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…89111314…16

Comments

  • #302
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #303
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I think the point was that it was snobby. Not a right left thing. Tbh I would have assumed the typical white van man was the type to vote Labour, which makes it all the worse.

    Miliband was embarrassed that she exposed the fact that Labour is no longer the party of the working class, miner, type people. It was now the party of the bourgeoise elites and their cheap foreign nannies.
    But that's what I'm baffled by - the interpretation of it as snobbery. If she was making a dig, to me it seems far more likely she was taking a dig at UKIP supporters.


  • #304
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    My question is whether 'damage to public image' is the only thing that matters.

    To put is too simply really, Tiger Woods 'did something wrong' outside of the fact that he damaged their public image.

    But what if an employee has damaged a company's public image without actually having 'done anything wrong'?


    To go back to your example earlier, has an employee who expresses support Donald Trump around the office (potentially upsetting others who are of a different gender, ethnicity, etc) 'done something wrong'?


  • #305
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Azalea wrote: »
    But that's what I'm baffled by - the interpretation of it as snobbery. If she was making a dig, to me it seems far more likely she was taking a dig at UKIP supporters.

    The dig is about social class not political party. Having one of your own party members engage in social class snobbery did not look good for Labour.


  • #306
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Azalea wrote: »
    But that's what I'm baffled by - the interpretation of it as snobbery. If she was making a dig, to me it seems far more likely she was taking a dig at UKIP supporters.

    I think that was probably part of the problem. The idea that anyone who drives a van & doesn't view the George's Cross with contempt is automatically right wing or even far right or that there's anything intrinsically wrong with working as a tradesperson or owning a flag - that kind of view would alienate a lot of people who would be traditional Labour supporters.

    The reality is that in at least some seats Labour lost votes from long standing supporters who voted UKIP out of frustration with their old party. Mocking such people (as some interpreted the tweet as doing) really isn't a smart electoral strategy.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    osarusan wrote: »


    To go back to your example earlier, has an employee who expresses support Donald Trump around the office (potentially upsetting others who are of a different gender, ethnicity, etc) 'done something wrong'?

    Actually in this case my view would be that an employer would be perfectly entitled to approach the employee, point to the clock & say "maybe leave the politics until after 5:30. There's work to be done, ok?"


  • #308
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Could make an exception for endorsement deals.


  • #309
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Azalea wrote: »
    But that's what I'm baffled by - the interpretation of it as snobbery. If she was making a dig, to me it seems far more likely she was taking a dig at UKIP supporters.

    UKIP supporters whom she would have to represent if she won the election. It's standard decorum in politics to attack your opponents rather than their supporters.


  • #310
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Actually in this case my view would be that an employer would be perfectly entitled to approach the employee, point to the clock & say "maybe leave the politics until after 5:30. There's work to be done, ok?"
    Big difference between a quiet word and thinking they have 'done something wrong' to the point of thinking it is legitimate grounds for dismissal - and, if I understand Permabear correctly, they do think it should be legitimate grounds for dismissal.

    Maybe i have misunderstood though.


  • #311
    dandyelevan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 257 ✭✭dandyelevan


    My OH doesn't like me using the word 'Brits.'
    I argued that I can't really radicalize our two year old grand-son during this 1916 centenary year without using the words damned effin' Brits.
    The little guy has the Proclamation off by rote since last week - and grandma has knitted him a little black balaclava for his next visit.
    We can't wait to see his little face when he tries it on...
    Then again....


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    Maguined wrote: »
    The dig is about social class not political party. Having one of your own party members engage in social class snobbery did not look good for Labour.
    The dig *is* about social class? How do you know? How does anyone know? Speculation is obviously fair enough but there's an awful lot of presenting speculation as fact in relation to this case.

    It might have been about social class (unlikely imo from a person who grew up working class) or being a UKIP supporter (the teeny bit of evidence points far more in that direction imo) or it might not have been a dig at all.


  • #313
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #314
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi



    It might have been about social class (unlikely imo from a person who grew up working class) or being a UKIP supporter (the teeny bit of evidence points far more in that direction imo) or it might not have been a dig at all.


    The problem for Thornberry (who in any case is back in the Shadow Cabinet so alls well that ends well, eh?) didn't manage to present any convincing alternative theory to the interpretation which said she was mocking working class people (perfectly possible for a former working class person to do by the way) or UKIP supporters who she'd have to represent as an MP.


  • #315
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    I worked in a company where a lad got the chop over his tweets. He was/is a respected guy in his field and most of his posts concerned the profession he worked in. But increasingly loads of his tweets were aimed at the company, its practices etc. He obviously felt frustrated but I don't think bemoaning your current employer in such a public fashion, to such an audience could lead to anything but a sacking.


  • #316
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Azalea wrote: »
    The dig *is* about social class? How do you know? How does anyone know? Speculation is obviously fair enough but there's an awful lot of presenting speculation as fact in relation to this case.

    It might have been about social class (unlikely imo from a person who grew up working class) or being a UKIP supporter (the teeny bit of evidence points far more in that direction imo) or it might not have been a dig at all.

    We don't. We can't even be quite sure we're really alive or if this is just a dream. But what I think I know is that it was a dig at proud working class English men.

    The fact that she's from a council estate not only is no indicator of social class, it doesn't say anything about her attitudes towards the working class.

    It's a bit of a stretch to suggest you can tell if someone is a UKIP supporter based on what their house looks like. For all we know he's never voted in his life.


  • #317
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,794 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    No, I've never said that posting tweets should be protected - I'd consider the tweets in question 'doing something wrong' too, even if intended differently than interpreted. I can see why people think that a PA should be a bit smarter/more streetwise than that, although it's a great example of the baying mob.

    My point is whether it is simply a matter of 'damaged public image' or 'conflicting with core values 'and nothing else, or if it matters whether or not the employee has 'done something wrong' to bring about that damage to the public image or contradicted the company's core values.

    My point from a previous post was whether a company like Chick-A-Fil might get rid of an employee who tweeted something like 'Well done Ireland for legalizing same sex marriage'. The employee wouldn't have 'done anything wrong' in the way that say Tiger Woods did, but might still have upset people who help the company 'operate on biblical principles'.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Then sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that to prevent the possibility of a legal case about a hostile work environment, you would support the idea that they could be dismissed.


  • #318
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What even is a hostile work environment and can it really be caused by someone expressing an opinion on politics?

    If they say "I agree with Donald Trump's temporary ban on Muslims" that's fine and good. If they say "All Muslims are terrorists" that's a different story.


  • #319
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Free speech is like a lot of ideals: well intentioned and vague. Free speech is all well and grand when people are responsible with it. A lot like the right to own a gun. But when people act irresponsibly, then others get hurt and something does need to be done.

    The sight of an angry so-called 'preacher' giving sermons of hate and idolising the likes of al Qaeda and ISIS and inspiring terrorism that results in the deaths of innocents is something that does need to be stopped. And on the other side, some neo-Nazi skinhead is calling for the murder of all Muslims in response to this and inspires someone like Brevik to go out and kill innocent people. If this 'preacher' has the right to spout his racist hatred and if neo-Nazis have the same right, then the state has the right to follow up these people and stop what they plan.

    Free speech is a right but one that carries responsibility. There is a difference between saying 'I prefer Man U to Liverpool' and something deliberately hate fueled and offensive. Then, there's all the areas where things get confused: If someone on the other hand is offended by something where the intention was not to offend, this is different. And deliberately offending fascists, terrorists and bigots can be fun :)


  • #320
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Not when certain industries or industry in general, become concentrated in ownership and begin to exclude people for their political views. You see it in the financial industry, where there is a principle of Omerta, which will result in whistleblowers exposing fraud, becoming unemployable - whereas actual fraudsters don't receive the same treatment by this industry - not a free speech issue, but relevant in how industries are known to abuse their power over workers.

    The film Trumbo in cinema's here next month (good film, albeit slow - recommend to posters), documents historical precedent of this kind of collusion, with the Hollywood Blacklist being used to deny employment to suspected Communist sympathisers, in the Hollywood film industry during the McCarthy era.

    This is exactly the kind of reason why people should be against this kind of attack on free speech, by employers.


  • #321
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    smash wrote: »
    It. Does. Not. Matter!

    She can joke all she wants, but if she over steps the line of the company ethos with even one of these jokes then she can be held responsible and her employment terminated.

    Does the company ethos state that they will never lampoon white privilege?

    I have no problem with the person that states they hate kids being let go from a daycare centre job or c_man's example of the person complaining about the company he works with on Twitter losing his job but Justine Sacco's case is a different beast altogether imo.

    I have some sympathy for the company - they were put over a barrel by the Twitter mob and needed to take drastic action but it shows how carefully you have to police yourself because it's amazing how badly wrong people will take up statements you make and the consequences you can suffer.

    Another famous example is Lindsey Stone:

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Free speech is like a lot of ideals: well intentioned and vague. Free speech is all well and grand when people are responsible with it. A lot like the right to own a gun. But when people act irresponsibly, then others get hurt and something does need to be done.

    The sight of an angry so-called 'preacher' giving sermons of hate and idolising the likes of al Qaeda and ISIS and inspiring terrorism that results in the deaths of innocents is something that does need to be stopped. And on the other side, some neo-Nazi skinhead is calling for the murder of all Muslims in response to this and inspires someone like Brevik to go out and kill innocent people. If this 'preacher' has the right to spout his racist hatred and if neo-Nazis have the same right, then the state has the right to follow up these people and stop what they plan.

    Free speech is a right but one that carries responsibility. There is a difference between saying 'I prefer Man U to Liverpool' and something deliberately hate fueled and offensive. Then, there's all the areas where things get confused: If someone on the other hand is offended by something where the intention was not to offend, this is different. And deliberately offending fascists, terrorists and bigots can be fun :)

    On the contrary. I would love it if radical Muslims could stand on Stephens Green and spout their rubbish. If it's not exposed to ridicule it festers in Mosques and midnight Madrassas or in online forums. It wasn't freedom of speech that caused Brevik to do what he did, it was a lack of it. He likely would not have done what he did had there been a free and honest debate over the spread of Islam into Norway. The fact that such views were taboo very much contributed to the manner of his response.


  • #323
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #324
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    The sight of an angry so-called 'preacher' giving sermons of hate and idolising the likes of al Qaeda and ISIS and inspiring terrorism that results in the deaths of innocents is something that does need to be stopped.

    But if said preacher is merely saying inflammatory things which stop short of calls for violence in my opinion he should be allowed to speak. Going further than that would potentially violate the right of other people to go about their business peacefully as opposed to merely offending them. People have a right to hold extremist views, whether they are Islamic, White Supremacist or whatever. Acting violently on them, or clearly urging others to do so is a different matter.


  • #325
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    We don't. We can't even be quite sure we're really alive or if this is just a dream. But what I think I know is that it was a dig at proud working class English men.

    The fact that she's from a council estate not only is no indicator of social class, it doesn't say anything about her attitudes towards the working class.

    It's a bit of a stretch to suggest you can tell if someone is a UKIP supporter based on what their house looks like. For all we know he's never voted in his life.
    The St George's cross and excessive flag draping is associated with the far right in Britain (not that I think UKIP is *far* right) and I don't see how it's not valid to suggest her working-class background and being a member of Labour makes it unlikely she makes a dig at working class people.

    And sorry Walshy, I am genuinely at a loss as to how it could be interpreted as having a go at proud working class men. Maybe a dig at chavs, but chavs are not proud workers.

    Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.


  • #326
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Donald Trump didn't say that Mexicans are rapists. He said some of the people Mexico was sending, as in, criminals who they don't want they just say informally, "leave Mexico or we'll throw you in jail". Some of those people are rapists.


  • #327
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Azalea wrote: »
    The St George's cross and excessive flag draping is associated with the far right in Britain (not that I think UKIP is *far* right) and I don't see how it's not valid to suggest her working-class background and being a member of Labour makes it unlikely she makes a dig at working class people.

    And sorry Walshy, I am genuinely at a loss as to how it could be interpreted as having a go at proud working class men. Maybe a dig at chavs, but chavs are not proud workers.

    Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

    Chavs who don't work generally don't need white vans do they?

    Excessive flag draping? One flag is excessive? I think the fact people don't drape flags is depressing. No sense of national identity any more. Makes people easier to rule of course. Creates a more individualist society. More likely to accept their countrymen being replaced by foreign labour.

    I think you lack any credibility if you believe that Labour represents the working class. Labour is funded by the same interests as the Tories.

    And as I've said before, she grew up in a council house because her father left her mother, not because they were necessarily poor. She had a middle class upbringing.


  • #328
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Excessive flag draping? One flag is excessive? I think the fact people don't drape flags is depressing. No sense of national identity any more. Makes people easier to rule of course. Creates a more individualist society. More likely to accept their countrymen being replaced by foreign labour.

    Tbf, the English flag (which has no official status) has a slightly troubled history, having been co-opted by the BNP and the far right back in the 80s. Its popularity with sporting events from the 90s on has reformed it slightly but it still has certain associations to this day.


  • #329
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #330
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That was an extemporaneous speech. Not measured or anything. If you'd listened to some of what he'd said before you'd know he was talking about the people Mexico was "sending" not just the people who were coming. However I think he got to a point in his sentence where he realised this would be lost on people and tried to mitigate it with "some I assume are good people."

    However if you're familiar with the Mexican economy you'd know that people in Mexico are getting jobs at a faster rate than people in America, much faster. So people who can get jobs are staying in Mexico and the ones that can't, the unemployables, the criminals are coming to America, getting a fake social security and getting on welfare. Trump knows this. He may not articulate his points with this level of nuance but by god it's working for him.

    Quoting him exactly might offend people, which is why it's not wise to parrot extemporaneous speeches. Better to form your own opinions and express them in your own words. BTW, the things people say at work are treated different to things people say at home or on social media, or ought to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement