|
8-Bit Scholar posted:And if you can't do it, why the gently caress should we tolerate anybody else doing it? Why does the company have to allow you to use their private resources to do what you want? I see your argument but you're talking about compelling private companies to do something they don't want to with their property and that's also not cool.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:good for you and your snitch friend i guess lol yeah that sounds likely
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Boner Zone posted:lol yeah that sounds likely http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/ nobody actually likes whiners
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Why does the company have to allow you to use their private resources to do what you want? A company's employees are not their property. People are not property, fuckman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:good for you and your snitch friend i guess Like anything else it can go too far but imo firing someone because they're constantly being a fucko on the internet with their real name and making the company look bad is perfectly fine. 8-Bit Scholar posted:A company's employees are not their property. No, but you aren't entitled to a paycheck either. Aren't we talking about moderation of posts/speech though what does that have to do with the company owning their employees?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
getting fired for having a picture of you drinking a beer on Facebook and being fired for publicly harassing women who reply to your mra rant are practically the same thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Also homie presumably knew 'such imagery' was against company policy when he was hired. For all we know he worked at some AA recovery center lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Boner Zone posted:getting fired for having a picture of you drinking a beer on Facebook and being fired for publicly harassing women who reply to your mra rant are practically the same thing company doesnt give you a reason when they fire you, and is not obligated to they are exactly the same thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:No, but you aren't entitled to a paycheck either. Aren't we talking about moderation of posts/speech though what does that have to do with the company owning their employees? I'm not going to bother this time. Boner Zone posted:getting fired for having a picture of you drinking a beer on Facebook and being fired for publicly harassing women who reply to your mra rant are practically the same thing Not the same thing, and harassment is not protected under speech. That said, is posting poo poo online the same thing as harassment? I could write about how all women are bitches, but that's not me harassing anyone, that's my free speech, stupid though it may be. Who is harmed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm not going to bother this time. I mean 8-Bit Scholar posted:Yes yes, the same old "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". Funny how this only comes up when it comes to people getting fired for saying things, but if Target starting staffing itself with slaves, somehow I don't think it would fly. You made a leap of logic there and I'd like some explanation. Saying a company is allowed to regulate speech on its own platform and that a company is allowed to set employment policies within the scope of the law suddenly becomes "company OWNS you" ??? 8-Bit Scholar posted:Not the same thing, and harassment is not protected under speech. That said, is posting poo poo online the same thing as harassment? I could write about how all women are bitches, but that's not me harassing anyone, that's my free speech, stupid though it may be. Who is harmed? Say someone googles your company. Say the 6th result is that moron being a complete toxic jackass on the internet. That doesn't harm the company, its sales, and all the other employees working there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I could write about how all women are bitches, but that's not me harassing anyone, that's my free speech, stupid though it may be. Who is harmed? Ok, let's go with this. You have a company with a large number of employees male and female. A high ranking member of your company starts publicly talking about how all women are evil scheming bitches. While using their real name and publicly identifying themselves in their role at your company. This draws a lot of public attention and negative pr to your company, and also causes some of the other employees to be uncomfortable working there and quit and generally lowers morale at your company. Do you actually think the First Amendment prevents the company from firing the employee who is making the remarks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yes it is. You have a freedom to any speech that is not designated obscene (pornography) or that would incite riot or panic (shouting "fire!" in the movie theater). Slandering others, I believe, also can carry consequence, not that it's ever enforced. Otherwise, you are free and permitted to express any opinion you want. gently caress the Pope! See? I can say that. Some people would want me to be punished for that, but they are not empowered to punish me. YOU are not empowered to punish people whom you disagree with. You may discuss, you may argue, you may ignore, but you don't have a right to enforce your opinion on them, nor silence theirs. The fact that I personally cannot put you in my basement jail is not a free speech issue. It is a powers issue. The fact that my speech is limited due to a demonstrable harm or public interest is not a conflict of two opposing freedoms of expression. This: 8-Bit Scholar posted:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." is part of the problem. You think "powers" are "rights" and I'm not sure how well you understand the document.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
I also feel like you're talking about major corporations but as a small business part owner if I want to be able to fire a person for activities that could harm my company I feel like it's my right to do so, within the scope of the law. Where is the legislation that says I MUST provide this person with a paycheck? If you work at a Domino's and then get facial piercings they'll say either take them out or somehow make them not visible, or we'll fire you. Yeah, your freedom of expression. But, the uniform policy is clear and explicit and Domino's has no obligation to value your expression more highly than their business. Are uniform standards unethical because they infringe on freedom of expression? I don't think so. You're entering into an agreement with the company when you are hiring that you'll follow their policies as part of your employment. If you tattoo gently caress onto your forehead that's your right but the company isn't obligated to let you keep working there. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I also feel like you're talking about major corporations but as a small business part owner if I want to be able to fire a person for activities that could harm my company I feel like it's my right to do so, within the scope of the law. Where is the legislation that says I MUST provide this person with a paycheck? So you're telling employees they cant have turbans or dreadlocks? Because that's not legal here. Even if it is unsanitary, just dangle that greasy hair in my food, I daren't infringe on you with a hair net.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:So you're telling employees they cant have turbans or dreadlocks? I don't have a dress code policy because we don't interact with customers face to face. But yeah dude pretty much every food service place I've worked at has said you either need a hair net or a haircut and it's not illegal. They aren't banning DREADLOCKS, they are banning long hair. Ditto with piercings, tattoos, and so on. A turban is maybe protected as a religious thing but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:So you're telling employees they cant have turbans or dreadlocks? There are exceptions specifically for some religious and cultural things, but outside of those cases employers can and do frequently regulate their employees appearances. Dress codes are absolutely legal and very common.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:You made a leap of logic there and I'd like some explanation. Saying a company is allowed to regulate speech on its own platform and that a company is allowed to set employment policies within the scope of the law suddenly becomes "company OWNS you" ??? On its own platform? What are you talking about? You are acting like we're using company-run message boards. im gaye posted:The fact that I personally cannot put you in my basement jail is not a free speech issue. It is a powers issue. The fact that my speech is limited due to a demonstrable harm or public interest is not a conflict of two opposing freedoms of expression. What are you talking about? Are you...no, what exactly are you saying here? I feel pretty confident that the powers mentioned in the tenth amendment are rights, yes. The people are empowered with a freedom of speech, religion, etc. Earwicker posted:Ok, let's go with this. You have a company with a large number of employees male and female. A high ranking member of your company starts publicly talking about how all women are evil scheming bitches. While using their real name and publicly identifying themselves in their role at your company. This draws a lot of public attention and negative pr to your company, and also causes some of the other employees to be uncomfortable working there and quit and generally lowers morale at your company. Do you actually think the First Amendment prevents the company from firing the employee who is making the remarks? If it's become an issue, then it's to be addressed, preferably in person and preferably not simply because a bunch of people tweeted angrily at the company's page. I think that if something has become publicly known, that exacerbates an issue. It's why I'm so disgusted at Sam Biddle in the Justine Sacco situation--she committed an offense that would not have caused much of a stir, but then she was published and broadcast to thousands and thousands, leading to a loss of employment and years' worth of harassment. This is maybe an isolated incident, but I think we all agree that it really hasn't been--that's just the most extreme. A company is within their rights to do this, but it shouldn't be commonplace nor readily accepted. At best, an employer's freedoms and an employee's freedoms should meet a happy medium, and should one extend within the domain of the other, problems arise. But in general, we shouldn't be policing people's Facebooks or demanding their bosses fire them if they say something we don't like. Again, this is as much a cultural problem as it is a legal one. We exist in a time where "right" and "wrong" opinions demand correction, silence, or censure. The reason Donald Trump is so popular is because he's basically said "gently caress that" to that entire notion, and he just says whatever he wants. And, honestly, what exactly has the detrimental outcome been? His rallies have had a few violent incidences, many of which were started by the very people PROTESTING him. He's the antithesis of this authoritarian culture being pushed forward as a progressive agenda. IF somebody is bigoted, they must be punished. This is the prevailing attitude of this time, and I feel it does not gel well with the notion of freedom of expression, particularly since the definitions of bigotry seemed to be stretched beyond all sense of meaning. See: Shirtgate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:company doesnt give you a reason when they fire you, and is not obligated to lol nah 8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm not going to bother this time. I guess no one but that's not the situation I'm describing. I didn't see this guy post myself but I saw screenshots of him leveling vaguely threatening poo poo against women who replied to his comments trying to calmly explain why his comments were so hosed. This is the only example I know of personally where someone was fired for social media posts and it was completely justified in that instance imo maybe there's an epidemic of people being fired for simply voicing an opinion but from what I've seen most cases are much more reasonable than that
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Maybe we should boycott companies who fire employees over frivolous poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:On its own platform? What are you talking about? You are acting like we're using company-run message boards. Honestly idk what are we talking about. I thought we were talking about Twitter censoring stuff? 8-Bit Scholar posted:If it's become an issue, then it's to be addressed, preferably in person and preferably not simply because a bunch of people tweeted angrily at the company's page. I think that if something has become publicly known, that exacerbates an issue. It's why I'm so disgusted at Sam Biddle in the Justine Sacco situation--she committed an offense that would not have caused much of a stir, but then she was published and broadcast to thousands and thousands, leading to a loss of employment and years' worth of harassment. This is maybe an isolated incident, but I think we all agree that it really hasn't been--that's just the most extreme. I don't really disagree with any of this. I just don't think the solution is to tell companies they aren't allowed to hire/fire people based on that or get legislative with it. But yeah man some companies are lovely to work for and will screw you for nothing like that and others are better. I do think it's fair to say you are somewhat representative of the company as an employee of the company and if you're being a total rear end in a top hat on the internet and bringing bad PR/image then the company should be allowed to fire you. I understand there should be somewhat of a division between an employee's private life and their work life, but by your logic if a company hires a person who then puts a bunch of neo-nazi poo poo all over the place they shouldn't be allowed to fire him. What *is* bullshit is asking to log in to your employee's private poo poo to police them; if it isn't in the public eye then I don't care. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:A company is within their rights to do this, but it shouldn't be commonplace nor readily accepted. So then, if company is "within their rights to do this, but it shouldn't be commonplace nor readily accepted" then this means they are within their rights, entirely regardless of how commonplace or accepted it is, and that there is no constitutional amendment that prevents them from doing so. Whether or not an activity is commonplace or accepted is entirely a different thing from whether you have the legal right to do it. 8-Bit Scholar posted:But in general, we shouldn't be policing people's Facebooks or demanding their bosses fire them if they say something we don't like. Again, this is as much a cultural problem as it is a legal one. I agree, we shouldn't. But that's not at all a rights issue. You keep bringing this to very specifically internet/social media related stuff while ignoring a lot of the broader context, not to mention what the constitution actually says. If the first amendment made it so that employers were not allowed to restrict the expression of employees, then a lot of basic things like dress codes or requiring specific greetings would basically be illegal. If you think there should be laws that prevent companies from firing people over silly internet detective related bullshit, then by all means, that might well be a good law depending on how it's phrased (or a bad one), but this isn't a constitutional issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:What are you talking about? Are you...no, what exactly are you saying here? You are advocating for a vague principle that can only be socially enforced to be strengthened with some form of legislation. In most cases, anti-defamation and other limitations exist. In other cases, it is unenforceable. You simultaneously argue both for the codification of social mores and a hands-off approach. You provide no answers and only accusations. And the Tenth is about Federalism and dispensation of powers which are totally not the same things as rights. Please read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Plus I don't think you can argue that your rights are being infringed by freely entering into a work agreement which prohibits certain things. Obv it's more complex than that because if a poor person needs the job they aren't going to rock the boat (and various other scenarios) and I realize a contract which violates your rights is illegal but still if I didn't like that Domino's made me flip my septum piercing up I could have just left and they made me aware of the piercings policy before I started working there. If I had a public FB page defaming Domino's I could also understand that they'd want to terminate my employment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Plus I don't think you can argue that your rights are being infringed by freely entering into a work agreement which prohibits certain things. When I saw this thread title in GBS, before clicking on it, I said to myself "I bet moridin920 is in this thread, being a big gay baby idiot"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
companies should be allowed to fire employees if they discover they have a something awful account, imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Minimalist Program posted:When I saw this thread title in GBS, before clicking on it, I said to myself "I bet moridin920 is in this thread, being a big gay baby idiot" idk I waited like 7-8 pages and I feel like I'm generally agreeing with the consensus this time? i like that you think of me though <3
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
yogizh posted:Only cool whites are Slavs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
im gaye posted:You are advocating for a vague principle that can only be socially enforced Freedom of expression is vague, yes, because the Constitution was designed to be as inclusive to individual liberties as possible. This was the intention--originally it was thought that even having a Bill of Rights was a mistake, because once you listed freedoms, those NOT listed would be by default thought not to be had. That is the entire purpose of the document, which I have read and in fact quoted in that post. To argue for strict limits to how it can even be interpreted is to essentially render the document impotent, a goal I don't think anyone actually wants. Earwicker posted:So then, if company is "within their rights to do this, but it shouldn't be commonplace nor readily accepted" then this means they are within their rights, entirely regardless of how commonplace or accepted it is, and that there is no constitutional amendment that prevents them from doing so. We're talking about culture first and foremost, the legality element of this has always be something of an ancilliary remark. I am making the argument that the Constitution, as the law of the land, applies to more than simply and exclusively relationships between the government and the citizenry. It is a bill of inalienable human rights, that are seen as inborn freedoms that people who live in this country--and indeed, all human beings--are allowed to enjoy. If this is the case, it should stand that those freedoms should be enforced as much as is practical, and should be honored above all that. What I'm saying is, currently the value of free speech is not seen by people, who then right stupid blogs about how only non-white people can write about non-white people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I think I generally agree with you insofar that the individual's rights should be paramount but my only answer is okay so then what is the solution? You yourself said more legislation isn't necessarily the way to go so is it just that we need to work on a cultural shift or something?yogizh posted:Only cool whites are Slavs. hell yea 
Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Freedom of expression is vague, yes, because the Constitution was designed to be as inclusive to individual liberties as possible. This was the intention--originally it was thought that even having a Bill of Rights was a mistake, because once you listed freedoms, those NOT listed would be by default thought not to be had. That is the entire purpose of the document, which I have read and in fact quoted in that post. To argue for strict limits to how it can even be interpreted is to essentially render the document impotent, a goal I don't think anyone actually wants. Flat out interpreting powers as rights will get you an F in civics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I am making the argument that the Constitution, as the law of the land, applies to more than simply and exclusively relationships between the government and the citizenry. The Constitution as a whole does, yes. The First Amendment however is specifically about Congress. as in, it's literally one sentence and the subject of that sentence is Congress. Here is a question for you, if you think the First Amendment is meant to apply to anyone other than the government, then why do you think is it framed specifically in the context of what kinds of laws Congress is allowed to pass or not? Why do you think they chose to start it off with "Congress shall make no law"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Can we talk about the dumb stuff in the OP, instead of having a constitutional argument between people who don't know which amendments are in the Bill of Rights?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Can we talk about the dumb stuff in the OP, instead of having a constitutional argument between people who don't know which amendments are in the Bill of Rights? the stuff in th op is indeed dumb + really funny
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
yeah that poo poo was p ridiculous lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
You guys are forgetting that if you get fired for calling people faggots on Twitter while your avatar is your company's cartoon mascot that while you doing have any recourse against your former employer you are legally justified in tracking down and slaying anyone who tattled and/or the individual members of the HR department.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
the n word
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
im gaye posted:Flat out interpreting powers as rights will get you an F in civics. Well, now I've gone and looked up the distinction and I'm honestly even more confused. Perhaps you'd like to explain the distinction between powers and rights for the rest of the class?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:The Constitution as a whole does, yes. The First Amendment however is specifically about Congress. as in, it's literally one sentence and the subject of that sentence is Congress. Because at that time, tyrannical governments were the largest and most pervasive threat to liberty, and the whole impetus for the American Constitution was to establish a system in which no form of tyranny would be able to exert itself upon the people. The whole of the government is constructed a sort of three-headed ouroboros, with executive, legislative and judicial branches all largely poised to be at odds with one another, so as to ensure no one piece became so large as to rule the others. With intention of establishing a state devoid of tyranny, it was similarly seen that a state of liberty was the outcome: a state where an individual had just as many rights as any others. No kings, no nobles, just men and merit. Of course, none of this really played out that way, but this was--and is--the goal. This is why I think it strange that we're tolerating the establishment of little feudal lords in our current national landscape. Major corporations have untold powers, greater freedoms than even monarchs of old enjoyed, and they employ these to the detriment of the entire world, and yet I speak out of turn when I say that here, in this land of individual liberty, it is expected that they bend knee to the common man, and not vice versa. A baffling circumstance, built out of a culture of abject contempt for the very freedoms intended in this nation's founding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
edit:whoops, nevermind
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Well, now I've gone and looked up the distinction and I'm honestly even more confused. Perhaps you'd like to explain the distinction between powers and rights for the rest of the class? powers like the powers to tax, police, regulate, etc are for functional matters of jurisdiction and authority when a state operates conceptually, they are distinct from rights
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:57
|
|