Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

KomradeBishop

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where?

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Eugene Norman

walshyn93 wrote: »

I thought you were going to be more specific. No I think they would still only hire exactly as many people as they need to.

Of course

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I come down firmly on the latter. Giving in to the boycotters in that instance is essentially giving in to cultural fascists.

Again, where do you draw the line? If the bank was being targeted by homophobes because one of its staff was pro gay marriage, should they be allowed to fire that staff member?

Once you put your personal life on the Internet, you make it public. Anyone from your granny to a prospective employer can look at your social media profiles and form impressions of you. Saying that this should be "outlawed" is silly, especially because many people use their social media profiles to project a positive image of themselves that can help secure them jobs.

A public profile like Twitter, perhaps. I'm talking about those who demand passwords to private profiles as part of an interview. Just because it's online, doesn't mean it's destined for a public audience - something I write on a Facebook page set to "friends only" is as private as something I email to a group of friends. Should a prospective employer be able to look at this as well?

Again, that's naive. The more senior an employee becomes, the more he or she represents the company, and the more his or her actions, whether on or off the job, affect the company's image. If Jamie Dimon were photographed high on cocaine and consorting with prostitutes, it would be all over the next day's papers. I don't think "I was off the clock" would cut it with the other JPMorgan Chase directors.

That may be, doesn't make it right. Your personal life is your personal life, end of.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not addressed to me, but I absolutely do. Otherwise you give cultural fascists a ridiculous amount of power, where they should have absolutely none. If they don't succeed in getting reactions such as people being fired, eventually they'll give up and f*ck off - by pandering to them, we embolden those who want to strip away our freedoms.

KomradeBishop

Another good example of modern-day collusion among powerful industry figures - in this case, major payments processors like Visa/Mastercard/Paypal - abusing their power to infringe upon others free speech rights, and using their power to engage in economic sanctions against entire industries - in this case the sex industry:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-bankings-war-on-the-sex-industry/

Good example of power becoming concentrated among a virtual cartel of private entities - who, because of their ubiquitousness and the lack of practical payment processing alternatives - are able to abuse their power, to engage in various forms of censorship, and put in place economic sanctions.

hatrickpatrick

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Another good example of modern-day collusion among powerful industry figures - in this case, major payments processors like Visa/Mastercard/Paypal - abusing their power to infringe upon others free speech rights, and using their power to engage in economic sanctions against entire industries - in this case the sex industry:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-bankings-war-on-the-sex-industry/

Good example of power becoming concentrated among a virtual cartel of private entities - who, because of their ubiquitousness and the lack of practical payment processing alternatives - are able to abuse their power, to engage in various forms of censorship, and put in place economic sanctions.

It never ceases to confuse me how some people, like Permabear, are able to make such gigantic distinctions between state exercises of power (evil and repressive) and corporate monopoly exercises of power (fair game), even though the end result for the individual average Joe is literally exactly the same.

KomradeBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It never ceases to confuse me how some people, like Permabear, are able to make such gigantic distinctions between state exercises of power (evil and repressive) and corporate monopoly exercises of power (fair game), even though the end result for the individual average Joe is literally exactly the same.

That's why I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, that Libertarianism is just a front for Mussolini-style Corporatism (i.e. Corporatist Fascism) - I mean just look at some of the movements biggest funders, the Koch's, and see how regularly they hypocritically violate the supposed Libertarian principles they promote, it's clear they don't believe in these principles or the utopian promises (same goes for most of the supporters tbh...but they will never go off-message), they know how trying to enact it in the real world will fail to meet the promises, while accelerating a massive concentration of private power, until private power literally merges-with/takes-over the state.

The father of the Koch brothers, Fred Koch, even openly admired the Axis powers (i.e. fascist Italy/Germany) leading up to WWII:

Charles Koch, who funded much of Tibor Machan's career, is the son of a Nazi admirer. According to Daniel Schulman’s book, “Sons of Wichita,” Fred Koch praised the Axis powers in late 1938, even as the Nazis were brutalizing Jews and others, and well after Imperial Japan killed and raped hundreds of thousands in their military invasions into mainland China. With that in mind, Fred Koch wrote in 1938,

“I am of the opinion that the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan, simply because they are all working and working hard.”

Fred Koch also negatively compared New Deal America to Hitler’s Germany:

“When you contrast the state of mind of Germany today with what it was in 1925 you begin to think that perhaps this course of idleness, feeding at the public trough, dependence on government, etc., with which we are afflicted is not permanent and can be overcome.”

Oh and by the way, that's from an article about the Libertarian magazine 'Reason', and its special holocaust-denial edition...(following-up from covering their pro-racist-apartheid edition):
https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/