An opinion does not cause physical harm.
This is the error with political correctness- as precisely defined-- it is the idea that you must be politically correct, otherwise you're causing a moral wrong.
I don't think this can be justified rigorously. But it is taken as an article of faith, almost, among its adherents.
From my perspective, it is used as a tool to control, by moving the overton window to exclude areas of thought that are different, and to rationalize actual actions that cause damage. (Firing someone isn't an atrocity, but it is harm.)
So, ironically you're advocating doing the harm you're using as justification to defend your ideology.
Are you prepared to suppress and jail based on speech and words? Because that's what you're advocating for, and that's what authoritarian/totalitarian governments do.
Not everywhere. You don't have to allow the free discussion of ideas by anyone in your home.
Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such. Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech.
This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's:
"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.
Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc.
See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0]
[0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...
And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as someone asking you to leave their house isn't. A private company, just like a private house, is not "society".
Private homes are not sovereign lands and neither are companies.
>The nature of the public body is irrelevant. It could be legislative, executive or judicial, or a publicly owned enterprise
The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments.
Citing your own source:
"The right to freedom of expression cannot be limited at the whim of a public official"
>"The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments."
This is incorrect. Article 19 is a prominent humans right organization, specifically focusing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also the second source agreeing that you cannot fire someone for what they say.
Here, I'll add a third: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en... pg 54, Ross vs Canada. This is straight from the UN.
So again, your entire argument does not apply at all to Google, or any other non-government entity.
It's illegal to retaliate/discriminate (being fired is covered under this definition) on the basis of an employee's political activity.[0]
[0]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html
You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot.
Fairly, under the United Declaration of Human Rights, or if it were a just world, no.
"You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot."
I don't think so. Any topic that has a clear dichotomy between two political parties is in-itself a political issue. Again, the umbrella for political activity is a wide one.
You said "Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such."
I rebutted with authority sources saying the opposite and your following rebuttals were all opinion.
I'm not going to point blame, but this is a two-way street and requires effort from both parties.
So, again, you have provided no argument regarding Google's case.
The first party was the Centre for Law and Democracy (based in Canada). The second party was Article 19 (registered in UK) -- however I was informed I misread the print on this one. The third party was the Office of the United Nations (based in USA/NY and SWI). The fourth party was the California Labor Code.
You have offered, in this entire comment chain:
1). Your opinion on how freedom of expression should be restricted (unsourced)
2). Your opinion on what constitutes a societal sanction (unsourced)
3). Your opinion on what constitutes fair grounds for dismissal (unsourced)
So I will rebut, once again, with sources countering your claims.
You: "They [Google] can [discriminate on what you say], except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government."
Employees are protected under "anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. "[0]
Local laws include California's Labor Code - LAB § 1101: "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."[1]
Google would also be in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"[2] for retaliation against objections of its discriminatory practices against men (section n, paragraph 1). Which Google, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex...
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."[3]
I ask of you to show me the courtesy of not wasting my time if you don't wish to take this seriously.
[0]http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-i...
[1]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html
The argument came down to you saying that almost anything is a political activity, and that Google being regulated by the government makes it equivalent to a government entity. No matter how many sources are provided, only one can actually matter: the judge who will decide that.
That's the problem with legal interpretation, until a judge clears it, all discussion is just speculation.
Look at your own points:
> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.
Yes they can.
> Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression
No, it isn't, your source only talks about a public entity.
> Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job
Again, no, it isn't.
And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about ethics, let's talk about ethics. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground.
It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.
So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.
> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.
This was a simplified point and I have to apologize for being vague. Google, in certain circumstances covered under the law, cannot discriminate against someone for what they express or what they would otherwise express.
This is shown in under the EEOC links as "illegal to retaliate against employees that speak out against discrimination in the work place." Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Whether he wins or not, I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics. However, this doesn't change that it is possible he has a case.
> Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.*
This is incorrect and I have to accuse you of not reading the sources I provided you. The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.
> So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.
Exactly is impossible and exactly is not how precedent is set. There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated: http://www.quarles.com/publications/employers-take-note-nlrb...
Is there a lawsuit already? I can't find any news about it.
> I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics
That's my point about this discussion, it became about interpretation of laws. We can continue to argue forever here, but ultimately it will be up to the courts, if he pursues legal action, to decide the correct interpretation.
> The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.
"International law" is a vague term that carries little weight. It has no "law" power unless any country actually formally agrees and implements internal laws with the same effect.
So, again, it carries no weight here.
> There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent.
That could illegal due to precedent.
> Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated
Again, you make the claim that Google has violated, with nothing but your opinion to back it.
And from your own source:
A policy that is written in the context of unprotected comments toward coworkers (e.g., unlawfully harassing comments), rather than protected criticism of the employer, will be deemed lawful.
That's what Google claims that the author violated, and apparently was fired for.
Remember, California is an at-will employment state. You can fire someone for ANY reason except a few clearly defined reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that Google has fired for one of those reasons, not on Google (or me) to show that the firing WASN'T for those reasons.
Google doesn't have to justify a firing at all.
And a correction on my part, Damore is filing a labor complaint.
A company can, for example, fire you for not liking the color red.
I had said: "Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech", by which I was talking that private people and organizations do not have to give you the space and time for you to voice your speech.
His/her reply was that governments kill people so you should be free of the consequences of your speech.
The implication of this argument (being free of the consequences) means, for example, that your family can't not invite you over for Christmas because you're racist. Or that your friends can't stop hanging out with you, or that someone can't stop employing you.
Those are all consequences of your speech, and you're not protected from them (with a few exceptions).
What do you think?
I'm ok with that, but I'd rephrase as "there is no absolute freedom of speech", or even better, "there is no absolute freedom" in our society, and I'm ok with that.
> Our society will take a long time before we can truly accept freedom of speech and all its consequences.
Do you mean
(1) (freedom of speech) and (freedom of the consequences of speech)
or
(2) accept (freedom of speech) and (consequences of speech)?
> What we have always seen in our society is if you think differently than the main stream thought you should be aware that will be consequences.
IMHO, there is no mainstream, only the immediate surroundings. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" next to that engineer who got fired will probably help you make a friend. Saying that in front of a woman will probably help you make an enemy.
Both are consequences of speech. You make, and lose, friends based on your speech. Why would someone find the positive consequences of your speech acceptable, but not the negative ones?
In life, there are always consequences. IMHO, the key part of being an adult is recognizing that your acts will have consequences, and being willing to face those consequences, positive or negative.
I think our opinions are much alike at this point.
> Do you mean
I mean 1. I think one day we should accept freedom of speech and freedom of the consequences. That will prevent bad/good ideas to gain further power and bad/good ideas to appear as an option. Offcourse which one is bad/good will depend on the judgment of the person who listens.
> IMHO, there is no mainstream, only the immediate surroundings. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" next to that engineer who got fired will probably help you make a friend. Saying that in front of a woman will probably help you make an enemy.
Mainstream = conventional, normal. So we could say we have both, the mainstream and your surrounds (probably your surrounding has more power than the mainstream, don't know)
> Both are consequences of speech. You make, and lose, friends based on your speech. Why would someone find the positive consequences of your speech acceptable, but not the negative ones?
Agree, both are. Usually, I often disagree with my best friends, sometimes our opinions are very, very different, and as far he doesn't act against my rights (settled by laws and our society), I'll accept and tolerate our divergence.If the opinion is too different, probably there will be no willingness to talk with each other. Saying "women are less capable of doing CS jobs" will make problems, I personally strongly disagree with that phrase, however, I wouldn't fire him because of that, is his opinion, and I respect that as far he doesn't break the law. (He would have a hard time trying to convince me of that, I would say that a warm discussion would happen)
> In life, there are always consequences. IMHO, the key part of being an adult is recognizing that your acts will have consequences, and be willing to face those consequences, positive or negative.
I also agree with that. I hope one day our society would be mature enough to separate opinions from consequences.
Oh, I found something to pick on:
> I'll accept and tolerate our divergence
Would you continue to be friends in the same way with someone who came out and said "I just joined the KKK!"?
People suffer for other reasons too though, like societal inaction and economics. Do you hold yourself to the same standard, with your lifestyle choices affecting others as they do, in the same regard that you're holding others for their political ideas? Have you adopted dozens of children from third world countries instead of creating more mouths to feed? Do you ride a horse to work to reduce your climate impact? Have you optimized your entire life for the supremely calculated reduction of suffering? How would such a calculation even be verified correct? Where does that line get drawn in your world? Is it simply on people with philosophies that are convenient for you to criticize to make yourself the superior humanitarian?