The slow death of free speech

[Valmy]

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

You are correct.

Odd you seem to eager to support doing that if it is illegal in your own country.

[Razgovory]

It's not something that can be prevented.  Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children.  I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it".  Guess what?  You ain't gone to get the job.  You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.

That's a rather extreme example.

It serves the point though.  It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.

[Valmy]

The US has an amazing all-or-nothing approach to free speech in law, but has been discussed ad nauseum here, the actual 'freedom of speech' in the US is and was not markedly greater than in Canada, even when Canada had section whatever enacted. Its actual practical effect on chilling free speech was near zero. Of far greater concern is the trend on having people fired for saying things obnoxious - even though that has nothing to do with "free speech". That has orders of magnitude greater chilling effect - and it seems more prevelant in the US than Canada.

I totally agree.

Yes indeed.  The issue I am talking about is a social problem not a legal one.

[crazy canuck]

Why does one require the internet to be held accountable for taking an unpopular opinion?  It would take much searching of the internet to find cases of that happening when the internet did not exist.

Because private information was a lot more private back then?  Sure back in the day if you were stupid enough to get something published in a major newspaper or something or recorded by some big media outlet that was bad.  But this is a totally new thing entirely.

I am pretty sure that when Raz is talking about people taking an unpopular position - they are doing so publicly and not speaking to themselves.

[crazy canuck]

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

You are correct.

Odd you seem to eager to support doing that if it is illegal in your own country.

Are you off your meds today Valmy?  If not, wtf are you talking about?

[Valmy]

It's not something that can be prevented.  Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children.  I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it".  Guess what?  You ain't gone to get the job.  You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.

That's a rather extreme example.

It serves the point though.  It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.

Actually no.  The point would be you interview, get the job, and then later somebody finds a post on Languish where you said that back in 2005 and it creates a shitstorm that leads to you getting fired.

[Valmy]

Are you off your meds today Valmy?  If not, wtf are you talking about?

What do you mean WTF am I talking about?  Um you were the guy who shrugged all this off as 'being held accountable'.

[Razgovory]

It's not something that can be prevented.  Let's say you go to a job interview and decide it's a good time to express an unpopular view point, "I like to have sex with little children.  I wish it were legal, but the fucking Jews have outlawed it".  Guess what?  You ain't gone to get the job.  You express it in public and people are going to avoid you.

That's a rather extreme example.

It serves the point though.  It is an unpopular opinion and a person who expressed it would be treated differently, almost certainly negatively most people.

Actually no.  The point would be you interview, get the job, and then later somebody finds a post on Languish where you said that back in 2005 and it creates a shitstorm that leads to you getting fired.

No.  The principle is the same.  I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction.  This is true.  You disagreed with me because now there is an internet.  Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.

[Valmy]

I am pretty sure that when Raz is talking about people taking an unpopular position - they are doing so publicly and not speaking to themselves.

But it is not necessary to do so publicly.  To do so privately is a problem because there is a great deal less privacy.  Which makes this issue far more serious than before when so long as you showed a reasonable amount of discretion you were generally ok.

[crazy canuck]

Are you off your meds today Valmy?  If not, wtf are you talking about?

What do you mean WTF am I talking about?  Um you were the guy who shrugged all this off as 'being held accountable'.

Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain.  So I ask again, what are you on about?

[Valmy]

Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain.  So I ask again, what are you on about?

Um what I am obviously on about.  That, that opinion of yours.  So you disagree with the Canadian laws in this respect?  There is probably a good reason the laws provide this protection.

[Valmy]

No.  The principle is the same.  I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction.  This is true.  You disagreed with me because now there is an internet.  Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.

I meant to say it is different now because of the internet.  Also certain social constraints have dropped off a bit.  It would have been considered unseemly to steal a private letter in the past.

I mean sure I would prefer we lived in a country where printing anti-slavery pamphlets 170 years ago did not result in your house burned down by an angry mob as well.  It seems to me we are now going over a threshold into dangerous territory.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions in the public domain.  So I ask again, what are you on about?

Um what I am obviously on about.  That, that opinion of yours.  So you disagree with the Canadian laws in this respect?

How?  Malthus pointed out that an employer would likely not have cause to terminate an employee for something they believed - and that is entirely true.  But if an employee makes a public statement regarding that belief and the statement causes damage to the reputation of the employer then the employer would have a very strong case to terminate for cause.

Even if the employer did not terminate for cause an employer could still lawfully terminate such an employee pursuant to the terms of their contract of employment.   

[Razgovory]

No.  The principle is the same.  I stated that unpopular opinions always carried the risk of social sanction.  This is true.  You disagreed with me because now there is an internet.  Internet only makes easier find old statements, it does not change the fact that other people could still find out about your opinions.

I meant to say it is different now because of the internet.  Also certain social constraints have dropped off a bit.  It would have been considered unseemly to steal a private letter in the past.

I mean sure I would prefer we lived in a country where printing anti-slavery pamphlets 170 years ago did not result in your house burned down by an angry mob as well.  It seems to me we are now going over a threshold into dangerous territory.

Actually now a days we have much better fidelity and accuracy on past statements.  In the past rumors and gossip could easily damage a man, and often did.  So you could easily be ostracized by what people had thought you said rather then what you actually said.

[grumbler]

In fact, moreso in the US, in which firing people for holding obnoxious views is far easier - here in Canada, I doubt it would be considered "just cause", so the employer would be sued if he tried it.

Really?  My understanding was that "just cause" simply allowed one to be fired without notice or compensation.  Can a terminated employee (who receives proper notice or compensation) really sue for termination if the employer cannot, in addition, provide "just cause?"

If he or she can, then your point is apt.  If he or she cannot, then your point is invalid.