Used by countries the world over. "No, your people can't come to our country for this or that conference/function/speech, etc. You guys piss us off about something or other, so we're going to make a stink about it.
This is nothing new, nor is it especially interesting. It's just a (not so) friendly reminder to the Chinese that we don't like their attempts (both successful and unsuccessful) at espionage (both industrial and political). That we do it to them and others is irrelevant. This is a political ploy with a long and storied tradition.
If the government wants to stop Chinese from hacking US companies, it should limit the number of Chinese students studying Computer Science in American universities. That would cut the number of skilled Chinese hackers, and would increase the number of places in American universities for American students. ( See the article "Chinese flock to elite U.S. schools". ) Of course there are worldwide MOOC classes, but limiting access to classroom Computer Science education would help.
Of course. Because no one else, anywhere in the world, knows how to hack. Or understands computer science.
Pro Tip: Get a passport and travel around a bit. You'll find that there are bright people everywhere, and often they have indoor plumbing and stuff.
Heck, in some places they even have universities (even in China). What a shocker!
Bar members of the Chinese military from attending. Even that is purely symbolic.
Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
This is all highly unconstitutional. If they are allowed to enter the united states, AND they are not being
arrested or detained, then they have the rights and privileges that those present in the US have...
Including the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to organize and assemble.
The Defcon. and Blackhat conferences are an exercise of free speech rights.
The government cannot lawfully prohibit those conferences or prevent anyone from attending;
doing so is in direct violation of the bill of rights due to interference with and abridgement constitutionally protected activities
and rights and privileges.
I didn't even need to read TFA to know that this will be accomplished by denying visas to those folks, not by posting law enforcement personnel at the doors to the conference and checking IDs. The US can (and does) deny visas to all sorts of people, and for many reasons, including this kind of thing. As do most other countries.
Perhaps you should think about what you say before you say it? That's not meant to be an insult, just a suggestion.
What you're really asking for here is tiered services. Those that live outside of city centers should pay for living there. And you, living in an urban area should get very fast service and low rates.
That's funny. I live in one of the largest cities in the US and Internet speeds are low, prices are high and just about all the choices I have include restrictive (to the point of abusive) contract terms. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before spouting off like that.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 2
:x for me.
[John]
From an early 90's email signature:
:q![return]
$ emacs[return]
All the vi you'll ever need to know.
[ctrl]-x[ctrl]-s then [ctrl]-x[ctrl]-w newfilename
Go ahead and flame me, you vi folks. I don't mind.
Well, he did display severe lack of respect for other peoples' data, time and money and set out to deliberately cause harm for nothing more than getting fired. He clearly showed that he is not a person who should be in such a position and the chances are that next time he'd just be more careful about leaving evidence behind. If he had just gotten fines or something he might get another job in a similar position and cause even worse things.
Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't hire him even if he didn't do time.
I do get what you're coming at, but of the two choices I believe prison is the more correct one. Should there be a third option, something that would mean that he'd really, really, really have to work and prove himself if he wanted to again get in a position where he is responsible for other peoples' data and equipment, but if he instead aimed for something where he isn't in such a position of power he'd have the same chances as everyone else? Sure, but I don't know if there is such an option.
That's really the quandary, isn't it? I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have to face consequences, my issue is with the ostracism experienced by ex-convicts. In a better world, the "ex" would be more important than the "convict." In a better world, we'd prepare those who have been incarcerated to succeed in the larger world, not just warehouse them and then shove them to the fringes of society. It's sad, IMHO.
Of course he does. He has a total of zero excuses for damaging the company's equipment and data deliberately, being fired is not an excuse.
No excuse at all. Not even any comprehensible reason. Mitchell acted irresponsibly, and he should certainly have to compensate his former employer.
If you read my previous posts you'll see that I think this guy's actions were completely inappropriate. Mitchell should face consequences for his actions.
At the same time, he's now a convicted felon. Which, in the US at least, most likely means he will never be able to get a decent job ever again.
Four years in prison might be appropriate, but ruining his life?
Here in the US, we continue to punish those who have been convicted of a felony (by denying them decent jobs, pushing them to the fringes of society and increasing the likelihood of recidivism) even after they've served their time. Which is both unproductive and unfair.
You're never seen a person be fired because the ranks of management are equally vile?
Have you never seen a manager go to jail because he deliberately fired or drove away the company's most competent employee on fabricated allegations in order to exact revenge for a perceived slight, prior to his own dismissal or resignation?
No, I didn't think so. The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.
Okay. You could be right. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that inference. Regardless, Mr. Mitchell acted irresponsibly (and in the eyes of a Federal court in the southern district of West Virginia, criminally). Whether someone else acted inappropriately is, to me at least, unknown.
Are you suggesting that Mr. Mitchell's actions were appropriate or justified?
"So, what have you done to get in here?"
"I just reset the system of my ex-boss, he was too stupid to recover a backup so he sued me and put me in jail"
I couldn't resist...
And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's
Where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after
Committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly
Looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father
Rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And
They was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the
Bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest
Father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly
'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me
And said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench
There, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I
Said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
And we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
Father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
Bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of
Things,
A professional is someone who gets paid to do his job and/or who does it as a career, not someone who necessarily does it well or morally. See "professional gambler" or "professional hit man".
This guy is no professional. A professional does his job. That's what he/she is paid to do. Since this person was getting fired, I'm guessing he wasn't meeting expectations. Even if it was a broader layoff, there's no reason to act so unprofessionally.
Not sure if he deserves jail time, but there is no reason to break stuff on your way out the door. I'm glad I know this guy's name. I will certainly never hire him.
Heavy user here as AC. I went 3 months without even being in the same room as second-hand smoke. I failed a litmus strip/instant-cup test at a third party lab. Luckily,the job was for a small business owner and he didn't care about THC positive, after I had to awkwardly explain what THC meant. That's 3 months. That is a pretty long time.
No judgement from me. I have no issue with marijuana use. In fact, I think it should be completely legal. Three months (as another poster pointed out) is generally the outside range for removing THC from the body. Presumably there's some variability in that three month window.
THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.
I am aware of how THC works and how long it remains in the body, depending on how frequently it is used. My point still stands. If you know you're going to have a drug test and you can't stop long enough to pass it, you likely have a problem.
If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.
A good point. if you can't stop long enough to pass a drug test for which you know the date, you likely have a problem. One issue is that the FBI loves to do polygraphs. Even though they're not reliable enough to be used in criminal proceedings, they use them for employment screening all the time.
So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)
Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?
I am an atheist and I have a problem with putting monuments to Jesus on government property. Not because of my Atheism, but because it would show favor to one religion over others (or none).
That said, I wouldn't go after the guy personally. However, I'd have quite a bit to say about the quality and appropriateness of his ideas in a free, secular society.
That said, going after the livelihood of someone with whom you disagree is commonplace. Too many people believe that the ends justify the means. It's rather sad. But don't expect it to change anytime soon. People can convince themselves that just about anything (up to and including indiscriminate murder of persons unrelated to the issue at hand) is justified in pursuit of their goals.
What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.
A valid point. It is rather disconcerting that with the broad expansion of access to the Internet and the popularity of social media, what would have, in earlier times, been a "tempest in a teapot" becomes a firestorm of publicity. I'm not really sure how to address that without limiting free expression, and that would create more problems than it solves (if any).
eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.
WRT Eich, I personally think that it's unfair for the government to legislate who and how we should be allowed to express love and commitment. As such, I disagree with Eich's stated (a political contribution is, as the SCOTUS as told us, speech) position. That Eich is being crucified by some of those who disagree with his stand on marriage equality is certainly true. I'm sure that those who are doing so feel justified in their actions because they see themselves as fighting for liberty and equality. On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that OKCupid management callously used Eich's political speech as a canard to drive visitors to their site.
Unlike others, I don't believe that I should have a role in the Mozilla Foundation's employment decisions. I can (and do) express my beliefs, and if I feel that an individual or group is doing something that violates my ethical standards, I will speak and vote with my wallet.
I'd point out that, rightly or wrongly, public shaming (Johns named in local papers, boycotts of businesses, lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, etc.) is a time-honored tradition in the US.
Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it.
This is really up to the NBA which, as an entity, wishes to project a certain image. Given that the profits of the NBA come from the public exhibition of their product, if one of their own is unable or unwilling to do so, the league has the right to decide who should be associated with them.
Personally, I find bigotry quite distasteful. If I were associated with a person or organization who expressed bigoted views, I would take steps to distance myself from them, both personally and professionally.
But whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Both Mozilla and the NBA took steps which they believe will positively impact their respective businesses. Since both Eich and Sterling were/are poster children for those businesses, their personal beliefs projected an image that the businesses felt were harmful to their business.
No one is telling Eich or Sterling that they cannot believe what they choose to believe. Mozilla and the NBA are, however, telling them that they will not be allowed to represent their businesses because their respective positions will, rightly or wrongly, cause their personal beliefs to be conflated with that of the business.
If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.
I don't know why, but it feels like extortion.
Actually, that already (again, rightly or wrongly -- which is beyond the scope I want to maintain in this post) happens. In most parts of the US, if someone is assaulted and bigoted comments are made during the commission of the assault, it can be considered a "hate crim
and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.
To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens
why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?
why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?
If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.
I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.
Actually, I think we're in violent agreement here. I believe that all ideas and speech should be heard, discussed and analyzed. That's the essence of Mill's "Marketplace of Ideas." If we allow everyone to express their thoughts and ideas, presumably the best ideas will rise to the top and the worst ones will be seen for what they are.
I was taking issue with the OP's assertion that he shouldn't be held accountable for his speech. Let me clarify that point. When I say "accountable" in this context, I mean that just because someone has the right to say what they want, they should expect that others will respond.
Such response could take many forms, hearty agreement or disagreement (in both cases, that may be rational or irrational -- hence the importance of encouraging discussion), including calls for (in Eich's case) removal from their position. I take no position as to whether it's right or wrong to, say, boycott a business because of the beliefs of its leader(s). That's (IMHO) up to the conscience of those who may decide to do so or not.
You say my argument is immature. I think you missed the boat on that one friend. However, I'm glad you responded so we can discuss and analyze the topic. Perhaps I should have been more explicit (as in the paragraph above), What I did do in my previous post was to apply reductio ad absurdum to the OP's contention that they should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, and not expect some sort of response in kind. The quality, and quantity, of that response may or may not be of questionable value, but anyone who thinks that they should get a free pass (in terms of having their expression not discussed, analyzed and critiqued) is expressing (IMHO) a puerile attitude ("I can say anything I want, and you need to shut up and listen! Neener! Neener! Neener!").
What I think is inappropriate is for the government to limit expression. Every society has norms, customs and taboos. Whether those are appropriate can only come from examining those ideas and trying to determine their validity.
Where there is an open marketplace of ideas, the truth as well as the best ideas will (again, IMHO) generally be identified and accepted -- eventually. Sadly, that often happens after serious injury is done.
I know you will feel free to agree or disagree with what I have to say. And I welcome intelligent commentary either way. Because that's how the "Marketplace of Ideas" is supposed to work.
Technically public media and journalists have stronger free speech rights than individuals, for numerous reasons, including statutory and constitutional.
Cite please. What statutes and sections of the Constitution (amendments included) afford media/journalists stronger free speech rights?
IMHO, you're confusing having a widely distributed platform with which to express yourself with greater rights.
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.
The US Constitution restricts the government from trampling your right to free expression. It does not require everyone else to give you an "atta boy" when you open your mouth and say something they find objectionable. Just as you can speak your mind, so can others, even if that point of view disagrees with yours. They can even try to convince others that their point of view is the correct one and not yours. Gasp!
This is rooted in the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas espoused by John Stuart Mill, whose Utilitarian philosophy greatly influenced 18th century thought and the founders of the US constitution.
Okay. I tell you what, why don't you go to those people at your job whom you find sexually desirable and tell them (in great detail) all about the sexual acts you want to perform with them. By your measure, that's you exercising freedom of expression. According to your statement, you believe that your employer should ignore this, because your free speech rights should not be impinged.
As for the Brandon Eich/Mozilla deal, IIRC, he resigned. He was not fired.
Beyond that, your right to freedom of expression is not impinged, you can say almost anything you want. But that doesn't mean you have freedom from the expression of others. If someone disagrees with you, they have the same right to express themselves as you do. If they can convince others to agree with their point of view, and you can't, that speaks to your either the quality of your ideas, the quality of how you express those ideas, or both.
Saying, "Waaah! people held me accountable for the things I said! That's not fair! I should be able to say anything I want at all times and no one should be able to do anything about it!" reflects a third grade mentaility, IMHO. Grow up.
Slashdot Mirror
Used by countries the world over. "No, your people can't come to our country for this or that conference/function/speech, etc. You guys piss us off about something or other, so we're going to make a stink about it.
This is nothing new, nor is it especially interesting. It's just a (not so) friendly reminder to the Chinese that we don't like their attempts (both successful and unsuccessful) at espionage (both industrial and political). That we do it to them and others is irrelevant. This is a political ploy with a long and storied tradition.
If the government wants to stop Chinese from hacking US companies, it should limit the number of Chinese students studying Computer Science in American universities. That would cut the number of skilled Chinese hackers, and would increase the number of places in American universities for American students. ( See the article "Chinese flock to elite U.S. schools". ) Of course there are worldwide MOOC classes, but limiting access to classroom Computer Science education would help.
Of course. Because no one else, anywhere in the world, knows how to hack. Or understands computer science.
Pro Tip: Get a passport and travel around a bit. You'll find that there are bright people everywhere, and often they have indoor plumbing and stuff.
Heck, in some places they even have universities (even in China). What a shocker!
Bar members of the Chinese military from attending. Even that is purely symbolic. Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
This is all highly unconstitutional. If they are allowed to enter the united states, AND they are not being arrested or detained, then they have the rights and privileges that those present in the US have...
Including the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to organize and assemble.
The Defcon. and Blackhat conferences are an exercise of free speech rights. The government cannot lawfully prohibit those conferences or prevent anyone from attending; doing so is in direct violation of the bill of rights due to interference with and abridgement constitutionally protected activities and rights and privileges.
I didn't even need to read TFA to know that this will be accomplished by denying visas to those folks, not by posting law enforcement personnel at the doors to the conference and checking IDs. The US can (and does) deny visas to all sorts of people, and for many reasons, including this kind of thing. As do most other countries.
Perhaps you should think about what you say before you say it? That's not meant to be an insult, just a suggestion.
You really don't get it at all. It is the sheer mitigated arrogance of the US government...
How exactly is the US government's arrogance being mitigated? Based on the context, I'm guessing you meant 'unmitigated'.
And we wonder why folks outside the US think we're all morons. Sigh!
What you're really asking for here is tiered services. Those that live outside of city centers should pay for living there. And you, living in an urban area should get very fast service and low rates.
That's funny. I live in one of the largest cities in the US and Internet speeds are low, prices are high and just about all the choices I have include restrictive (to the point of abusive) contract terms. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before spouting off like that.
:x for me.
[John]
From an early 90's email signature:
[ctrl]-x[ctrl]-s then [ctrl]-x[ctrl]-w newfilename
Go ahead and flame me, you vi folks. I don't mind.
Well, he did display severe lack of respect for other peoples' data, time and money and set out to deliberately cause harm for nothing more than getting fired. He clearly showed that he is not a person who should be in such a position and the chances are that next time he'd just be more careful about leaving evidence behind. If he had just gotten fines or something he might get another job in a similar position and cause even worse things.
Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't hire him even if he didn't do time.
I do get what you're coming at, but of the two choices I believe prison is the more correct one. Should there be a third option, something that would mean that he'd really, really, really have to work and prove himself if he wanted to again get in a position where he is responsible for other peoples' data and equipment, but if he instead aimed for something where he isn't in such a position of power he'd have the same chances as everyone else? Sure, but I don't know if there is such an option.
That's really the quandary, isn't it? I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have to face consequences, my issue is with the ostracism experienced by ex-convicts. In a better world, the "ex" would be more important than the "convict." In a better world, we'd prepare those who have been incarcerated to succeed in the larger world, not just warehouse them and then shove them to the fringes of society. It's sad, IMHO.
Not sure if he deserves jail time
Of course he does. He has a total of zero excuses for damaging the company's equipment and data deliberately, being fired is not an excuse.
No excuse at all. Not even any comprehensible reason. Mitchell acted irresponsibly, and he should certainly have to compensate his former employer.
If you read my previous posts you'll see that I think this guy's actions were completely inappropriate. Mitchell should face consequences for his actions.
At the same time, he's now a convicted felon. Which, in the US at least, most likely means he will never be able to get a decent job ever again.
Four years in prison might be appropriate, but ruining his life?
Here in the US, we continue to punish those who have been convicted of a felony (by denying them decent jobs, pushing them to the fringes of society and increasing the likelihood of recidivism) even after they've served their time. Which is both unproductive and unfair.
get off your holier than thou high horse, it makes you look like an adolescent fool.
I'm not any better than anyone else. And I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how they should think or act.
I speak my mind and if some disagree with me, they're welcome to present reasons why they think I'm wrong and engage in intelligent conversation.
Apparently, you're not one of those people. So get off my lawn. Have a nice day!
...The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.
That's some sentence you have there. Have you considered entering this contest?
You're never seen a person be fired because the ranks of management are equally vile?
Have you never seen a manager go to jail because he deliberately fired or drove away the company's most competent employee on fabricated allegations in order to exact revenge for a perceived slight, prior to his own dismissal or resignation?
No, I didn't think so. The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.
Okay. You could be right. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that inference. Regardless, Mr. Mitchell acted irresponsibly (and in the eyes of a Federal court in the southern district of West Virginia, criminally). Whether someone else acted inappropriately is, to me at least, unknown.
Are you suggesting that Mr. Mitchell's actions were appropriate or justified?
and the point is made by skipping the other 12 definitions how?
My point is that the sense of the noun "professional" that I used is embodied by it. Since it isn't the first entry, does that mean that it's invalid?
"So, what have you done to get in here?" "I just reset the system of my ex-boss, he was too stupid to recover a backup so he sued me and put me in jail"
I couldn't resist...
--Arlo Guthrie
A professional is someone who gets paid to do his job and/or who does it as a career, not someone who necessarily does it well or morally. See "professional gambler" or "professional hit man".
This guy is no professional. A professional does his job. That's what he/she is paid to do. Since this person was getting fired, I'm guessing he wasn't meeting expectations. Even if it was a broader layoff, there's no reason to act so unprofessionally.
Not sure if he deserves jail time, but there is no reason to break stuff on your way out the door. I'm glad I know this guy's name. I will certainly never hire him.
Heavy user here as AC. I went 3 months without even being in the same room as second-hand smoke. I failed a litmus strip/instant-cup test at a third party lab. Luckily,the job was for a small business owner and he didn't care about THC positive, after I had to awkwardly explain what THC meant. That's 3 months. That is a pretty long time.
No judgement from me. I have no issue with marijuana use. In fact, I think it should be completely legal. Three months (as another poster pointed out) is generally the outside range for removing THC from the body. Presumably there's some variability in that three month window.
THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.
I am aware of how THC works and how long it remains in the body, depending on how frequently it is used. My point still stands. If you know you're going to have a drug test and you can't stop long enough to pass it, you likely have a problem.
If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.
A good point. if you can't stop long enough to pass a drug test for which you know the date, you likely have a problem. One issue is that the FBI loves to do polygraphs. Even though they're not reliable enough to be used in criminal proceedings, they use them for employment screening all the time.
So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.) Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?
I am an atheist and I have a problem with putting monuments to Jesus on government property. Not because of my Atheism, but because it would show favor to one religion over others (or none).
That said, I wouldn't go after the guy personally. However, I'd have quite a bit to say about the quality and appropriateness of his ideas in a free, secular society.
That said, going after the livelihood of someone with whom you disagree is commonplace. Too many people believe that the ends justify the means. It's rather sad. But don't expect it to change anytime soon. People can convince themselves that just about anything (up to and including indiscriminate murder of persons unrelated to the issue at hand) is justified in pursuit of their goals.
What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.
A valid point. It is rather disconcerting that with the broad expansion of access to the Internet and the popularity of social media, what would have, in earlier times, been a "tempest in a teapot" becomes a firestorm of publicity. I'm not really sure how to address that without limiting free expression, and that would create more problems than it solves (if any).
eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.
WRT Eich, I personally think that it's unfair for the government to legislate who and how we should be allowed to express love and commitment. As such, I disagree with Eich's stated (a political contribution is, as the SCOTUS as told us, speech) position. That Eich is being crucified by some of those who disagree with his stand on marriage equality is certainly true. I'm sure that those who are doing so feel justified in their actions because they see themselves as fighting for liberty and equality. On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that OKCupid management callously used Eich's political speech as a canard to drive visitors to their site.
Unlike others, I don't believe that I should have a role in the Mozilla Foundation's employment decisions. I can (and do) express my beliefs, and if I feel that an individual or group is doing something that violates my ethical standards, I will speak and vote with my wallet.
I'd point out that, rightly or wrongly, public shaming (Johns named in local papers, boycotts of businesses, lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, etc.) is a time-honored tradition in the US.
Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it.
This is really up to the NBA which, as an entity, wishes to project a certain image. Given that the profits of the NBA come from the public exhibition of their product, if one of their own is unable or unwilling to do so, the league has the right to decide who should be associated with them.
Personally, I find bigotry quite distasteful. If I were associated with a person or organization who expressed bigoted views, I would take steps to distance myself from them, both personally and professionally.
But whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Both Mozilla and the NBA took steps which they believe will positively impact their respective businesses. Since both Eich and Sterling were/are poster children for those businesses, their personal beliefs projected an image that the businesses felt were harmful to their business.
No one is telling Eich or Sterling that they cannot believe what they choose to believe. Mozilla and the NBA are, however, telling them that they will not be allowed to represent their businesses because their respective positions will, rightly or wrongly, cause their personal beliefs to be conflated with that of the business.
If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.
I don't know why, but it feels like extortion.
Actually, that already (again, rightly or wrongly -- which is beyond the scope I want to maintain in this post) happens. In most parts of the US, if someone is assaulted and bigoted comments are made during the commission of the assault, it can be considered a "hate crim
and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.
To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens
why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?
why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?
If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.
I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.
Actually, I think we're in violent agreement here. I believe that all ideas and speech should be heard, discussed and analyzed. That's the essence of Mill's "Marketplace of Ideas." If we allow everyone to express their thoughts and ideas, presumably the best ideas will rise to the top and the worst ones will be seen for what they are.
I was taking issue with the OP's assertion that he shouldn't be held accountable for his speech. Let me clarify that point. When I say "accountable" in this context, I mean that just because someone has the right to say what they want, they should expect that others will respond.
Such response could take many forms, hearty agreement or disagreement (in both cases, that may be rational or irrational -- hence the importance of encouraging discussion), including calls for (in Eich's case) removal from their position. I take no position as to whether it's right or wrong to, say, boycott a business because of the beliefs of its leader(s). That's (IMHO) up to the conscience of those who may decide to do so or not.
You say my argument is immature. I think you missed the boat on that one friend. However, I'm glad you responded so we can discuss and analyze the topic. Perhaps I should have been more explicit (as in the paragraph above), What I did do in my previous post was to apply reductio ad absurdum to the OP's contention that they should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, and not expect some sort of response in kind. The quality, and quantity, of that response may or may not be of questionable value, but anyone who thinks that they should get a free pass (in terms of having their expression not discussed, analyzed and critiqued) is expressing (IMHO) a puerile attitude ("I can say anything I want, and you need to shut up and listen! Neener! Neener! Neener!").
What I think is inappropriate is for the government to limit expression. Every society has norms, customs and taboos. Whether those are appropriate can only come from examining those ideas and trying to determine their validity.
Where there is an open marketplace of ideas, the truth as well as the best ideas will (again, IMHO) generally be identified and accepted -- eventually. Sadly, that often happens after serious injury is done.
I know you will feel free to agree or disagree with what I have to say. And I welcome intelligent commentary either way. Because that's how the "Marketplace of Ideas" is supposed to work.
Technically public media and journalists have stronger free speech rights than individuals, for numerous reasons, including statutory and constitutional.
Cite please. What statutes and sections of the Constitution (amendments included) afford media/journalists stronger free speech rights?
IMHO, you're confusing having a widely distributed platform with which to express yourself with greater rights.
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.
The US Constitution restricts the government from trampling your right to free expression. It does not require everyone else to give you an "atta boy" when you open your mouth and say something they find objectionable. Just as you can speak your mind, so can others, even if that point of view disagrees with yours. They can even try to convince others that their point of view is the correct one and not yours. Gasp!
This is rooted in the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas espoused by John Stuart Mill, whose Utilitarian philosophy greatly influenced 18th century thought and the founders of the US constitution.
Okay. I tell you what, why don't you go to those people at your job whom you find sexually desirable and tell them (in great detail) all about the sexual acts you want to perform with them. By your measure, that's you exercising freedom of expression. According to your statement, you believe that your employer should ignore this, because your free speech rights should not be impinged.
As for the Brandon Eich/Mozilla deal, IIRC, he resigned. He was not fired.
Beyond that, your right to freedom of expression is not impinged, you can say almost anything you want. But that doesn't mean you have freedom from the expression of others. If someone disagrees with you, they have the same right to express themselves as you do. If they can convince others to agree with their point of view, and you can't, that speaks to your either the quality of your ideas, the quality of how you express those ideas, or both.
Saying, "Waaah! people held me accountable for the things I said! That's not fair! I should be able to say anything I want at all times and no one should be able to do anything about it!" reflects a third grade mentaility, IMHO. Grow up.
Proof is too much to ask for to justify an assertion. Evidence would be reasonable to ask for, however.
You are quite correct. I played fast and loose with the English language. Thanks for calling me on it.
If Glen Greenwald is involved in the story, then it's ALL for show.
How so? Are you implying that Greenwald is a shill? Or that he's not a credible journalist? If so, how about some proof?