Free Speech
- Thread starter A2K78
- 1,177 comments
- 80,110 views
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I think there is confusion about employment laws and freedom of speech. They overlap, but arent the same.
It would depend on how they went about that. To deny the existence of trans people wouldn't be (as the judge ruled). Any other hypothetical reasons you fancy to try out?
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
I think it's been clearly defined so far
They believe in the existence of trans people but don't believe in the right to self-identify because of safety concerns.
Then, going off what the judge ruled, probably not...
What’s your goal here? Are you someone who shares this woman’s turgid opinions and are desperately trying to find an avenue of acceptance?
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
So odd that these two sentences are offered together as a single post.
Even in places where speech is protected against penalty by government, there's still no freedom from the consequences of speech. Simples. If you take a gander at this site's Acceptable Use Policy, you'll see that not all speech here is permitted, and the right to free speech doesn't protect you from termination of your posting privileges should you fail to comply.
- 86,852
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
In this specific case, the employee worked for the anti-hunting charity campaign "League Against Cruel Sports" and discovered that the company's investment portfolio - which covered some of the pension fund - included shares in companies that engage in animal testing. He reported it to the directors, but they did nothing about it, so he leaked it company-wide. The charity fired him.
He contends that he was fired because he is an "ethical vegan" - he conducts his life so as to have minimal impact on animal life, including walking instead of taking the bus to reduce his responsibility for the dead insects on its windscreen (like Jainists do). The case on whether ethical veganism constitutes a philosophical belief - as a religion does - and thus meets the standards for a protected characteristic (something that, on its own, must not form part of the decision to hire or fire an individual) - as a religion does - is basically his defence; the contention is he couldn't work for a company that invests in animal testing because it's against his beliefs, and the company fired him for it and breached his employment rights - it was doing something against his religion, and sacked him so it could continue.
The charity says his ethical veganism isn't relevant, because he was fired for gross misconduct. Revealing sensitive financial information which could affect the value of the company's investments and its employees' pensions would probably qualify as gross misconduct...
In either case, this isn't a free speech issue. We don't have freedom of speech in the UK, and in any case free speech is protection from the state, not your employer.
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
I'm trying to gauge where your limit is in deciding who can be protected from losing their job because of how they express themselves.
I gave the example of someone who believes in trans rights and the existence of trans people, but objects to self identification because of safety concerns. Is it right to say then that you think it's fair game to be able to fire them if they express those thoughts, but not if they voice certain other "protected" opinions?
I'm gonna take the unpopular opinion (again) and disagree. Speech is about expressing our thoughts and beliefs and I think it's relevant that Forstater tried to argue that her tweets were of a belief that she thought should be protected by law
- 86,852
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Okay, but that's what it is.
I don't know who Forstater is, but if her expression could be protected by law (as it should be, though we don't have that protection in the UK), it should only be protected from the state.
The platform she chose to convey her thoughts and beliefs should not be forced to continue to carry them and her employers should not be forced to continue to employ her. Those would be consequences of her expressing her thoughts and beliefs, and freedom of speech laws don't guarantee protection from those - only protection from the state trying to prevent you from expressing your thought and beliefs. Would you suggest that people who were previously friends with her should be forced to continue being friends by law? If so, their freedom to express their thoughts and beliefs about hers aren't being recognised.
It can't be anything other than freedom from state censure, because any attempt to prevent people facing consequences from expressing themselves prevents other people from expressing themselves, which leaves the state having to choose a party to limit the freedom of.
If 'Forstater' isn't currently facing criminal charges for her thoughts and beliefs, she's actually enjoyed the full sphere of freedom of speech.
Last edited:
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
There isn't one. So long as they're not violating the contract both parties signed you could be let go simply because you have an affinity for stripped ties but your boss hates them. In the case being discussed, there is no contract to violate since she is simply not getting a new one.
Then you should read up on employment law. It's a very easy to thing to do... companies even have whole departments dedicated to it
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's more than relevant, it was the very basis of her case in prosecution. Turns out she had no case and she continued to be free to state her beliefs. Her contract had ended legally and with her aforesigned agreement and her former employer remained within their rights to offer new contracts to whoever they chose. Which wasn't her.
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
I guess I'm trying to see where people who believe in no freedom from consequences draw the line when talking about people expressing their beliefs.
But if it was defined as a protected belief, could she have been protected from dismissal?
- 86,852
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The line is drawn at "being a criminal for it".
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202
Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful
Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Here's a short, fun Twitter thread regarding actual infringement on First Amendment rights, including those of at least one actual, literal First Amendment attorney, and Twitter itself fighting to preserve those rights.
I don't know how to show full Twitter threads, but that's probably for the best since it contains a single instance of language deemed inappropriate for this site and as such I would be compelled to spoiler it. Just click on and scroll to read it.
Language warning for those who choose to read in full.
The profanity is pretty innocuous, especially in its idiomatic context. I'll go ahead and quote the closing tweet--which contains the inappropriate language and also delivers the thrust of the tale being told--and simply let GTP's language filter do its thing.
I don't know how to show full Twitter threads, but that's probably for the best since it contains a single instance of language deemed inappropriate for this site and as such I would be compelled to spoiler it. Just click on and scroll to read it.
Language warning for those who choose to read in full.
The profanity is pretty innocuous, especially in its idiomatic context. I'll go ahead and quote the closing tweet--which contains the inappropriate language and also delivers the thrust of the tale being told--and simply let GTP's language filter do its thing.
Virgil Abt (Twitter user)
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The same case Trump lost.
If you hold public office and you want to use your Twitter account in any kind of official capacity, you need to keep it open for all. That one would choose to not sort of undercuts the message that one is for free speech to the point that a private entity has no control over the content of users on the platform it provides; you can't have it both ways.
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
That would be Poland proposing to force people to publish things that they might not otherwise wish to publish?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,447
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Would that be the same Poland that made it illegal to say that Poland may have been complicit in Nazi war crimes in WW2...
https://time.com/5193301/poland-holocaust-law-freedom-speech-amnesty/
...oh yes it would be.
This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with Polish right wing nationalists wanting to control what speech they consider acceptable.
- 2,925
- United Kingdom
Similar threads
- Poll
