Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…6791112…16

Comments

  • #242
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    But isn't the whole discussion about whether companies should actually have those rights? Or what limitations there are on such rights?


  • #243
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    I wonder if the posters on boards.ie who fall into this category recognise this fascist tendency in themselves or if they censor their own self analysis enough to be blind to it....


  • #244
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    osarusan wrote: »
    But isn't the whole discussion about whether companies should actually have those rights?

    Of course they should have those rights. An employee is representative of the company.


  • #245
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    I wonder if the posters on boards.ie who fall into this category recognise this fascist tendency in themselves or if they censor their own self analysis enough to be blind to it....

    Into what category?


  • #246
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    The people responding to Sacco's tweet didn't merely express contrary views. They acted as an entitled mob & set out to ruin her life by bombarding her & her company with aggressive messaging. Even after she was fired, she had to effectively go into hiding as the outrage brigade continued to contact her, her family & anyone associated with her with bile. Now legally I'm sure most of these people were perfectly entitled to express a particular view.
    The problem with this & other cases is that it has become socially acceptable for many people to go absolutely apesh1t insane when someone says something that can be interpreted the wrong way & that they're entitled to ruin people's lives over an ill judged joke or an "incorrect" opinion. That's not something that can or should be solved by legal means (the cure would be worse than the disease imo, even in this case), but rather by a growing realisation about how pathetic this kind of behaviour by the online community is.


  • #248
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    smash wrote: »
    The Sacco case is clear cut. She was a director of communications and stupidly brought race in to her already questionable comment. Without the "I'm white!" at the end she might have got a slap on the wrist, but the implication that only black people get aids is what put the nail in her coffin. Given her job title you'd assume she'd have more cop on!

    Except it isn't. True, it was incredibly idiotic on her part as a director of communications not to think about the possible consequences of negative publicity but I think you'd have to be a few brain cells short to think she actually believes only black people get AIDS.
    Late one afternoon last year, I met Justine Sacco in New York, at a restaurant in Chelsea called Cookshop. Dressed in rather chic business attire, Sacco ordered a glass of white wine. Just three weeks had passed since her trip to Africa, and she was still a person of interest to the media… A New York Post photographer had been following her to the gym.

    “Only an insane person would think that white people don’t get AIDS,” she told me. It was about the first thing she said to me when we sat down.

    Sacco had been three hours or so into her flight when retweets of her joke began to overwhelm my Twitter feed. I could understand why some people found it offensive. Read literally, she said that white people don’t get AIDS, but it seems doubtful many interpreted it that way. More likely it was her apparently gleeful flaunting of her privilege that angered people. But after thinking about her tweet for a few seconds more, I began to suspect that it wasn’t racist but a reflexive critique of white privilege — on our tendency to naïvely imagine ourselves immune from life’s horrors. Sacco, like Stone, had been yanked violently out of the context of her small social circle. Right?

    “To me it was so insane of a comment for anyone to make,” she said. “I thought there was no way that anyone could possibly think it was literal.” (She would later write me an email to elaborate on this point. “Unfortunately, I am not a character on ‘South Park’ or a comedian, so I had no business commenting on the epidemic in such a politically incorrect manner on a public platform,” she wrote. “To put it simply, I wasn’t trying to raise awareness of AIDS or piss off the world or ruin my life. Living in America puts us in a bit of a bubble when it comes to what is going on in the third world. I was making fun of that bubble.”)

    http://gawker.com/justine-sacco-is-good-at-her-job-and-how-i-came-to-pea-1653022326


  • #249
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That is what the thread has been about also, but there is a discussion now about whether companies should actually have such rights.

    Just how far should a company be allowed to go to protect its image and values and so on, or what limitations there are on those rights.


  • #250
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    I wonder if the posters on boards.ie who fall into this category recognise this fascist tendency in themselves or if they censor their own self analysis enough to be blind to it....

    I think we're all capable of it to some extent. If you read the Jon Ronson book I mentioned earlier he talks about having fun on Twitter himself as part of groups taking umbrage at or mocking people for saying "wrong" things. It's very easy to get caught up in righteous indignation about things but one has to be careful that the response doesn't get ramped up to the point of insanity. When one is in the bubble of a thread that isn't always noticeable so maybe we do occasionally have to step back & say "Is my response proportionate or am I being a bit of a whiny arsehole?".


  • #251
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Except it isn't. True, it was incredibly idiotic on her part as a director of communications not to think about the possible consequences of negative publicity but I think you'd have to be a few brain cells short to think she actually believes only black people get AIDS.

    It's not to do with thinking that she believes only black people get AIDS or not. It's to do with publicising the comment in the first place. Do you think people have the right to tweet something obscene and hide behind the 'Ah sure I don't really believe that' line?


  • #253
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,123 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Freedom of speech is very important, definitely more important than someones hurt feelings. Obviously private companies like boards.ie can have their own rules, but it's a far worse place for it. It would be a lot more interesting place if you weren't banned for speaking your mind. Rules for spamming or off topic, grand. But for saying you don't like a particular type of people should be out in the open.


  • #254
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    osarusan wrote: »
    Just how far should a company be allowed to go to protect its image and values and so on, or what limitations there are on those rights.

    A company's reputation that is damaged by the actions of one individual could cost the jobs of thousands of others. There's an obligation for a company to uphold it's values not only for the profiteering of it's investors and owners, but for it's staff too.


  • #255
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So if a mob start bombarding a company because they employ black/traveller/ginger/north side workers and the mob dont like this the company should just sack them?


  • #256
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    RustyNut wrote: »
    So if a mob start bombarding a company because they employ black/traveller/ginger/north side workers and the mob dont like this the company should just sack them?

    Well that's a stupid analogy...


  • #257
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And I agree with that stance. The online mob should not be entitled to see Sacco or anyone else fired for an offhand joke which had nothing to do with her work. The company's action was cowardly, if completely understandable (there's no profit in honour or loyalty sadly). It's a difficult one for companies to negotiate of course but I'd still fall on the side of protecting the speech (so long as it's clear it doesn't represent company policy) rights of employees over that of the company.

    Of course if employers wish they can request that employees sign contracts relating to out of hours social media behaviour at the start of a contract of employment.


  • #258
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    smash wrote: »
    A company's reputation that is damaged by the actions of one individual could cost the jobs of thousands of others. There's an obligation for a company to uphold it's values not only for the profiteering of it's investors and owners, but for it's staff too.

    How far does that right or obligation go though?

    Marriot Hotels was founded by a devout Mormon - they don't offer pay-per-view pornography in their hotel rooms, for example.

    Should a Marriot employee tweet/post/etc about sex outside of marriage (phew, turns out my girlfriend isn't pregnant), would that potentially be grounds for dismissal?


  • #259
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    smash wrote: »
    It's not to do with thinking that she believes only black people get AIDS or not. It's to do with publicising the comment in the first place. Do you think people have the right to tweet something obscene and hide behind the 'Ah sure I don't really believe that' line?

    I tend to want to know the context of the tweet and prior history of the person making the tweet before passing judgement. Something that seldom happens when the Twitter Mobs explode in rage over something.

    A prime example being the controversy that happened in relation to the Colbert Report 'Ching Chong Ding Dong' tweet or the accusations of racism constantly leveled at Charlie Hebdo.


  • #260
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    No actually, it is about free speech. To you though, when free speech is violated by a company, that doesn't count as a violation of free speech.

    Here in Europe, a company curtailing someones free speech does count as a violation.


  • #261
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    smash wrote: »
    Well that's a stupid analogy...

    It's not a great one true but how about this? A company employee starts tweeting, blogging about LGBT rights on his own time. He doesn't mention his employer in his postings but it's easy enough to find out who they are. The firm has recently expanded its operation to a region which is heavily evangelical Christian &/or Muslim.

    People from this community start bombarding the company with messages about how offensive this employee's postings are & how they will never buy anything from a company which employs a promotor of a sinful & decadent lifestyle. The strength of the backlash is such that the company's operations in this area may be severely damaged, potentially losing millions of euros. What should they do?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    That's because, in Europe, employee's do have this protection...


  • #263
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,743 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    W1zardst wrote: »
    Muslims.

    The yellow card for this sums up the OP's thread :)

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #264
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Custardpi wrote: »
    It's not a great one true but how about this? A company employee starts tweeting, blogging about LGBT rights on his own time. He doesn't mention his employer in his postings but it's easy enough to find out who they are. The firm has recently expanded its operation to a region which is heavily evangelical Christian &/or Muslim.

    People from this community start bombarding the company with messages about how offensive this employee's postings are & how they will never buy anything from a company which employs a promotor of a sinful & decadent lifestyle. The strength of the backlash is such that the company's operations in this area may be severely damaged, potentially losing millions of euros. What should they do?

    It's still a bad analogy. Forgetting the customers, what's the company's view on LGBT rights and what are the laws regarding LGBT rights in the country in which the company employee is based?


  • #265
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #266
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    No, they can't. They're protected by Article 8 of the ECHR.


  • #267
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    smash wrote: »
    It's still a bad analogy. Forgetting the customers, what's the company's view on LGBT rights and what are the laws regarding LGBT rights in the country in which the company employee is based?

    OK, so let's assume the company is based in a country where homosexuality is legal & where they have the standard stuff on their website about adhering to equality legislation yada yada. There would be nothing illegal about the postings of our imaginary employee, just as there was nothing illegal about Justine Sacco's joke. However, standing by the employee in this case & affirming his/her right to blog/tweet on LGBT issues could cost them many millions of euros in the scenario I've outlined. Should they ask him/her to stop on this basis?


  • #268
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Do you support their right to do so, if they choose?

    One of Tyson Foods' core values is that they will 'strive to honor God' - how about an employee in that company or a company with a similarly religious ethos commenting about their same-sex partner in a way that could impact on the office atmosphere (similar to your Donald Trump analogy earlier)

    As I asked before, what limitations do you think should be placed on an employer's right to protect their image and values when it comes to what an employee does (at work, or in their own time)?

    I wonder if you see any potential parallels between such company rights and a comment you made earlier about government laws:
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


  • #269
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Custardpi wrote: »
    OK, so let's assume the company is based in a country where homosexuality is legal & where they have the standard stuff on their website about adhering to equality legislation yada yada. There would be nothing illegal about the postings of our imaginary employee, just as there was nothing illegal about Justine Sacco's joke. However, standing by the employee in this case & affirming his/her right to blog/tweet on LGBT issues could cost them many millions of euros in the scenario I've outlined. Should they ask him/her to stop on this basis?

    It might cost them a customer in a backwards country but it would increase their publicity and public image for the rest of the world and it would show that they stand by their values. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here, you're comparing racism with equality. The scenarios couldn't be any different.


  • #270
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    smash wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here, you're comparing racism with equality. The scenarios couldn't be any different.

    Except the Sacco tweet was a joke about cosseted white privilege but you're choosing to interpret it as a racist slur.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement