It also equally applies to the NFL ban on people kneeling during the national anthem. You can perfectly well accept that non-stop actors may legally inflict consiquences on you for certain speech, and say that that is a bad thing.
-
-
-
That raises a different issue of whether employers should expect employees to comply with nationalistic or religious observances at work.
-
Interesting point, I hadn't considered that aspect.
-
In America I presume they can? I wonder what the rules on that are here?
-
I'm not sure. I'm against banning things but I think, ethically, if an organisation wanted to make this part of its day, there should be an opt out
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe not in US law. But morally yes, it should be. Do you want your employer policing your every thought and conversation? REALLY?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I may not want that but it's not slavery. I don't own them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That argument is basically meaningless. It could be used to justify all sorts of crazy ass shit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Punishment comes in many forms. An eyeroll is punishment. A verbal rebuke is punishment. Being fired is punishment. Being jailed is punishment. It's not that speech should ever be immune to punishment, the challenge is knowing which punishment is appropriate for which situation.
-
Both free speech AND punishment are necessary - in all contexts where speech might occur. Without punishment (including an eyeroll), we may have no way of knowing when we're stumbling over social boundaries. Without some protection, it's too risky to tread near those boundaries.
-
And the secret is that nobody knows where the balance should lie. We are all collectively engaged in a massive balancing act that plays out over time -- when each of us notices things tilting too far in one direction or the other, we nudge it to restore balance.
-
We used to play this game as individuals. We'd all react at different times in with a different degree of urgency. It meant that the balance shifted slowly, but usually didn't go too far one way or the other, at least in recent decades.
-
Then came social media, which allows coordination on a massive scale. Social reinforcement drives people to shove instead of nudge. The synchronization multiplies the effect tremendously. At any time overreach is possible and without a moment's notice. We live in unstable times.
-
</dramatic>
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Defenders of the free speech usually understand it. It's the rest that need it explained.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perfect expression of Deleuzian idea that capitalism requires schizophrenia.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.