|
Becky, we've traced the source of the twitter and it's coming from... *dramatic pause* ...inside the tread.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
i think 8-bit is trying to argue that if you boycott a business the business isn't being fairly "protected" by the first amendment and that somehow means businesses are now logically exempt from jurisdiction under the constitution so that means they can have slaves did i get this right are you that dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
im gaye posted:i think 8-bit is trying to argue that if you boycott a business the business isn't being fairly "protected" by the first amendment you should stop doing so many drugs, or learn to read, or both
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:you should stop doing so many drugs, or learn to read, or both ok explain the target slaves thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:well yes that is technically true in terms of nomenclature but the rights granted in the additional amendments are just as "real" as the first ten. I never said they weren't
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:it has nothing to do with which freedoms are "more important" and everything to do with the actual text of the first amendment, which is specifically about types of action the government may take. That's explicitly what the amendment says. Yyyyyes, but this is an exceedingly narrow interpretation of what the Amendment says. Even if you're just a strict "by the letter" Constitutionalist, Freedom of Speech has been something that has been long fought for in every facet of society. It's a tenuous freedom that many seek to stamp out and none should be permitted. If you are saying that the first amendment can't be applied to anyone BUT the government, then you're essentially hamstringing your own personal freedoms in a country that ostensibly cherishes those same freedoms. If you are upset that corporations are now people and that big business runs our government, why then take their side in regards to your individual rights? EDIT: Freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to use your religion to justify persecuting people, this has been firmly established. Why does this standard not apply to speech? 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
im gaye posted:ok explain the target slaves thing you already admitted you don't understand it, why would i waste my time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:you already admitted you don't understand it, why would i waste my time? ok you can't then
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
im gaye posted:i think 8-bit is trying to argue that if you boycott a business the business isn't being fairly "protected" by the first amendment This isn't remotely what I'm saying, and you're either incredibly stupid, not reading the posts you're responding to, or you're just trolling. I'm saying if a business is not held accountable to the first amendment, why should they be held accountable to ANY amendment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yyyyyes, but this is an exceedingly narrow interpretation of what the Amendment says. how so? "Congress shall pass no law" seems like a pretty specific and intentional phrasing. I can see the logic of extending that to the actions of government in general, but I don't see how you extend it to the actions of private persons. quote:If you are upset that corporations are now people and that big business runs our government, why then take their side in regards to your individual rights? its not about "sides". I think corporations and private persons are capable of abusing their freedom in a way that harms others, and that it has happened many times.. the first amendment doesn't prevent them from doing so. in some cases, there are other laws that do (libel is punishable, for example, so are death threats and some forms of harassment). in other cases, maybe there are laws that should or could be written and shouldn't have. but that doesn't mean the first amendment covers this or that the "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens" as you earlier framed the argument - that is a misrepresentation. the Bill of Rights does apply to private citizens, but the first amendment is specifically about actions the government can take. we know this because it says so right there in the amendment itself! Earwicker fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
69th amendment sez u have a right to get on this diiiiiick 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This isn't remotely what I'm saying, and you're either incredibly stupid, not reading the posts you're responding to, or you're just trolling. I'm saying if a business is not held accountable to the first amendment, why should they be held accountable to ANY amendment? give an example of a business "not being held accountable to the first amendment"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
poop in the salad
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
i think he means when businesses fire people for saying racist things on twitter
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
romanowski posted:i think he means when businesses fire people for saying racist things on twitter lmbo
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
The problem is that people think it's OK now to use their real name on the internet. Nobody's getting fired because of what "FatboySlimFan420" said about feminism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
forums poster im gaye you're reaching peak moridin levels itt
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:how so? "Congress shall pass no law" seems like a pretty specific and intentional phrasing. I can see the logic of extending that to the actions of government in general, but I don't see how you extend it to the actions of private persons. 8-Bit Scholar posted:By your logic, a business should be able to fire somebody for being Jewish, or to forbid employees from peacefully gathering in protests without any cause for umbrage. im gaye posted:give an example of a business "not being held accountable to the first amendment" Firing somebody because they tweeted something inflammatory comes to mind. Or the very impetus of all this discussion: Nude Bog Lurker posted:freedom of expression literally just means that the government can't punish you for saying stuff Which is the stupidest loving thing progressives keep stumping and it flies in the face of why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place. Consider that we live in an era where private businesses can own armies and real estate, I see no valid nor prudent reason to suddenly and adamantly declare that they can operated on U.S. soil and not have to honor the most important laws of the land within said United States, particularly since I can only imagine you're also in the crowd that considers outsourcing jobs to avoid labor laws to be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
ok fine i dont want be that guy but holy poo poo if you think this weird nebulous first amendment thing makes any sense when you deconstruct it for five minutes
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
if you are a grown adult who talks about their feelings in public as if it was a topic that complete strangers should be interested in and take very seriously, then you got some problems my friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:By your logic, a business should be able to fire somebody for being Jewish, or to forbid employees from peacefully gathering in protests without any cause for umbrage. Ok, let me clarify, going to this example: the reason a business is not allowed to fire someone for being Jewish is not because of the First Amendment. The reason businesses aren't allowed to fire people for their religion is because of federal employment anti-discrimination laws, many of which did not exist prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is these laws, and not the First Amendment, which prevent private businesses from firing people due to their religion. As to firing someone because of what they said on Twitter, that also isn't covered by the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that nothing at all can be done about it. There are laws that regulate how and when businesses can terminate employees. The issue you will run up against is that in most states businesses can fire a person for any reason they want outside of belonging to a protected class, and even that they are able to get around by simply being vague about their reasoning or simply providing no reasoning at all. So what you are dealing with in that context is not a First Amendment issue, it's more of a employee vs. employer rights issue. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:There are laws that regulate how and when businesses can terminate employees. Not really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:if you are a grown adult who talks about their feelings in public as if it was a topic that complete strangers should be interested in and take very seriously, then you got some problems my friend if you enjoy playlists from legal adults coming out of their late teens/early 20s you must be an ephebophilia
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:Not really. the laws exist, whether they are effective or not is a different question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:if you are a grown adult who talks about their feelings in public as if it was a topic that complete strangers should be interested in and take very seriously, then you got some problems my friend who are you talking to
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
im gaye posted:ok fine i dont want be that guy but holy poo poo if you think this weird nebulous first amendment thing makes any sense when you deconstruct it for five minutes It's easy: I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Earwicker posted:Ok, let me clarify, going to this example: the reason a business is not allowed to fire someone for being Jewish is not because of the First Amendment. The reason businesses aren't allowed to fire people for their religion is because of federal employment anti-discrimination laws, many of which did not exist prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is these laws, and not the First Amendment, which prevent businesses from firing people due to their religion. So the First Amendment is toothless? You wouldn't have needed a federal law if people took "freedom of religion" to its logical conclusion, i.e. that it's nobody's business what religion anyone is so long as they are causing no harm to anyone. Federal laws only serve to enforce the Amendments because people, like yourself, keep arguing that they cannot enforce the amendments any other way. quote:As to firing someone because of what they said on Twitter, that also isn't covered by the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that nothing at all can be done about it. There are laws that regulate how and when businesses can terminate employees. The issue you will run up against is that in most states businesses can fire a person for any reason they want outside of belonging to a protected class, and even that they are able to get around by simply being vague about their reasoning or simply providing no reasoning at all. At-will employment is by and large loving nonsense, detrimental to the working class and it provides unfair amounts of power to employers and businesses, particularly big businesses. It's a bad practice that seems to exist largely to keep unions from being effective. You should oppose it, it should be opposed. At-will employment exists in every state except Montana, it's absurdly wide-spread. So the federal anti-discrimination laws are just as toothless, it seems, because you could discriminate without being open about it if you really wanted to. We need more employee rights, not less, and I think the best way to do that is to go back to the very source, and re-enforce the doctrine that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments, are the Law of the Land, full loving stop. If you want to do business in America, you should honor and respect the American ideal of equality, liberty, and justice for all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:the laws exist, whether they are effective or not is a different question. it's illegal if they were to actually put in writing "you are fired for being black." on corporate letterhead, but that is very rare in practice. an employer doesn't have to give you a reason for being terminated at all in most states. they just show you the door. im gaye posted:who are you talking to grown adults who want me to pay attention to how they feel
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:So the First Amendment is toothless? It's not "toothless" when it comes to preventing Congress from passing laws that restrict speech, which is what the amendment is about. It is entirely toothless when it comes to stopping a private business from firing a person due to their religion, because that's simply not what the amendment is about. This is why we have other laws to address this issue. 8-Bit Scholar posted:You wouldn't have needed a federal law if people took "freedom of religion" to its logical conclusion, i.e. that it's nobody's business what religion anyone is so long as they are causing no harm to anyone. Federal laws only serve to enforce the Amendments because people, like yourself, keep arguing that they cannot enforce the amendments any other way. That's correct. We need these federal laws because you cannot just assume that everyone will come to the same logical conclusion about what "freedom of religion" as a society means, there are many different elements of our society who have very different views on that. So the idea is we come together and elect people who, theoretically, can write laws that clarify in more detail how our freedoms should be expressed and protected. The fact that the legislation like the Civil Rights Act and accompanying anti-discrimination laws was necessary is good evidence that this wasn't happening for everyone very well before that act was passed, and that we cannot rely on the phrasing of the constitution alone to guarantee everyone's actual rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
i think we should strive for the human rights declaration to apply to private entities, especially if said private entities operate internationally, peace
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Lichy posted:i think we should strive for the human rights declaration to apply to private entities, especially if said private entities operate internationally, peace It would be really cool and good if we forced companies that do business in the united states to adhere to the labor laws of the united states even if their workforce resides in a different country, but good luck getting that accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Lichy posted:i think we should strive for the human rights declaration to apply to private entities, especially if said private entities operate internationally, peace Also internet needs to become more than a UN human right but a global one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
cant wait to show up for work tell my boss to suck my butt and french fried testicles then chant USA USA free speech
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
As an Aleut, I'm totally ok with white people making more Legend of Korra episodes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:it's illegal if they were to actually put in writing "you are fired for being black." on corporate letterhead, but that is very rare in practice. right, like I said the laws exist but they are easy for companies to get around. my point is its not first amendment issue. maybe writing a new constitutional amendment prohibiting private companies from firing employees for their political beliefs or whatever stupid poo poo they say on twitter would carry more weight but thats going to be some tricky phrasing and a hell of a fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
im gaye posted:cant wait to show up for work tell my boss to suck my butt and french fried testicles then chant USA USA free speech you don't have to be a communist or marxist to understand that labour laws and human rights are good things and to be against them is idiotic unless you run a business and even if you run a business they're still good things
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Lichy posted:i think we should strive for the human rights declaration to apply to private entities, especially if said private entities operate internationally, peace Absolutely. The fact that we even think it needs debating is troubling enough. America's founding ideal is freedom for all. We can't seem to ever remember that when it's important. Earwicker posted:It's not "toothless" when it comes to preventing Congress from passing laws that restrict speech, which is what the amendment is about. I disagree entirely. Take it literally if you want, but then you are faced with a situation where you have a Bill of Rights that does not actually protect people. In a capitalist society, that kind of exclusion means the majority of employers, the vastest reserves of wealth, and increasingly direct levels of power are completely unchecked by human rights. Look at the Dakota Oil Pipeline fuckstorm happening right now. By your logic, it's fine for a private industry to be siccing dogs on people for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly. quote:That's correct. We need these federal laws because you cannot just assume that everyone will come to the same logical conclusion about what "freedom of religion" as a society means, there are many different elements of our society who have very different views on that. And they all get to have their voice, don't they? quote:So the idea is we come together and elect people who, theoretically, can write laws that clarify in more detail how our freedoms should be expressed and protected. The fact that the legislation like the Civil Rights Act and accompanying anti-discrimination laws was necessary is good evidence that this wasn't happening for everyone very well before that act was passed, and that we cannot rely on the phrasing of the constitution alone to guarantee everyone's actual rights. Passing laws doesn't really provide the solutions you think it does. Democrats seem to think that if something needs doing, one needs pass a law about it. We have a law, a good law, it's called the Constitution. Enforce that. When you write laws down, you just invite people to seek out new loopholes. Legislature does not freedom make. The biggest thing that Martin Luther King did was demonstrate to white America that Black people were, in fact, perfectly composed, articulate, gregarious human beings and not hep jazz-cigarette-smoking crooks and vagrants. That's what made a difference--the culture and public perception was changed, slowly, steadily. Legislation helped, but just look at Affirmative Action--something that was a great temporary measure that somebody forgot to strike off the books and now it's caused a whole new crop of problems in a modern day that no longer needs it. Americans are litigious--the more laws you have, the more ways around them you discover. The greatest societies tend to have fewer laws, not more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Lichy posted:you don't have to be a communist or marxist to understand that labour laws and human rights are good things and to be against them is idiotic unless you run a business good to know it is my human right to tell my boss to eat my filthy rear end in a top hat (it is) but also my human right to remain employed after doing so
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:right, like I said the laws exist but they are easy for companies to get around. my point is its not first amendment issue. maybe writing a new constitutional amendment prohibiting private companies from firing employees for their political beliefs or whatever stupid poo poo they say on twitter would carry more weight but thats going to be some tricky phrasing and a hell of a fight. the companies aren't 'getting around' anything though. it's not illegal or shady or frowned upon to fire you without giving you any reason - it's normal business practices and the system is set up that way to accomodate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Passing laws doesn't really provide the solutions you think it does. Democrats seem to think that if something needs doing, one needs pass a law about it. I'm not a Democrat, and I explicitly pointed out why these laws are not solutions and are in fact pretty weak. But this doesn't change the fact thjat the First Amendment doesn't cover this issue. No matter how strongly you enforce it, there is simply absolutely nothing in the text of the Amendment that prevents a private company from firing their own employee for being Jewish. 8-Bit Scholar posted:By your logic, it's fine for a private industry to be siccing dogs on people for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly. You are entirely mistaken about what I am saying. I do not remotely think it is "perfectly fine" for private companies to attack people like that. I am saying that the First Amendment doesn't stop them from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:the companies aren't 'getting around' anything though. it's not illegal or shady or frowned upon to fire you without giving you any reason - it's normal business practices and the system is set up that way to accomodate it. yes, I know. what they are "getting around" is anti-discrimination laws. It's illegal to fire someone for their race or religion so when they want to fire for those reasons they can give no reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:01
|
|