained above there are potentially valid reasons for a news organization to fire a reporter for political activities, more would need to be known to determine if this is such a case.

 

[portlandatheist]

{sigh} Guess it's pointless to keep pointing out the fallacy.

This issue isn't trivial, we're talking about $20,000 possible embezzlement and death threats.
It seems to me there are two separate conversations here. One is what the Occupiers are upset about and possible remedies such as better regulation of the financial markets, higher taxes for the wealthy and in fact more tax brackets possibly for the hyper rich, and so on. We are actually on the same page for most of these issues although not exactly, I'm right there with you with the sentiment and the need for real reforms that make a difference and lessen systemic risks and provide for a more equitable America. The second conversation is the futility, absurdity, the catastrophe and the train wreck that is the OWS movement. When I was listening to NPR earlier this week, there was a local guy who was on the air interviewed and this is paraphrased from poor memory so take it with a grain of salt but he was all about this is more than a protest but about how to rebuild society from the ground up and other delusions of grandeur. This is especially ironic on so many levels. The OWS want to teach us how to better regulate things when they themselves cannot do something as simple as regulating a drum circle despite quite valiant and well meaning efforts to do so. Crime and filth are systemic risks at these encampments. They want good food for some occupiers, and poor quality food for other occupiers based purely on their socio-economic status alone. There is greed, corruption, and violence. These problems seem to be systemic and they need better regulation, something that can be said about "Wall Street" as well.

 

[RandFan]

This issue isn't trivial, we're talking about $20,000 possible embezzlement and death threats.
It seems to me there are two separate conversations here. One is what the Occupiers are upset about and possible remedies such as better regulation of the financial markets, higher taxes for the wealthy and in fact more tax brackets possibly for the hyper rich, and so on. We are actually on the same page for most of these issues although not exactly, I'm right there with you with the sentiment and the need for real reforms that make a difference and lessen systemic risks and provide for a more equitable America. The second conversation is the futility, absurdity, the catastrophe and the train wreck that is the OWS movement. When I was listening to NPR earlier this week, there was a local guy who was on the air interviewed and this is paraphrased from poor memory so take it with a grain of salt but he was all about this is more than a protest but about how to rebuild society from the ground up and other delusions of grandeur. This is especially ironic on so many levels. The OWS want to teach us how to better regulate things when they themselves cannot do something as simple as regulating a drum circle despite quite valiant and well meaning efforts to do so. Crime and filth are systemic risks at these encampments. They want good food for some occupiers, and poor quality food for other occupiers based purely on their socio-economic status alone. There is greed, corruption, and violence. These problems seem to be systemic and they need better regulation, something that can be said about "Wall Street" as well.

OWS protestors are not elected leaders chosen to represent the people. Your argument is fallacious on at least two fronts. It's tu quoque. Its presumptive. The purpose of the protest is to get the attention of elected leaders and the public. It's doing that. Will it ultimately succeed? I don't know.

Thanks.