Privacy vs. Free Speech

[Captain.Sassy]

Yea isn't refusing to hire criminals or racists

Isn't the criminal category where society sets up its official lines on allowable behaviour?

As for the racist category, what if someone anonymously posts something online which they think is a critique of Israel but is construed by someone else (maybe their boss) as being anti-semitic. Should that be grounds for termination?

Or what if someone gets in a heated debate online? Swear words are used, macros are posted back and forth... such behaviour might not be considered socially acceptable. Is it OK for one of the people involved in the argument to "dox" the other party and show their employer the offending posts?

I dunno man. I saw theprestige say he disagrees with this kind of reasoning as a 'slippery slope' fallacy but I don't see where you can draw the line properly unless you draw it around 'criminal activity'.

 

[theprestige]

I dunno man. I saw theprestige say he disagrees with this kind of reasoning as a 'slippery slope' fallacy but I don't see where you can draw the line properly unless you draw it around 'criminal activity'.

Fair enough: Draw the line. Draw the line through every possible permutation of every possible social interaction. Let's explicitly criminalize or de-criminalize every single iota of social activity. Let's put it all in the law. Let's give it all to the police, and the courts, and the government. Let us have no remedy but the law, no arbiter but the state, for anything we ever do.

Me? I think society functions best when we leave the law only for extreme cases, and arrange our interactions with each other using methods that don't rely on the force of government.

 

[marksman]

Define ok. Do you mean should it be legal? Yes. Is the guy being a douche? Yes. Too often people the law should regulate every instance of douchey behavior.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Fair enough: Draw the line. Draw the line through every possible permutation of every possible social interaction. Let's explicitly criminalize or de-criminalize every single iota of social activity. Let's put it all in the law. Let's give it all to the police, and the courts, and the government. Let us have no remedy but the law, no arbiter but the state, for anything we ever do.

Me? I think society functions best when we leave the law only for extreme cases, and arrange our interactions with each other using methods that don't rely on the force of government.

I see your point, I do.

I dunno. I'm torn on the issue. I remember being on the 'restrict speech' side when it came to that Steyn piece in Maclean's and the HRT up here.

Maybe part of why I have reservations about this guy being outed is I think the internet loses some of its...its... its je ne sais quoi that makes it so awesome and something with so much potential for good... when it stops being a forum for anonymous interaction (or at least where anonymous interaction is possible). And yeah, let people be anonymous and some of them will post jailbait threads. But some of them will also speak out about important things that they never could offline. Like they can join support groups for closeted homosexuals without their parents knowing or talk to other people with cancer without their kids knowing or they can leak documents about their employers lying about the toxic content of lollipops. You know?

Now if buddy wore a shirt to work with a jailbait picture on it or was surreptitiously taking photos of the women's washroom at a restaurant near his office then I wouldn't have any issue with him being fired.

But the internet should be more free than the IRL, IMO.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I mean like, even the guy in my hypothetical who is ranting about Israel online... I don't think he should be fired for that. Now if he's going on and on aggressively about Israel genocide of the Palestinians etc etc in the office, and let's say his boss is on the other side of the issue... I mean I think that if he won't shut up about politics at work then the boss is in his rights to fire him.

But if someone says to his boss 'hey you know that guy over there, he thinks Israel is to blame for all the violence in the middle east, look at these internet postings' and then the boss fires him for that? I dunno.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I mean like, even the guy in my hypothetical who is ranting about Israel online... I don't think he should be fired for that. Now if he's going on and on aggressively about Israel genocide of the Palestinians etc etc in the office, and let's say his boss is on the other side of the issue... I mean I think that if he won't shut up about politics at work then the boss is in his rights to fire him.

But if someone says to his boss 'hey you know that guy over there, he thinks Israel is to blame for all the violence in the middle east, look at these internet postings' and then the boss fires him for that? I dunno.

I would think the boss is an asshat. But remember it is legal to be an asshat.

I am not in favor of outlawing every behavior that I think is asshattery.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I am in favor of laws against [firing someone for being homosexual] though.

So you draw your line (it seems) around things like race, religion, and sexuality, but not around things like political viewpoints or sports team preference. Is that fair to say?

What about other forms of potentially controversial sexuality, like being a furry? If someone comes to work dressed like a sexy wolf, I understand if her boss fires her. If she pretends to be a sexy wolf online, and then someone deliberately finds out who she is and shows her boss the proof, would you be in favour of laws preventing her boss from firing her for this? Or is this still the boss being a legally-entitled-to-fire "asshat"?

 

[Dancing David]

I mean like, even the guy in my hypothetical who is ranting about Israel online... I don't think he should be fired for that. Now if he's going on and on aggressively about Israel genocide of the Palestinians etc etc in the office, and let's say his boss is on the other side of the issue... I mean I think that if he won't shut up about politics at work then the boss is in his rights to fire him.

But if someone says to his boss 'hey you know that guy over there, he thinks Israel is to blame for all the violence in the middle east, look at these internet postings' and then the boss fires him for that? I dunno.

It really depends, are they are wage slave or a professional.

Professionals are assumed to meet a higher standard as their work reflects on the organization.

And usually they will find the day you come back late from lunch or fire you for that anyhow.

In Illinois you have to go before the LRB, which takes years and usually your recourse is to take unemployment, unless you are a suspect class in a hostile environment.

 

[Dancing David]

So you draw your line (it seems) around things like race, religion, and sexuality, but not around things like political viewpoints or sports team preference. Is that fair to say?

That is where the law draws it, if you are not a member of a suspect class then you really can't sue for much. The federal COTUS and state constitutions will define where the suspect class line lies.

In Illinois homosexuals are a suspect class, but religious organizations can still fire at will.