[0] neither is the US, despite what it says; I am however a free-speech maximalist, and the differences between these positions includes but is not limited to acknowledging that some speech chills other speech.
Right, understood. But it is the right of every company to have the freedom of association[1] to determine what sort individuals they want to associate with, no?
Just because someone has the freedom to say something, it doesn't mean that their employer has to provide a platform to say it. It also doesn't mean that the employer has to allow its employees to disparage paying customers.
Like I kept hearing over the last few years[2], "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences".
[1] Much like your Free Speech position, I'm not being absolutist, only maximalist in this position; IOW, no dissassociation on illegal grounds, like protected class members, for example.
[2] Not that I agree, just that it seems to be acceptable.
In the context of the DoD… if people, online or offline, get to them just by swearing, then North Korea should have saved money and developed an f-bomb instead of an a-bomb.
not when it comes to employees and also not when it comes to customers. employees have a right to share their opinions. and discrimination on political opinion is illegal in many countries. i am not sure if that is the case in the US, but it is in the EU and the UK at least.
doesn't mean that their employer has to provide a platform to say it
the employer didn't provide the platform. they said it on their own personal twitter account not on the company blog.
It also doesn't mean that the employer has to allow its employees to disparage paying customers
depends on whether the statement is factual or not. in germany there was a court case that clarified that it is legal and not an insult to claim that "soldiers are murderers" as long as it is not making that claim about a specific person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers_are_murderers
according to the german court: "sharing opinions to public controversies is a sign of a free democratic order"
companies can not restrict the rights of their employees to share your opinion because that would essentially prevent any public discourse about controversial topics.
I said that in the post you replied to.
> the employer didn't provide the platform. they said it on their own personal twitter account not on the company blog.
They said it while being a paid representative of the company, at an event that they were paid to represent the company.
> depends on whether the statement is factual or not. in germany there was a court case that clarified that it is legal and not an insult to claim that "soldiers are murderers" as long as it is not making that claim about a specific person.
This was made about a specific person.
> companies can not restrict the rights of their employees to share your opinion because that would essentially prevent any public discourse about controversial topics.
Of course they can, they just can't do it while representing the company.
I'm a little confused about why you replied; are you clarifying my position by disagreement?
it is still their personal twitter account. they are not representing their company on twitter. the time and the location of the person should not matter.
This was made about a specific person.
that is debatable. i interpreted it as a general statement about the military that the recipient of the message is a part of. i can see that it can be read as a personal accusation, but i believe that this was not the intent of the sender.
are you clarifying my position by disagreement
it appears that i am. it did help me better understand your position, so i hope that's ok.
(Curiously, I've just seen someone walk past me with "duck off" printed on their T-shirt. But then, culture here in Germany is much more liberal about both word and deed — it's American cultural norms that made the autocorrupt inside my quote marks).
But that's not what happened. What happened is that she personally cursed out a client, publicly accusing this person in war crimes, while being on a job conference. And, when confronted about that, she basically told HR "your rules are stupid, I'm not going to follow them, let me educate you about how your job should be done". This is not a free speech issue, this is "rules don't apply to me because I am a precious flower that is always right" issue. The organization could choose to tolerate and accommodate this kind of an employee if it's worth it, but nothing requires them to. She is still free to curse out the government in her free time, or when she is outside her job duties - and I would be the first, again, to support her right to do so. But maybe realizing there's a time and a place for such things may do her some good. And if she can't control herself while being on a job (and going to the conference is part of one's job, otherwise why would their employer pay for it?) and be a professional then maybe she should look for some job that does not involve doing that.
Note she wasn't even fired for the conference BS. It was when she explicitly refused to commit to social media guidelines that they pulled the plug. I say if you prioritize the ability to say shit on twitter over your job, then it's not a question of free speech, it's a question of choice. She made her choice, now she's completely free to say shit on twitter.
You look like less of a bootlicking dumbass when you don't contradict yourself in the span of a single comment.
If you're there on your company dime, and the tweets are associated with your company image, the company now gets a say.
Is this not just a way to say "my speech is free speech and protected, your speech is hate speech and should be banned"?
Therapists and doctors have to guarantee to their patients that no beans will be spilled just to get what they need to do their jobs.
Whistleblowers need to know their names won't get shared to be willing to blow their whistles.
Filibusters, in the political rather than military context.
That's just off the top of my head.
I'm all for banning threats and other speech that's illegal. But once a line is drawn it's in everybody's interest to defend it in either direction. Remember that everything you demand to be banned can be used against your cause at a later point. Similar with every accusation you want to be able to utter.