1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:40 am UTC

Weeks wrote:jpk you have the right to remain silent


And if I choose not to exercise that right?

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:47 am UTC

addams wrote:oooh. Nice.

You describe reasonable people behaving reasonably.
Where are You from?

The Internet?
What part?

Saneville?

i try to imagine these conversations as if you here had ever once experienced real censorship. very hard to do.

Great Justice
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Great Justice » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:49 am UTC

I'm reminded of the words of a great thinker.
Christopher Hitchens wrote:It usually isn't Congress or the State that tries to abridge free expression or free speech, [...] actually, in the present situation, the main threat to expression comes from public opinion.
It usually isn't Congress or the State that tries to abridge free expression or free speech, [...] actually, in the present situation, the main threat to expression comes from public opinion.
~Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:16 am UTC

yanfan388 wrote:
addams wrote:oooh. Nice.

You describe reasonable people behaving reasonably.
Where are You from?

The Internet?
What part?

Saneville?

i try to imagine these conversations as if you here had ever once experienced real censorship. very hard to do.

I have.
(ho-hum)
(big sigh)
It's ok to try to imagine it.

It was and is not what I would have expected.
I am an American. We had all those Rights.

Why would anyone want to Shut Me Up?
Why me?

Well...I think it was not, just, me.
I got some extra special attention.

I have no idea what to write that would allow you to imagine it.
One man told me, "You will be kept busy putting out Fires."

At the time, I was busy putting out fires.
Fires are having the windows of my car broken and personal items stolen.
Fires are having my home broken into over and over.
Fires are having people waiting for me at home to attack me.
Fires are having primitive weapons left outside my garden gate.
Fires are having criminals released from jail to stay at my guest house and be charming the way they got into jail.
Fires are having the city shut down my business on a minor use code violation.
Fires are having two big men come into my kitchen and tell me,
"This house is a hundred years old. A trained eye can always find fault with it. You open your business on Monday,
You will be back in court on Friday."
Fires are Reservations miss booked or redirected.
Fires. I had a great many Fires.

The function of Fires is to keep the victim so busy there is No Time, No Money, No Energy to read, write or speak.

If Fires start for friends, it may make the victim look like Bad Luck.
Fires also come in the form of Rumors both in person and in digital.
The victim often does not know the Rumors were ever spoken.
Only the wealthy and well connected can have some of those fires put out.

Dear little Poster;
I could go on for internet pages.
The things I have been through.

In a Movie, people would believe it.
A campfire story? Who would believe it?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:36 am UTC

addams wrote:Dear little Poster;
I could go on for internet pages.
The things I have been through.

In a Movie, people would believe it.
A campfire story? Who would believe it?

i think i see. yes, repression on that scale, when it tries to undo your very existence would be effective censorship.

edit: maybe my wording isn't the best here. it seems like the things you describe are jamming devices. they jam up your life to the point your ability to communicate suffers terribly.

censorship? jamming? same thing, i guess.
Last edited by yanfan388 on Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:24 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:38 am UTC

yanfan388 wrote:
addams wrote:Dear little Poster;
I could go on for internet pages.
The things I have been through.

In a Movie, people would believe it.
A campfire story? Who would believe it?

i think i see. yes, repression on that scale, when it tries to undo your very existence would be effective censorship.

Yep.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:23 pm UTC

Here's what gets me:

If I were to say, "I disagree with what you say, so I'm going to throw you in jail for it", that would be bad. If I were to say, "I disagree with what you say, so I'm going to string you up from a lamppost", that would be even worse. In cases like this, a person would be genuinely compelling someone to restrict their speech through means of force.

What's actually happening here though is that people are saying "I disagree with you, so I'm going to use a different web browser", or "I disagree with you, so I'm going to eat a different breakfast cereal", or "I disagree with you, so I'm going to root for the Lakers". There's no genuine coersion at play here. Companies are perfectly welcome to ignore the people saying these things (and in the Cheerios case, pretty much have). It's just not comparable.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:47 pm UTC

I think the point of the comic is that free speech isn't idiot-proofing. Suppose your supervisor is planning something stupid on the job, and you try to convince them why another approach would be better, and they say "let's agree to disagree" and stays the course. They've made it look like they're invoking freedom of speech, but really they're stubbornly insisting on being stupid at your expense. :)

(or maybe you just haven't done a good enough job of convincing them, but let's ignore that one for now)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26034
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:53 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:I think the point of the comic is that free speech isn't idiot-proofing. Suppose your supervisor is planning something stupid on the job, and you try to convince them why another approach would be better, and they say "let's agree to disagree" and stays the course. They've made it look like they're invoking freedom of speech, but really they're stubbornly insisting on being stupid at your expense.
I think this is a good example, because it too often seems in these arguments that the person saying "let's agree to disagree" is the one in a position of more power, who is not hurt at all by the disagreement.

Like, if I'm against your right to get married, and you're obviously for it, then when *I* inevitably treat the debate as a simple difference of opinion and say "let's agree to disagree", I'm really just asking you to stop arguing with me about how stupid and oppressive my opinion is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Lenoxus
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Lenoxus » Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:01 pm UTC

It might be helpful to rank one's opinion of the acceptability of actions along more than just two categories, legal/illegal, because I think that's causing confusion. Here's one possible scheme:

Level 1: That action should be illegal. Most people agree that some level-1 type actions exist, such as murder. Even some ostensibly speech-related behavior is treated this way by some laws, including death threats, libel, and blackmail.

Level 2: It shouldn't be illegal, but if you do this, you're beyond the pale and simply not a decent human being. Examples might include extreme remarks of hatred and bigotry against an individual or group.

Level 3: These actions aren't beyond the pale but they cross a definite line for one reason or another. For example, some posters here feel that way about boycotts that have a particular individual's prior speech in mind, ie "We should refuse to buy from Smith's until they fire, fire, fire Jones for his sexist remarks". By engaging such behavior (it is argued) one is sort of fighting dirty, and is expressing opposition to the values of free expression. By extention, said boycotters are hypocrites.*

Level 4: These actions merely represent support of a position I oppose. My disgareement remains respectful, however, and I think no less of the people who express such opinions.

Level 5: I am entirely neutral on these issues. You can express a different taste in music from mine, etc. I wouldn't do exactly what you do if I were in your shoes, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Level 6: I outright approve of these speech actions, and they're the same as I'm doing or would if I could. (Example: Campaigning and voting for my side of a political issue).

* I haven't actually seen evidence of this, because none of the boycott-supporters has said it would be crossing a line to boycott someone for their support of gay rights either; it does cut both ways, and the only difference is that the motivations behind a boycott might be good or bad, not the practice itself. In other words, I and others take the "Hobbesian state of nature" option put forward by jpk. That said, boycotting someone for being gay is different insofar as sexuality should be seen as a protected class like race or religion, although of course the apparent religious motivation of some homophobia could muddy these waters.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:34 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:I think the point of the comic is that free speech isn't idiot-proofing. Suppose your supervisor is planning something stupid on the job, and you try to convince them why another approach would be better, and they say "let's agree to disagree" and stays the course. They've made it look like they're invoking freedom of speech, but really they're stubbornly insisting on being stupid at your expense. :)

(or maybe you just haven't done a good enough job of convincing them, but let's ignore that one for now)

Fair. Fair question.
Each of us has a Right and a Responsibility as Professionals to take Notes and use the Vertical Chain of Command.
It's a Duty and it can be a fucking Pleasure! Stupid has occurred Reports or Stupid is about to happen Reports.

The Boss owns the company?
The Boss owns all the companies?

The Boss is The Boss of All Things?
There is no vertical chain? oh.

Put your Reports on the Internet?
Would you get Fired for That?

Where would you put them?
Who gives a Flying Fuck?

How stupid is The Boss being?
Who Has Secrets?
Why?

Do we have Rights and Responsibilities?
Do those Rights and Responsibilities begin and end when we "clock in" or when we "clock out"?

Have you ever heard of Fiduciary Duty?
How does That work?

EDIT:
Another Free Speech question:

Is there such a thing as The Freedom to Speak and The Right to be Listened to?
In the very olden days, there were no pretty people on screens to do the Talking.

Is it a Stupid thing to do?
I think I did a Stupid thing.

I wrote a three minute statement for a Public Meeting each week.
I walked to the Public Building from my Home and Business and watched a meeting, made a statement and went Home.

What a Stupid Hobby!
It pissed me off when I was told I could not Speak.

It made me want to Talk.
I am Weird.

That is all there is to it.
Forbidden Fruit.

"Hand it over, Buddy."
"I like Fruit."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:08 pm UTC

DeeperThought wrote:

What he did in his private life negatively affected millions of Californians.


Don't you see the slippery slope of that argument?

So depending on how the political winds blow one can be driven out of their job?
Support Israel today, ok, support Palestinians, you're fired.
In the future, it's the reverse.
Is that the sort of society you want to live in?

Really, I don't think supporting a country infamous for its crimes against humanity and violations of international law is right. But maybe it's okay, maybe people should support locking an area's native people into fenced areas and blocking access to medicine, sufficient food and sufficient water just because they happen to be of the wrong ethnicity.
DeeperThought wrote:Remember the UN had a resolution saying that Zionism is racism?
So is somebody who supports Israel as bad as supporting the KKK?
I don't think so but a Palestinian would.
Who decides? The mob? Whoever has the most power?

Wait, isn't Zionism the worldview that ethnic Jews deserve to be the overlords of Cisjordan to the exclusion of others?
jpk wrote:As for my assumptions and my interpretations, the assumptions I've made have so far not seen any serious challenge. The most basic one, for example, is that a right is something that applies generally to all people, and is not contingent on arbitrary distinctions between persons. That is, if I have a right to free speech, then you have the same right to free speech. If I have a right to a pony, then you have a right to a pony. I don't think anyone has yet asserted a view to the contrary, but the contrary view (that I have a right to political action that I approve of, but Eich does not have a right to political action, because I don't approve of the action he takes) is implicit in the pro-boycott position. This is the position of the friends of power and privilege, or of the craven and servile: if you hold this view, either you intend to be the one approving the actions, or you don't mind having your liberty subject to some other person's whims.
There is another possible view for the pro-boycott crowd, of course. That is the view that all speech is liable to sanction, and that there is nothing at all wrong with doing your best to force people to not speak, or else to punish them for speaking. This is a sort of a Hobbesian state of nature, I guess, and he who ventures there had better go well-armed.
Some people have made motions towards that view, but nobody seems to want to take it up and actually defend it, probably because they see it for the non-starter that it is.

You know, buying political power is not speech. Speech is what we´re doing now, or shouting through a megaphone that gay people should not be allowed to get human rights. So the pro-boycott stance does not need to consider speech in the first place as it is not an issue here. It may be normal in the USA to buy political power, but that has no relation to whether something is right, or whether it contributes to democracy, nor does it make something fall under the guise of free speech (as a philosophic concept, not as a legal concept).

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:59 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:You know, buying political power is not speech. Speech is what we´re doing now, or shouting through a megaphone that gay people should not be allowed to get human rights. So the pro-boycott stance does not need to consider speech in the first place as it is not an issue here. It may be normal in the USA to buy political power, but that has no relation to whether something is right, or whether it contributes to democracy, nor does it make something fall under the guise of free speech (as a philosophic concept, not as a legal concept).

What is a political campaign but a lot of people shouting through a lot of megaphones about what they think should become law (or who they think should be elected, etc)? Does it really make a difference if you're holding the megaphone yourself, or paying someone else to hold the megaphone for you?

There could possibly be some argument to be made about making sure everyone has equal access to the fora wherein this speech occurs, so that people with the money to pay armies to shout through megaphones across the country for years don't overpower the guy who can barely afford to rent a megaphone for a day and shout through it from his lawn, but we're still talking about speech here.

Contributing to a political campaign is not the same thing as paying to have a law passed. That's a bribe and is already very illegal and if it's happening anyway that's a serious problem that needs to be stopped, but it's a different problem. Contributing to a political campaign is paying other people to shout at the rest of the populace that they should demand that their current politicians pass those laws or that they should support other politicians who will pass those laws. That is many many steps removed, and two of those steps involve people freely choosing whether to do what they're being told (the people hearing the campaign choosing to pressure their politicians, and the politicians choosing to cave to that pressure).

Even if what the politicians at the end of that chain of events might end up doing is abhorrent, it's so far removed from the actions of the contributor to the political campaign that the contribution cannot possibly be construed as the same abhorrent act itself. It's the funding of speech (the campaign) to encourage others (the populace) to speak to encourage others (politicians) to vote to order still others (the police/courts) to do something abhorrent. Which does imply that the contributor would like the abhorrent thing done, and would rightly cause others to think poorly of him for that opinion, but it's still only an expression of his opinion that something should be done, not the actual doing of the thing.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Wait, isn't Zionism the worldview that ethnic Jews deserve to be the overlords of Cisjordan to the exclusion of others?
No, Zionism is the belief that people living in Israel have a right to continuing living in Israel as part of the Israeli government.

There are different schools of thought, of course. Some Zionists want to kill everyone else. Some Zionists just want to keep paying taxes to Israel. It varies.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Lenoxus
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Lenoxus » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:40 pm UTC

Honest question which I hope isn't a derail: Can a person be a Zionist while supporting a two-state solution?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:44 pm UTC

Lenoxus wrote:Honest question which I hope isn't a derail: Can a person be a Zionist while supporting a two-state solution?
Very much so yes.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

charonme wrote:A search for "kyratzes" did not turn up any results, but I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this was already mentioned here:

this guy is probably inviting strangers into his house and committing himself to listen to any bullshit they spew at him

I think this would go on par with the differences of degree argument, as well as the "understanding how reality actually operates" argument.

If you run a small, My Little Pony-based forum, and you ask someone to leave because they only post Team Fortress 2 erotic fanfiction, that really shouldn't be considered censorship -- if it is, then it's reasonable censorship.

If you run a huge, publically traded forum for the public that is internationally recognized as influential on how the world communicates, to the point that a movie has been made about how you created the company, and you decide to ban the same person from posting their Team Fortress 2 erotic fanfiction, yeah, that sounds like censorship.

Replace "Team Fortress 2 erotic fanfiction" with "informing people about the atrocities regulaly committed by the USA government" if you like.

Misrepresenting his very accurate point, that there is a distinct lack of publically-owned means of communication in our new digital globe, as him "inviting random strangers into his home" is willful naivete bordering on trolling, I think.

Being criticized for what you say is absolutely not censorship. Being prevented from saying it in the first place, which would include being forced off your platform against your will, would.

So, Randall's original comic was woefully naive if not just a...stupid thing to claim.

As regards Eich: Eich wasn't forced off his platform, because he wasn't making the donation as the CEO of Mozilla; the platform he used to make his statement is still available to him, in exactly the same measure, and his free speech has not been affected in any way. Instead, Mozilla's board made a statement by promoting him, and Mozilla's customers and employees made a response that they were unwilling to continue to associate with Mozilla if it continued to make that statement, then Mozilla made a counter-response that their agreement was more valuable to it than the original statement it had made. At no point did Mozilla's customers and employees alter employee lists to remove Eich, or move to erase Mozilla's statement, or even move to prevent Mozilla from making similar statements in the future (i.e., Mozilla can still promote objectionable persons to CEO. Nothing in their rules for selection has changed, to our knowledge). No one has been silenced, no one has lost their platform. No censorship or violation of free speech has occured.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:45 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:No one has been silenced, no one has lost their platform. No censorship or violation of free speech has occured.


Basically what you're saying is that you're totally okay with living in a world that can decide that your opinions are objectionable, and that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I suppose we better all get used to it, because that's plainly what exists. Nothing we say here will change that, and most people like it that way.

You can have free speech, and you can say whatever you want, as long as your ideas match up with the whims of the masses. If not, you can either change your views or face termination of any job you ever held.

Today the issue is gay rights, and it's an issue you support.

What will it be tomorrow? Will it be an issue you oppose? Better hope not.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:48 pm UTC

I too can join a thread and not read anything in it so I can smugly post something that has been said and refuted dozens of times before.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:49 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:I too can join a thread and not read anything in it so I can smugly post something that has been said and refuted dozens of times before.

Bet you can't.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:08 pm UTC

If you fire Brendan Eich you are literally opening the doors for fascism. Fascists. McCarthyists.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3265
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Firefox users not putting money into Mozilla.

Yes, as a Firefox user, I am not directly taking money out of my bank account and putting it into Mozilla's bank account. I've not taken sufficient interest in the situation to figure out exactly how Mozilla gets money indirectly from Firefox being used by people, but I'm pretty sure it happens even if I have no idea how. If I'm wrong, and Mozilla's income is in no way related to the amount of use Firefox sees, then that does raise the question of why the boycott was a problem for anyone? If it's because it deprives Mozilla of some non-monetary thing that it values in a purely non-monetary way, then, okay, I was wrong to describe it in monetary terms. Still, so long as Eich drew a salary as CEO, and his continuing in that role was contingent on people continuing to use Firefox, then my continuing to use Firefox was indirectly putting money into Eich's pocket.

If I'd cared enough about the issue to consider joining the boycott, I would have had two options:

1) Stop using Firefox, and let Mozilla know why.
2) Keep using Firefox and indirectly support the suppression of gay marriage.

The problem is not whether or not Eich had the right to freedom of political expression, but whether or not his right to be an asshole without consequences should trump my right to not support political causes I disagree with.

If you believe that boycotting a company because you disagree with the CEO's politics is wrong, then you believe that the CEO's right to support a particular position directly trumps everyone else's right to not support that same position indirectly.


Do I believe that Eich should be barred from high-paid positions for the rest of his life? Absolutely not.
Do I believe that he should not be appointed, nor remain, CEO of a company that claims to hold values that are at odds with his until and unless he changes his position on such matters? Absolutely.
Would I be okay with him being CTO of such a company? Absolutely.
Do I believe that someone who donated to the campaign against Prop 8 and has not changed their views on gay marriage should be appointed or remain CEO of a company that is publicly against gay marriage? Absolutely not.
Do I believe that it's right to boycott a company that is publicly against gay marriage because of its stance on gay marriage? Absolutely.
Do I believe that it's wrong to boycott a company that is publicly in favour of gay marriage because of it's stance on gay marriage? Yes, but I will defend people's right to do so.
Do I believe Eich should have donated to Prop 8? No, but I am happy to defend his right to have done so, as a spherical right in a vacuum. In the real world, the right to political expression without consequences is limited by other rights.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3265
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:52 pm UTC

jsharpminor wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:No one has been silenced, no one has lost their platform. No censorship or violation of free speech has occured.


Basically what you're saying is that you're totally okay with living in a world that can decide that your opinions are objectionable, and that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I suppose we better all get used to it, because that's plainly what exists. Nothing we say here will change that, and most people like it that way.

You can have free speech, and you can say whatever you want, as long as your ideas match up with the whims of the masses. If not, you can either change your views or face termination of any job you ever held.

Today the issue is gay rights, and it's an issue you support.

What will it be tomorrow? Will it be an issue you oppose? Better hope not.


Because Brendan Eich was forced out of his job as CTO of Mozilla by a boycott as soon as people discovered his Prop 8 campaign contribution two years ago.

No, wait. Everyone who donated to Prop 8 was forced out of their jobs when the list of donors went public two years ago.

That is what you're basing your claims on, right?

Or is it, in fact, the case that the job of CEO of a company that officially supports gay marriage, equal rights and inclusiveness is somehow different from the job of postman, or street sweeper, or even CTO?

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:12 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:No, wait. Everyone who donated to Prop 8 was forced out of their jobs when the list of donors went public two years ago.

That is what you're basing your claims on, right?

Or is it, in fact, the case that the job of CEO of a company that officially supports gay marriage, equal rights and inclusiveness is somehow different from the job of postman, or street sweeper, or even CTO?


Like several people in this forum, I do not claim to have all the answers or perfectly cemented opinions. I appreciate the thoughtful responses of many including yourself, and I wish some others would stop mocking those they might in fact win over to their way of thinking if they followed the old maxim about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar.

It's a good question you've asked. Of course I would not object to the firing of an anti-gay head of GLAAD or some other such organization; they would obviously be doing a favor to both themselves and the displaced CEO. Nobody would even object to the firing of an anti-gay GLAAD call center operator, and rightly so. One of the questions that comes up in this case, and even in the Hobby Lobby case, is how close to your mission do your beliefs have to be before you should enforce them?

A tech company doesn't strike me as the sort of place where one's opinions on gay marriage would have much at all to do with the day-to-day operations of the company. I would be more interested in knowing if he discriminated against GLBTQ individuals in his hiring and business practices. If so, then we'd have something worth talking about.

How much must you agree with a remote point of company operations before you can become ineffective? Obviously the boycott affects the company, which they will want do do something about -- but I think the move on the part of OkCupid and others was at best dickish. The sole objective of protesting the appointment of an individual to a position is to remove said individual from said position. Again, I don't understand how his personal views on the gay marriage issue would affect his ability to lead Mozilla as an inclusive company.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:11 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:Like several people in this forum, I do not claim to have all the answers or perfectly cemented opinions. I appreciate the thoughtful responses of many including yourself, and I wish some others would stop mocking those they might in fact win over to their way of thinking if they followed the old maxim about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar.
Belial, in this very thread, 17 pages ago wrote:I have a greater tolerance than most for swatting down the same arguments again and again but there comes a time where it gets tiresome. And no matter how many times the same argument has been had, everyone thinks their take on the debate is original and worldshattering. The 1st "Okay, but what if rich white dudes are the real oppressed people here" gets a well-thought-out argument. The 500th gets "shush, adults are talking".
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26034
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:15 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:the old maxim about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar.
The old maxim is bullshit, so perhaps the next time someone wants to trot out that underlying message they can find an aphorism that isn't the exact opposite of how reality works.

(And "You can't fight fire with fire" won't work in its stead, because that one's also bullshit and you absolutely can fight fire with fire.)

Even if the maxim did work, I'm not sure why you'd want to align your side in this discussion with literal disease-carrying pests...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:19 am UTC

We clearly must wield the flyswatters of truth in our quest for justice.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3265
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:36 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:How much must you agree with a remote point of company operations before you can become ineffective? Obviously the boycott affects the company, which they will want do do something about -- but I think the move on the part of OkCupid and others was at best dickish. The sole objective of protesting the appointment of an individual to a position is to remove said individual from said position. Again, I don't understand how his personal views on the gay marriage issue would affect his ability to lead Mozilla as an inclusive company.


There were also complaints about his appointment from people within the company, who had a more direct interest in their boss's attitudes. I've seen a statement from an online blogger somewhere that Mozilla gains a competitive edge over other tech companies when it comes to hiring top programmers because of its reputation for inclusion - no idea how solid it is, but it seems plausible - I haven't done a vast amount of research into the whole affair.

Would you trust someone who believed that you shouldn't be allowed to marry the person you love to treat you fairly in other areas?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:50 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:the old maxim about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar.
The old maxim is bullshit, so perhaps the next time someone wants to trot out that underlying message they can find an aphorism that isn't the exact opposite of how reality works.

(And "You can't fight fire with fire" won't work in its stead, because that one's also bullshit and you absolutely can fight fire with fire.)

Even if the maxim did work, I'm not sure why you'd want to align your side in this discussion with literal disease-carrying pests...

Yes. It is absolutely possible to successfully 'fight fire with fire'.
It is a stupid thing to do, if you do not know what you are doing.

Even an expert can Burn Down The House.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06DpcFXc4U
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:49 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Or is it, in fact, the case that the job of CEO of a company that officially supports gay marriage, equal rights and inclusiveness is somehow different from the job of postman, or street sweeper, or even CTO?


The more you people cling to this, the more it seems like rationalization to me. Particularly since a few months ago, many of you were happily calling for Orson Scott Card to be cast into the pit of ever-burning flame for expressing in writing the views that Eich supported with a donation. You say "CEOs are different" - should we amend that to "novelists and CEOs are different?"
And what happens when you light on your next target? Will they be different too?
This smells like bullshit to me.

Here's a simple question: can you, without checking Google, name the previous CEO of Mozilla? Do you know anything at all about them? Did you ever think about the CEO of Mozilla before someone told you to go boycott them?
Somehow, I think it's not likely - I think that in fact you didn't care two loose shits about the CEO of Mozilla, that you never have, and never would have thought for a moment about them. So I sort of doubt the sincerity of your claim that this is some sort of important office that matters a lot to the world. I also think it's a little disingenuous that you're claiming to be swept away by the marketing fluff about Mozilla's commitment to equality and justice and freedom and such like. Really? This is software company, not a civil rights organization.
If Eich's personal views were so incompatible with their mission, why would the board have considered him for the position in the first place, and why would they have made him an offer? And why would they have asked him to stay on, in some similar position, as they claimed to have done, or even claim to have asked him to stay on, which is more likely? And how did the company that he founded in the first place end up being so completely opposed to his ideals that they, um, asked him to take the helm and lead them into the future? Wait, what? I think I missed something.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26034
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:56 am UTC

jpk wrote:I think I missed something.
Evidently.

Don't be a dick. - ST
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:01 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jpk wrote:I think I missed something.
Evidently.

That guy made sense.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:30 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jpk wrote:I think I missed something.
Evidently.


And you're going to explain it all, I suppose. How Mozilla, with Eich as a founder and leader, grew from into a company that despised him so much that they asked him to be their leader, because he was so thoroughly out of step with their principles that he was the natural choice to help them find their direction in the future, and how they didn't fire him at all, in fact nobody fired him, because they thought he was too much of a scumbag to fire, and instead asked him to take a different leadership role and continue, um, leading the company.

Go on. Let's hear it. I really think I've missed some part of this, and I'm eager to hear how all of this fits together.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26034
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:46 am UTC

Strawman harder.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:48 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Strawman harder.

It's a fair question.

Either you believe that any and all people everywhere ought to be held responsible to the thought police for their opinions on subjects you care about, or you don't. So which is it?

Is Eich the leader of a highly-visible company that actively promotes causes that he is dead-set against, or is he being held accountable for his private opinions where they clearly are irrelevant?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:53 am UTC

Strawman 2: Strawman Harder
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:54 am UTC

Why the Personal attack, jpk?
Attack the idea, not the person.

Do you feel attacked?
Do you feel your ideas were attacked?

This man Eich has inspired the Passions of a People.
The ideas are useful and need a little exercise.

The Lion's Share of this thread is one explanation after another of Bad Positions.
You don't Really want to read another one; Do you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:56 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Strawman harder.



So, I'm guessing you can't come up with a story that works for you? Hm. I suppose that must be embarrassing.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:58 am UTC

addams wrote:Why the Personal attack, jpk?
Attack the idea, not the person.

Do you feel attacked?
Do you feel your ideas were attacked?

This man Eich has inspired the Passions of a People.
The ideas are useful and need a little exercise.

The Lion's Share of this thread is one explanation after another of Bad Positions.
You don't Really want to read another one; Do you?

I don't see any personal attacks coming from jpk, but I see plenty coming at him. Frankly I find it strange that you'd even throw this accusation.

Yes, of course he's being attacked, as are his ideas, and hard.

The lion's share of this thread has been drowning out all the good positions with jabber, jokes, and nonsense. Nobody responded to my last substantive post with anything on topic either. I doubt that anyone ever will.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:00 am UTC

Feel free to start a thread in Serious Business where Azrael will make sure no one makes funny jokes at your expense, and you are more readily kicked for not reading the thread.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests