Hacker News Reader

Comment by opencl | Hacker News Reader

This ACLU document is talking about the government banning Nazi meetings, which is not remotely the same as the current situation. The modern Nazi 'martyrs' are people being banned from Twitter and fired from their jobs. They are definitely all being allowed their first amendment-protected free speech, nobody is trying to throw them in jail.

Companies are exercising their free speech rights to refuse to associate with Nazis. The Nazis can feel free to start their own companies and refuse to associate with Communists or whatever other ideological groups they don't like.

View on HN

"The Jews can just start their own companies" was an argument for firing them. It was wrong then and is still wrong when applied to othes groups.

There is a world of difference between firing somebody for being a Jew (which is rightly illegal) and firing somebody for going around and saying "I hate Jews".

People get fired for being hostile to coworkers all the time and this is no different.

If they are actually hostile to coworkers, fire them, no problems, but if their personal beliefs don't interfere at work, you absolutely should not fire them.

To be clearer of my perspective: So if they are nice to their coworkers(jew, PoC, or whatever) but then after work goes and hangs out a sign that says "I hate Jews(or PoC, or whatever)" they should still be allowed to work the next day, assuming they continue to not let their personal beliefs interfere with work.

Clearly this person is a moron, and needs to change their personal beliefs, but that's a totally separate issue, unrelated to work.

What if the Nazi's work is unaffected by his or her personal beliefs, but the knowledge that they are working alongside a Nazi is affecting everyone else? Should the company fire everyone else or is it OK to fire the Nazi?

I respectfully (and strongly) disagree.

Decent People refusing to employ anyone who thinks Jews, among others, are subhuman is NOT the same thing as Indecent People refusing to employ Jews.

Basis For Arguments Matter™

Nazis aren't (and shouldn't be) a protected class in the United States.

(a) Being a protected class only changes the level of scrutiny applied to the case. Not being a suspect class simply means that you get to use lowest standard, which is "Rational Basis."

(b) Most people being called Nazis are not Nazis.

Rational Basis is a fairly easy standard to meet, but if your only rationale is "he's a Nazi" and he's not actually a Nazi, then you have no rational basis for discrimination.

My morals are fairly independent of the laws of the US. I don't think peoples lives should be ruined because of their beliefs, however stupid I find them.

As a non-American it strikes me as somewhat imbalanced that travellers to the US have to deny any affiliation with Nazi Germany (a conflict that ended nearly 80 years ago) every time we sign a US visa waiver form, and yet these people seem to be allowed to preach what they do without much consequence.

In Europe it's far more accepted that Nazism is more dangerous than simple 'beliefs' and that there are boundaries where speech ceases to become acceptable in society. See Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. Try waving a Nazi flag in Germany and your feet won't touch the floor.

What if their beliefs are ruining other people's lives? Where do you draw the line?

The ACLUs position would be: When beliefs lead to action. You can believe someone is a subhuman, you cannot try to purge them from the planet.

I'll refrain from discussing if it's a good position. The ACLU already laid out the pros and cons.

While I agree factually, I do have a vague feeling that we're too focused on details that, in context of this particular argument, aren't really relevant.

Twitter/google/facebook are so central to modern society that being banned from them isn't all that different from being banned by the government, at least from the perspective of said nazis and sympathisers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com