WMN: t3_24li4x_t1_ch8kgz1

[TITLE]

CMV: If you support freedom of speech but not freedom from censorship you're a hypocrite, especially where peoples livelihood is threatened (Brendan Eich, Donald Sterling)

[drenched_to_the_bone]

The first amendment prevents citizens from government intervention because of things they have said Censorship is shutting someones freedom of speech down because you don't like what they are saying If you support upholding one, you must support the other You do not have the right to not be offended Boycotting a company because a head of theirs thinks things you don't like and arresting someone for the same reason is just as bad (they both threaten a persons livelihood), and if you do one you are welcoming the other louis sums it up better than I do [STA-CITE]>"I have to say something about this because I think it is terrible, alarming and part of a trend of censorship which is the most dangerous thing to happen in America in a long time, in my view. I am blown away by how little outcry there has been over this especially among liberals, who are supposed to defend civil liberties, but seem only to do so when the rights of people with their views are threatened. It makes me really really sick. So I’m going to say something about it. One thing I have heard ad nauseum is that this is not censorship because the government didn’t do it. I don’t understand why so many people say this. It doesn’t have to be government censorship to be censorship. If anyone silences anyone because what they said pissed someone off, they censored them. It may not be illegal or a first amendment issue, but it is censorship. Moreover, we live in a country where corporations run everything and have the government at their beck and call and vice versa. The two are fucking each other in the fetid cunt all day long. So in that world it doesn’t really matter who wielded the axe.This is what I think. Speech does have repercussions. But the repercussions should be other speech in opposition. Not silencing. He should have been, and was, chastised, objected to, humiliated, and forced to defend or recant his words (he chose recant) but not silenced. If you don’t see how that’s wrong and dangerous, you are in a dangerous haze of bliss. and if you think that the fact that he was silenced by a company and not a government means anything, you are in for some shit. " [END-CITE]>>-louis ck

[Quantumnight]

If you have a pizza shop, and every time I walk in to your shop you start yelling how much you hate me, I will boycott you and go to the pizza shop down the street. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You are being censored due to your views, and it is not your right to force me to continue purchasing products from you.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

why can you not understand that neither sterling nor eich said anything publicly

[Quantumnight]

I am responding to your claim of freedom from censorship being as important as freedom of speech. I believe that is false, per my response above. I also believe you can boycott a company for any reason at all. You have no excuse for forcing me to buy your product. Who cares if the statements were made in public or in private.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

boycotting is not the same as not buying bullying a brand into submission is not boycotting and what if I boycott walmart for hiring blacks, and they fire all blacks? would you be cool with that?

[Quantumnight]

Forcing someone to not boycott a company is exactly the same as forcing them to buy a product. You either force them to pay money to directly break the boycott, or you force them to say something in public they disagree with (telling others to buy the product they disagree with). You are free to boycott Walmart for hiring blacks. If Walmart gave in to your demands and fired all blacks, I would then boycott Walmart for firing blacks. Walmart would then do a cost-benefit analysis: what will lead to less people boycotting them. They'd most likely ignore your boycott and keep hiring blacks. This is what the boy scouts did with gay leaders. By not allowing gay leaders, they were boycotted by pro-gay-rights activists and sympathizers. If they allowed gay leaders, they would probably be boycotted by a different family-values group. Which boycott are they more willing to live with? They decided, and banned gay leaders.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

∆ I still don't agree with firing based on views or religion or race or sexual orientation, in nonreligious groups at least, but this spells out the situation the best

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Quantumnight. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Quantumnight)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[ryan924]

The first amendment provides you freedom from government censorship. If I as a consumer, choose not too support an organization because they have a raciest owner, that is my right.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

you need to reread my post because you clearly didn't

[ClaidissaStar]

You continually bring up the fact that these statements and actions were done in private and later publicly exposed through questionable means. If they had stated their racist and homophobic beliefs publicly to begin with, then would the public outrage be justifiable?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

it would be more justifiable but ideally people can do and be whoever they want without fearing for their job or a boycott

[ClaidissaStar]

I think part of the problem though is that racist/homophobic opinions breed racist/homophobic actions. Eich wasn't just expressing his opinion, through his donation he was actively trying to supress the rights of others. People have the right to say I dislike this person's actions and am going to disassociate myself from them.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

well you can say that about any opinion and many supporters of prop 8 don't support gay holy matrimony I see no problem with this as holy matrimony is a religious practice and religions dictate their own rules I think supporters of this bill were simply offended by gay marriage I don't think eich opposes homosexual civil union or marriage, but rather homosexual holy matrimony which he should if he follows the bible which he doesn't but that's another story and yes they do, but don't boycott the persons employer when they have nothing to do with the persons actions because thats the only way to punish them thats wrong, and a dangerous game can I fire anyone because I don't like their views? can I, an opponent of many religions, fire a muslim because of his religion? can I, an opponent of modern gender rights groups, fire a feminist or masculist because of their views? can I, a libertarian, fire a pro-communist-totalitarian? can I, a windows user, fire a unix user? where is the line?

[ClaidissaStar]

Some of those scenarios proposed would be wrongful termination and the person would be able to file suit. It varies by jurisdiction but they generally include race, religion, gender, age etc. For a protected class it's considered discrimination. I think telling people that they dont have a right to be offended and speak using their money would be just as much censorship under your definition.

[Deadpoint]

I disagree with you. I've also just started a haiku business. I charge $200 for a pm'd haiku. I think you are only refusing to buy a haiku because I disagree with you. Should I be allowed to use violent force to make you buy a haiku?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

not relevant because that's not at all what's happening

[Deadpoint]

You are arguing that boycotting should be illegal. It's pretty relevant.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

I'm arguing that boycotting for the wrong reasons (reasons such as someone saying something you personally don't like and you only finding out about it because someone broke the law) is wrong never have I said it should be illegal

[Deadpoint]

I will concede that boycotts are rude, but I have no problem being rude to prominent racists. I have just as much right to do that as racists have to be racist. Being polite is nice but I don't actually feel bad about using rudeness to make people stop being rude.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

right but you shouldn't boycott someones company because you don't like their views that punishes them for having different opinions than you and goes against the principles this country was founded on also, he's not a prominent racist before the leak no one knew he holds racist views

[Deadpoint]

One of the founding principles of America is that you shouldn't shoot someone in the face because of what they said. It isn't hypocritical to think that there are some situations where lethal force is unacceptable but rudeness is fine. There are probably situations where you think rudeness is ok but violence isn't. You obviously don't think that boycotting is morally justified but can you agree that those of us who do aren't hypocrites?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

america was founded by a group of people who were being persecuted for their beliefs and decided enough was enough, they would no longer put up with it they created a sovereign nation on the basis of freedoms, where each citizen is not restricted based on their religious, moral, and personal views it's safe to say some of them were fired, or blackballed, from working based on their religion back in england it's safe to say they didn't agree with this form of persecution and punishment, and in turn, wrote a constitution forbidding legal intervention due to beliefs why they didn't include private intervention I haven't the foggiest, but I believe that agreeing with one should make you agree with the other (protection of you based on your views (and religion in this case), from both the government and private entities)

[CelestialStork]

In Sterling's case, he was fired because of company interests and condact violations. What he said was totally legal and what he feels is totally legal, but when it is made public he is going to get repercussions. They fired him because his words not only alienated a large percentage of the NBA's customers but also a very large percentage of employees. They took the best strategic maneuver and fired him. They did not want to look as if the supportes his views. The same goes for the others who lost their job because of what they said. This is no different than a person insulting their boss. A. the BOSS may not agree with you. B. Insulting someone in the work place may be against the rules.

[sailorbrendan]

Simple question, are people responsible for the words they say?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

yes, but their responsibility extends to the people they say it to, and should only be met with criticism, not violence or in this case punishment

[sailorbrendan]

So. .. If you tell me that you hate me, I'm not allowed to not associate with you?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

no, you are, but thats a totally different story if I say I hate you, I hate YOU if I say I hate your grandmother, I don't hate YOU do you see the difference? one puts our hypothetical friendship in jeopardy, one has nothing to do with the friendship, but rather your grandmother

[sailorbrendan]

If you hate my grandmother I still should hang out with you?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

Because for me to hate your grandmother something must have happened between me and her and you should be sympathetic to both parties and saying I hate your grandmother and I don't like all grandmothers are two different things

[sailorbrendan]

Why should I be sympathetic to both parties if I think one of them is in the wrong

[drenched_to_the_bone]

let's say your grandma made a snide remark about me because I date a black guy she called me a nigger lover or some such, and I say "I hate your grandmother" if you agree with her, thats okay (it really isnt but for the sake of the story) so long as you just say to me "yeah" and not "I can't be friends with someone who hates my grandma" its a moot point because this scenario couldn't be more different than the other

[SpecialAgentSmecker]

[STA-CITE]>Boycotting a company because a head of theirs thinks things you don't like and arresting someone for the same reason is just as bad (they both threaten a persons livelihood), and if you do one you are welcoming the other [END-CITE]Completely untrue. Take Brendan Eich, for example. Let's say I decide that I no longer what to support his business due to that. I don't owe him my support. If my not buying his products "threatens" his livelihood, than he should have run a better business. I'm not shutting down his ability to speak his mind, nor am I restricting his freedom of speech in any way. I'm simply choosing not to buy/use the product. If he had been arrested for his speech, sure. If a crowd of angry people attacked him, that would be wrong. If people tried to take property that was his over that, again wrong. Speech and actions, just like everything else, has consequences, though. If you (or anyone else) becomes a liability to your employer, they we fire you or ask you to resign. His "speech" (in the form of his donations) made him a liability to the company, and they cut him loose. Yes, forcibly silencing someone's speech is wrong, but declining to support it is not silencing it. Both individuals you mentioned were not censored, their respective employers simply judged that they were now a liability to the company. As such, they were removed, limiting that liability. That's not censorship, that's business.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

[STA-CITE]> If my not buying his products "threatens" his livelihood, than he should have run a better business. I'm not shutting down his ability to speak his mind, nor am I restricting his freedom of speech in any way. I'm simply choosing not to buy/use the product. [END-CITE]mozilla is totally FOSS, you can't buy something of theirs, and moreover you can't not use them unless you are willing to sacrifice major components of the internet [STA-CITE]>If a crowd of angry people attacked him, that would be wrong. [END-CITE]they did, on twitter [STA-CITE]>If people tried to take property that was his over that, again wrong. [END-CITE]his salary has been taken from him [STA-CITE]>Speech and actions, just like everything else, has consequences, though. [END-CITE]which should always be an opposing argument [STA-CITE]>His "speech" (in the form of his donations) made him a liability to the company, and they cut him loose. [END-CITE]which had nothing to do with the company, but people bullied mozilla into firing him, threatening his livelihood and censoring him [STA-CITE]>Yes, forcibly silencing someone's speech is wrong, but declining to support it is not silencing it. Both individuals you mentioned were not censored, their respective employers simply judged that they were now a liability to the company. As such, they were removed, limiting that liability. That's not censorship, that's business. [END-CITE]they were fired in an attempt to censor them, after people complained and whined in a childish manor to their employers because they don't like the persons opinions so they punish that person the only way they know how, get them fired jd2020 was also just fired and censored for supporting free speech and opposing censorship

[SpecialAgentSmecker]

[STA-CITE]>mozilla is totally FOSS, you can't buy something of theirs, and moreover you can't not use them unless you are willing to sacrifice major components of the internet [END-CITE]In this circumstance, "buying" their product is using it, and adding to their advertisers base. You certainly CAN use them without sacrificing a single major component of the internet. Use another browser, there's dozens of them. [STA-CITE]>they did, on twitter [END-CITE]So, we should be censoring THEIR speech? That wasn't "attacking" that was talking. I should have specified that I meant attacking in such a way that does quantifiable, physical damage. [STA-CITE]>his salary has been taken from him [END-CITE]He was asked to resign (probably, anyway) because he was a liability. His salary was not his, it was given to him in return for work he did for the company. [STA-CITE]>which had nothing to do with the company, but people bullied mozilla into firing him, threatening his livelihood and censoring him [END-CITE]It had plenty to do with the company. A company the is perceived to be anti-same-sex-marriage will lose customers, especially in this day and age. If your public actions or speech alienates your employers customers, you can't run a successful business. [STA-CITE]>they were fired in an attempt to censor them, after people complained and whined in a childish manor to their employers because they don't like the persons opinions so they punish that person the only way they know how, get them fired [END-CITE]I'm not even sure what you mean here. I seriously doubt anybody "whined to their employers" about the actions of the above named people. What they DID do was make it clear that they would not choose to give money to an organization that employs racists or bigots. It's their money, and they have every right to choose who they give their money to. The companies involved (Mozilla and the NBA, respectively) decided that employing people who were publicly seen to hold racist or bigoted opinions would hurt their business, so they acted to correct that. [STA-CITE]>jd2020 was also just fired and censored for supporting free speech and opposing censorship [END-CITE]I'm not familiar with this one. Could you give me some background?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

[STA-CITE]>In this circumstance, "buying" their product is using it, and adding to their advertisers base. You certainly CAN use them without sacrificing a single major component of the internet. Use another browser, there's dozens of them. [END-CITE]brendan eich created javascript and a bunch of other shit the fact that you didn't know this but are arguing about him is concerning [STA-CITE]>So, we should be censoring THEIR speech? That wasn't "attacking" that was talking. I should have specified that I meant attacking in such a way that does quantifiable, physical damage. [END-CITE]no, attack him all you want, but don't call for his resignation like a child "waaah! you don't agree with me! teacher!" [STA-CITE]> His salary was not his, it was given to him in return for work he did for the company. [END-CITE]making it his [STA-CITE]>It had plenty to do with the company. A company the is perceived to be anti-same-sex-marriage will lose customers, especially in this day and age. If your public actions or speech alienates your employers customers, you can't run a successful business. [END-CITE]or they could launch a press release saying the opinions of one employee doesn't dictate the opinions of the company and they will not be bullied into restricting their employees rights [STA-CITE]>I'm not even sure what you mean here. I seriously doubt anybody "whined to their employers" about the actions of the above named people. [END-CITE]so you haven't seen the tweets about them [STA-CITE]>publicly seen to hold racist or bigoted opinions would hurt their business, so they acted to correct that. [END-CITE]neither of them were publicly seen people, and neither of them expressed those opinions publicly brendan eich had his privacy violated to see the nominal donation to the organization, donald sterling was recorded illegally [STA-CITE]>I'm not familiar with this one. Could you give me some background? [END-CITE]jd2020, a prominent videogame figurehead, [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/JD_2020/status/461613922370351104) and was promptly fired by his employer [read more here](http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/05/01/report-turtle-rock-evolve-community-manager-fired-over-donald-sterling-remarks.aspx)

[GridReXX]

Yeah the salary he already accumulated is his. The salary yet to be given to him is the company's money. It's not his until it exchanges hands.

[GridReXX]

No one owes anyone anything. We are all at the mercy of others in some way or another. If a friend of yours called your dad or mom or grandmom or grandfather a worthless piece of crap, you probably would no longer attend their yearly BBQs. Same with business. If the owner of the coffee shop down the street said "I hate niggers" (I'm black) then I would no longer go to that coffee shop because it's my money and supporting someone who hates people who look like me makes me uncomfortable. Ultimately people support things they like. And they don't support things they don't like.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

[STA-CITE]>If a friend of yours called your dad or mom or grandmom or grandfather a worthless piece of crap, you probably would no longer attend their yearly BBQs. [END-CITE]nope, i'm not an overly sensitive retard and mere words are not enough for me to abandon a friend [STA-CITE]>Same with business. If the owner of the coffee shop down the street said "I hate niggers" (I'm black) then I would no longer go to that coffee shop because it's my money and supporting someone who hates people who look like me makes me uncomfortable. [END-CITE]I get what you're saying, but he didn't say "I hate niggers" and he didn't say it in public it was very private between two people which was recorded and dumped everywhere, and considering he owns a basketball team made up of blacks he can't possible really care too much same with eich, he had his privacy violated when that info was revealed, and it was a measly $1000 I donate sums all the time without really researching the cause

[GridReXX]

No. He doesn't want her being seen with multi million dollar middle aged married suit wearing business owing legend black men because it ruins his brand. He reacted as though she were taking pics with Waka Flocks Flame or something. And that's the kicker. It's not about class. He actually views even an affluent professional looking black man as something that adversely affects him. Her Instagram has random pics of white dudes. Doesn't matter that he employs black people. Lots of people employ people they would never be seen out in public with. Also it doesn't matter he said it in private. It's been made public. It's how he feels. And his players have a right to be uncomfortable with that. The NBA has a right to act in the best interest of it's players. His freedom of speech was upheld. He can sue whoever released the tape. He can even sue the NBA. However the NBA did nothing wrong and acted well within their contract. So we'll see how a civil judge decides.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

we aren't arguing the particulars, so the contract means nothing this is an idealist argument with how things SHOULD be and why current things ARE WRONG and should BE CORRECTED

[BenCrisco]

You work for me. You can say whatever you want. I can fire you if I don't like what you say. What does that have to do with freedom of speech?

[drenched_to_the_bone]

because you're threatening my livelihood by firing me much the way the government would by locking me up and not judging me on how good an employee I am but on my personal non work related opinions its the same as firing a mormon person because you don't like mormon people youre firing someone because you don't like what they stand for and that's not okay

[BenCrisco]

No, it actually is okay. The point is for the government to stay out of individual affairs as much as possible. You don't get to steal *my* money by running your mouth to my customers and driving them away. Do it on your own time, on your own property. You don't work for me. I don't actually own a business. I'm trying to show you how backwards your perspective is. I don't owe you anything, let alone a paycheck, especially if you espousing your opinions on my dime is costing me money, in addition to the money I'm paying you. My case is as strong as the lawyer I hire to argue that you are costing me money. What are you proposing? That the government *force* me to keep you employed? Edit: My point is, free speech protects you from the government, not consequences.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

you're missing my whole point

[BenCrisco]

Probably. Also, sorry, that was overly antagonistic.

[DocTorrFabulous]

It's not. Now I can fire a Mormon for bringing the book of Mormon to work and trying to convert people on company time. I'm not firing him because of his beliefs, but because of how and where he's expressing them. I can fire a Christian if, after multiple warnings and other action has been taken, they do not remove the placard that says "Everyone but Christians will burn in hell" from their office. I'm not firing them for their belief, I'm firing them for their misuse of company property and for creating a hostile work environment. Along with the right to freedom of speech, we have the rights of property owners. If I hold a barbecue on my back 40 and you show up and call ym mother a whore, I will make you leave. That's my right as a property owner to determine what happens on my property and who is allowed on it. if I lease you my storefront, there will be terms in it entailing what you may and may not do with it. Sterling signed a contract when he bought the team just like the ones all his players signed, and there are clauses that entail what happens if he damages the brand. In other words, he's losing his team over a breach of contract. I would be surprised if Eich didn't have a similar clause in his contract about damaging the brand. TL:DR The First Amendment does not supercede contract law or property rights any more than the Second Amendment is.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

[STA-CITE]>It's not. Now I can fire a Mormon for bringing the book of Mormon to work and trying to convert people on company time. I'm not firing him because of his beliefs, but because of how and where he's expressing them. I can fire a Christian if, after multiple warnings and other action has been taken, they do not remove the placard that says "Everyone but Christians will burn in hell" from their office. I'm not firing them for their belief, I'm firing them for their misuse of company property and for creating a hostile work environment. [END-CITE]so you see my point, because eich nor sterling brought any of their beliefs into work at all [STA-CITE]>Along with the right to freedom of speech, we have the rights of property owners. If I hold a barbecue on my back 40 and you show up and call ym mother a whore, I will make you leave. That's my right as a property owner to determine what happens on my property and who is allowed on it. if I lease you my storefront, there will be terms in it entailing what you may and may not do with it. Sterling signed a contract when he bought the team just like the ones all his players signed, and there are clauses that entail what happens if he damages the brand. In other words, he's losing his team over a breach of contract. I would be surprised if Eich didn't have a similar clause in his contract about damaging the brand. [END-CITE]again, no one said anything to anyone publicly, and the contract stipulates against public speech that the company disagrees with a company can't have a clause against private ideas shared nonpublicly to one person sterling was privately recorded, so he didn't do this, and eich had his financials rummaged through

[DocTorrFabulous]

Doesn't matter. Once the cat's out of the bag, the damage is done. It doesn't matter if you march at the head of a KKK parade or if your wife publishes a twitter post with pictures of you leading a KKK meeting. Once that becomes public knowledge, people are going to begin viewing Fabulous Firearms, Inc in a negative light. You, my employee, are now damaging my brand, and I'm going to fire you. To do otherwise threatens my livelihood. If anything, you should be arguing for the right to privacy to prevent someone from digging up the skeletons in your closet.

[drenched_to_the_bone]

I'm arguing for both, mainly that private opinions held privately not intended for the public should not be able to get you fired and yes it does if mark zuckerberg one day posted "i sure hate niggers" on the header of facebook it would be understandable if he got fired if he told his wife "I often wonder why blacks commit more crime than whites" in the privacy of his own home, he should not be fired if that were to get leaked