What is the relationship between the rights to free speech and free association? People are losing jobs and opportunities over statements ranging from trivial to heinous.
Nazis marching in Skokie is free speech. The KKK holding a parade is free speech. Peaceful pro Palestinian/Hamas/anti-Zinoist/anti-Semitic protests are free speech. That's easy.
However, when considering more subtle aspects of this question, analogize and personalize it.
Imagine if Twitter were around when the Tulsa Massacre occurred.
A doctor tweets, "It's a start! I'll do my part!" with alternating Klansmen and burning cross emojis. Should a black person trust that doctor?
In the best of circumstances, treatments often fail, and lawyers like to sue. Does this doctor's employer occur any liability for that tweet? If so, is that a firing offense? Should they shunt black patients to other, preferably black, doctors?
Now consider that the tweeter is an elementary school teacher. Again, do you want that person influencing children? Can they erect a shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest in their classroom?
Last case: this person is a freelance coder. Should you refuse to hire him for an app update? Should you cancel his existing contract? Should you uninstall his previous work and start over?
Free speech reveals people for who they are. Free association allows others to treat them accordingly.
I have a hearing impairment so I pine for transcripts... but I got the gist of the discussion.
Over in Britain, we already have had restrictions on pro-Palestine demonstrations, as some were really ugly. We have no First Amendments, so, free speech is what the majority consensus is should be free, and one hopes that it remains decently free.
Here in Canada the CBC sent guidelines to its anchors and journalists to not call Hamas 'terrorists', and the government made its UN representative abstain on the condemnation of the October 7 attack, contributing to the motion failing, so there is where we are.
Nevertheless, my opinion about the issue of whether someone should be fired for expressing support for abominable acts is NO. In most cases. No, unless the expression includes a direct threat or incitement to violence, in which case I believe there are laws, even in your country, and it is not up to the civil society to punish or absolve.
No because I do not want to see people punished for what they say and believe, not the woke, not the Communists, not the Fascists, not the Nazis or the racist, not the Holocaust deniers. I want to see wrong and disgusting ideas expressed, and countered.
And I am fine with public outrage and condemnation of the support for revolting actions. In case of working places, where the opinion has been expressed publicly at the working place, I am fine with some form of censure (but not for stuff fished out of their X-Twitter accounts). These people need to be told that their behaviour is unacceptable. But that is it, unless it becomes a consistent and continuous advocacy of stuff like terrorism, violence, racism, sexism, religious prejudice at large (if it does, it becomes another matter, it interferes with the ability of the person, and the person's colleagues, to do their job).
It is different if the individuals are hired in positions where one of their jobs is to promote equanimity and fairness, or in teaching positions -- open, blunt, bigoted political statements by teaching personnel, especially when repeated, are detrimental to a balanced education. But I seem to understand that there are different and not uniform standards in the US about education, and so it is very much a matter of individual institutions.
But in most cases my reply is no. They should not be fired nor silenced. Even if they spit on the fresh graves of people I have known and loved, of people who believed in and struggled for a peaceful solution. Because I would like to know who they are; change their mind if I can, but at the very least be warned against their poison.
And in general because, once you make exception for some form of thought or verbal expression that you find ignoble, if you accept that it should be silenced and prosecuted, you make a precedent: you open the door for the time when a thought and expression of yours that others find ignoble shall be silenced and prosecuted.
It certainly goes to character. Should you be fired? No. Should you be hired? No. Just as I wouldn’t hire a member of the KKK. It certainly reflects your ability the put A next to B.
I've wrestled with this topic, and this conversation was useful. I wouldn't want to work with or hire some the people ecstatic about the Hamas attack. I suppose people might feel the same about me for using the wrong pronoun. I think the principal John and Glenn are holding out is the right one, though my animal nature objects.
“No,” I say. John is wrong. It’s one thing, in freedom of speech and freedom from compelled speech, to fire or ruin someone for saying All lives matter or declining to say a pronoun. It’s another thing to chant, “Gas the Jews,” chase Jewish college students into a library, to fly a Hamas terrorist flag or a paraglider logo, to rip down posters of dead Jews, or to terrorize random Jewish people on the street. I don’t know how you guys missed the most atrocious examples of the kind of speech Jews have dealt with since October 7.
Is voicing support for the political murder of non-combatants a first amendment issue? I suppose it is—if the issue is whether that speech should be suppressed. But the appalling ease of justifying such support can and should be condemned by whatever means necessary—the justification of murder is the oldest lie in the world—no civil society should tolerate it, and only children and the emotionally stunted are persuaded by such efforts.
Not sure about Pro-Hamas statements, but aiding and abetting Hamas for decades, helping them secure funding, helping them to secure power, and then being asleep at the switch (despite Egyptian intelligence warnings) should definitely be grounds for termination:
If Netanyahu had any shame, empathy or capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, he would apologize to the Israeli People and step down, instead of blaming his underlings for carrying out his orders.
I support free speech and oppose cancel culture, but are there some views that go too far? I get the slippery slope idea, but Hamas is a terrorist organization that just murdered Jews just for being Jews and said they want to do it again. Someone who says they support that shouldn’t be a teacher to people of any age.
1: Free Speech. 2: If employer, I would discriminate against such people when hiring. 3: I do not want us to become the censorship fascists that we despise.
I don’t know what to think or who to trust here. Substack is making mainstream news look good for once. The less opinions I read on Substack the happier I am, present company excluded, of course.
As I said ealier if I was an employer with Jewish workers, I would not hire that person. Those who not only profess support for Hamas but also approve the killing of Jews because they are Jews are only a half step beyond yelling fire in a crowded auditorium. I for one will take that half step and not give them the chance to yell fire. I do not accept the rational that their exuberance is just juvenile imaturity. Maybe they need to understand words have consequenses.
It depends on who is the employer. The 1st and 14th Amendments would likely prohibit firing the employee, in the case of federal, state or local government as the employer. Secondarily, even a private employer may be restricted in a State like California, wherethe employee's political expression and participation are somewhat protected, even against private employers. In addition, if pro-Hamas were "interpreted" as "pro-Palestinian" (or as pro-Muslim or pro-Arab), then the employer might also be prohibited from firing, based on federal, state or local laws against ethnic or religious discrimination.
Glen ..they are supporting Rape and Murder but I say let these Low IQ racist academics spout this garbage. It is better to see real hate expressed for all to see how awful and non rational these people actually are about Jews. If they were my friends or employees I would distance my self from them for my safety. Glen What do you say to the Black prof from Cornel, cornel west and mark lemont (CUNY) who are just crippled by their Jew Hate. Sad to stain yourself with racist speech but we need to hear it , and not cancel them. I do worry about its effects upon Blacks and its failure culture blaming Jews.( Faraclown preaching Islamic Hate while getting rich but we need to hear his weak beliefs too)
What is the relationship between the rights to free speech and free association? People are losing jobs and opportunities over statements ranging from trivial to heinous.
Nazis marching in Skokie is free speech. The KKK holding a parade is free speech. Peaceful pro Palestinian/Hamas/anti-Zinoist/anti-Semitic protests are free speech. That's easy.
However, when considering more subtle aspects of this question, analogize and personalize it.
Imagine if Twitter were around when the Tulsa Massacre occurred.
A doctor tweets, "It's a start! I'll do my part!" with alternating Klansmen and burning cross emojis. Should a black person trust that doctor?
In the best of circumstances, treatments often fail, and lawyers like to sue. Does this doctor's employer occur any liability for that tweet? If so, is that a firing offense? Should they shunt black patients to other, preferably black, doctors?
Now consider that the tweeter is an elementary school teacher. Again, do you want that person influencing children? Can they erect a shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest in their classroom?
Last case: this person is a freelance coder. Should you refuse to hire him for an app update? Should you cancel his existing contract? Should you uninstall his previous work and start over?
Free speech reveals people for who they are. Free association allows others to treat them accordingly.
I have a hearing impairment so I pine for transcripts... but I got the gist of the discussion.
Over in Britain, we already have had restrictions on pro-Palestine demonstrations, as some were really ugly. We have no First Amendments, so, free speech is what the majority consensus is should be free, and one hopes that it remains decently free.
Here in Canada the CBC sent guidelines to its anchors and journalists to not call Hamas 'terrorists', and the government made its UN representative abstain on the condemnation of the October 7 attack, contributing to the motion failing, so there is where we are.
Nevertheless, my opinion about the issue of whether someone should be fired for expressing support for abominable acts is NO. In most cases. No, unless the expression includes a direct threat or incitement to violence, in which case I believe there are laws, even in your country, and it is not up to the civil society to punish or absolve.
No because I do not want to see people punished for what they say and believe, not the woke, not the Communists, not the Fascists, not the Nazis or the racist, not the Holocaust deniers. I want to see wrong and disgusting ideas expressed, and countered.
And I am fine with public outrage and condemnation of the support for revolting actions. In case of working places, where the opinion has been expressed publicly at the working place, I am fine with some form of censure (but not for stuff fished out of their X-Twitter accounts). These people need to be told that their behaviour is unacceptable. But that is it, unless it becomes a consistent and continuous advocacy of stuff like terrorism, violence, racism, sexism, religious prejudice at large (if it does, it becomes another matter, it interferes with the ability of the person, and the person's colleagues, to do their job).
It is different if the individuals are hired in positions where one of their jobs is to promote equanimity and fairness, or in teaching positions -- open, blunt, bigoted political statements by teaching personnel, especially when repeated, are detrimental to a balanced education. But I seem to understand that there are different and not uniform standards in the US about education, and so it is very much a matter of individual institutions.
But in most cases my reply is no. They should not be fired nor silenced. Even if they spit on the fresh graves of people I have known and loved, of people who believed in and struggled for a peaceful solution. Because I would like to know who they are; change their mind if I can, but at the very least be warned against their poison.
And in general because, once you make exception for some form of thought or verbal expression that you find ignoble, if you accept that it should be silenced and prosecuted, you make a precedent: you open the door for the time when a thought and expression of yours that others find ignoble shall be silenced and prosecuted.
It certainly goes to character. Should you be fired? No. Should you be hired? No. Just as I wouldn’t hire a member of the KKK. It certainly reflects your ability the put A next to B.
I've wrestled with this topic, and this conversation was useful. I wouldn't want to work with or hire some the people ecstatic about the Hamas attack. I suppose people might feel the same about me for using the wrong pronoun. I think the principal John and Glenn are holding out is the right one, though my animal nature objects.
“No,” I say. John is wrong. It’s one thing, in freedom of speech and freedom from compelled speech, to fire or ruin someone for saying All lives matter or declining to say a pronoun. It’s another thing to chant, “Gas the Jews,” chase Jewish college students into a library, to fly a Hamas terrorist flag or a paraglider logo, to rip down posters of dead Jews, or to terrorize random Jewish people on the street. I don’t know how you guys missed the most atrocious examples of the kind of speech Jews have dealt with since October 7.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HOLOCAUST EDUCATION MEETS CRITICAL RACE THEORY?
https://www.jewishyoungstown.org/blog/2021/10/29/liptalk/what-happens-when-holocaust-education-meets-critical-race-theory-the-answer-is-surprising./
Is voicing support for the political murder of non-combatants a first amendment issue? I suppose it is—if the issue is whether that speech should be suppressed. But the appalling ease of justifying such support can and should be condemned by whatever means necessary—the justification of murder is the oldest lie in the world—no civil society should tolerate it, and only children and the emotionally stunted are persuaded by such efforts.
Not sure about Pro-Hamas statements, but aiding and abetting Hamas for decades, helping them secure funding, helping them to secure power, and then being asleep at the switch (despite Egyptian intelligence warnings) should definitely be grounds for termination:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
If Netanyahu had any shame, empathy or capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, he would apologize to the Israeli People and step down, instead of blaming his underlings for carrying out his orders.
For some reason this episode never reached me on Monday.
Free speech. Let the aholes talk. Know thy enemny.
I support free speech and oppose cancel culture, but are there some views that go too far? I get the slippery slope idea, but Hamas is a terrorist organization that just murdered Jews just for being Jews and said they want to do it again. Someone who says they support that shouldn’t be a teacher to people of any age.
1: Free Speech. 2: If employer, I would discriminate against such people when hiring. 3: I do not want us to become the censorship fascists that we despise.
I don’t know what to think or who to trust here. Substack is making mainstream news look good for once. The less opinions I read on Substack the happier I am, present company excluded, of course.
As I said ealier if I was an employer with Jewish workers, I would not hire that person. Those who not only profess support for Hamas but also approve the killing of Jews because they are Jews are only a half step beyond yelling fire in a crowded auditorium. I for one will take that half step and not give them the chance to yell fire. I do not accept the rational that their exuberance is just juvenile imaturity. Maybe they need to understand words have consequenses.
It depends on who is the employer. The 1st and 14th Amendments would likely prohibit firing the employee, in the case of federal, state or local government as the employer. Secondarily, even a private employer may be restricted in a State like California, wherethe employee's political expression and participation are somewhat protected, even against private employers. In addition, if pro-Hamas were "interpreted" as "pro-Palestinian" (or as pro-Muslim or pro-Arab), then the employer might also be prohibited from firing, based on federal, state or local laws against ethnic or religious discrimination.
IOW-- "Consult your attorney"
Glen ..they are supporting Rape and Murder but I say let these Low IQ racist academics spout this garbage. It is better to see real hate expressed for all to see how awful and non rational these people actually are about Jews. If they were my friends or employees I would distance my self from them for my safety. Glen What do you say to the Black prof from Cornel, cornel west and mark lemont (CUNY) who are just crippled by their Jew Hate. Sad to stain yourself with racist speech but we need to hear it , and not cancel them. I do worry about its effects upon Blacks and its failure culture blaming Jews.( Faraclown preaching Islamic Hate while getting rich but we need to hear his weak beliefs too)