- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
Nobody will report that comment to their employer I’m sure.
The future is fucked up.
I am far too European for this, do people report other people’s online activities to their employers? Do you guys not have legal protection of free speech?
there’s currently a wave of people getting fired after a coworker shares with their boss a post they psted about charlie kirk
It definitely happens. The first amendment only guarantees the right to speak freely without legal repercussions, it doesn’t guarantee that anyone is obligated to continue associating with you if you say things they find reprehensible. That includes your employer, and I think is really the best way to handle it. We don’t need to protect the security of employment of someone who celebrates the suicide of a child.
Do free speech laws extend to eliminateing repercussions for anything you could possibly say in Europe? I’m doubtful.
In Hungary you cannot be fired legally for your political beliefs and any legal actions
In the 90.-s there was a semi-famous comedian who wanted to go in early retirement… Didn’t work but he got his dayjob back at the steel mill!
Protecting political beliefs and legal actions are good, but tricky to implement with at will employment. Not that there isn’t an easily identifiable solution there, haha.
But that would still leave this guy vulnerable to being fired. And I think that’s OK.
Haha, so the comedian tried to get fired and get unemployment and be a full time comedian, but the law protected him from his deliberate efforts? Sounds like it probably gave him some good comedy material anyway.
We don’t need to protect the security of employment of someone who celebrates the suicide of a child.
I think you have it a backwards. We should have legal consequences for such hate speech against minorities, and protections from employment discrimination for reasonable political speech.
In principle I agree with you, and this is a very clear example of hate speech. But as with so many things, the issue is where you draw the line for acceptable vs not, and how do you ensure the laws don’t get abused and twisted to inverse effect. There are many examples of that process happening right now. You can’t legislate morality. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to impove things, but I think trying to fix root issues in society will have better effect than adding more complex to implement laws to a struggling legal system. Not to imply that is easy either.
You can’t legislate morality
I disagree. The law should be the common moral ground of a society recorded as a set of written down rules. What else would be meant by “justice”?
Ensuring the laws don’t get abused is the job of a fair and accountable judiciary.
The real fundamental issue within the american society is of course capitalism, which ensures that
- The law is written to bind and suppress poor people or anyone trying to fight for them; and to protect and benefit rich people and their lapdogs (by bribing the congress)
- Any loopholes or ambiguities to the contrary are interpreted in favor of rich people, whether that means following the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law (by bribing the judiciary)
- The law is enforced vigilantly against the poor and not at all against the rich (by bribing the executive)
As such, I might agree with you on your last point. Adding laws such as what I proposed to the american legal system would be very difficult and not very beneficial. But in a less corrupt society it would be the “correct” way to do this.
Laws are based on morality, but they can only cover peoples actions, not their motivations. People who’s motivation is to be nasty to people they see as lesser will find a way to do so, and trying to eliminate any action they could take to show their hate would lead to a tyrannical micromanagaing government and a society that can’t be called free. Obviously we have to legislate against physical harm, and do what we reasonably can against financial harm, and threats, and more reasonable things I’m too tired to enumerate, but at some point social pressure and personal consequences are a better way to handle such behavior. The more society is improved, the better it will be at this function.
I have no disagreement with your 3 points on how the wealthy have coopted the legal system.
Motivation is already a very important concept in all modern legal systems. Mens rea can be the difference between spending years in prison or walking off with a community service sentence; evidence of a motive, or lack thereof, can be the deciding factor in the success of the prosecution; the list goes on, really. Establishing people’s motivation, and separating good faith actors from bad faith actors is one of the most important factors for any judgement, from forum moderation to a criminal court.
As such, it is possible (and I would argue necessary) to prohibit hate speech in the law, clearly defining what it is and what it isn’t, and let the courts decide for each individual case.
Free speech applies to government censorship. We worship corporate capitalism here, very poor worker protections, mostly at will employment. We can generally be fired for almost any reason even protected reasons if the employer is careful about what they say to hide the real reason. Can’t fire an employee for being pregnant? Just say she smells bad or any other reason, who cares!
do people report other people’s online activities to their employers?
All the time
Do you guys not have legal protection of free speech?
Our speech is legally protected from the government. (And even then there are exceptions. And even then if you’re trans, black, a leftist, or any other outgroup, de-facto these laws do not apply as sharply.) But that does not make it illegal to dox people or contact their employers. And in America we have almost no worker protections, so practically you can totally lose your job for almost any reason, including legally protected political speech.
In America we decided employees have no rights.
It’s free speech insomuch as the government can’t infringe your right to say stuff.
FAFO rules have always been in effect but in this day and age people do it on bigger platforms.
I will if i can find who is directly responsible
Because it’s difficult to unmask an anonymous account.
Careful there. Pointing out peoples’ hate speech is hate speech.
Should have called this kid huge Christian. Then the right might actually give a shit.
deleted by creator
A nightmare for any parent. I can’t imagine their grief.
