Liberalism in this instance being democracy, social freedom, capitalism, yada yada. Rights of the individual, consent of the governed, equality before the law, freedom of the press, freedom to own private property, a market economy.
Y'know, the world we live in. Liberal.
Conversation
Liberalism, essentially, is a moral philosophy that seeks to maximize individual rights under secular governance. Stifling the right to free expression is inherently illiberal. Doubly so when no societal consensus on if the expression is good, bad, or neutral.
1
The stifling is through the suspension. We're not talking legal here. We're discussing whether WaPo is acting consistently with the goals of liberalism. Would it have been liberal to suspend the reporter who called it out? I'd argue, no.
2
But since you mention the legals... that's literally what freedom of speech means. It means you may express yourself without fear of censure from the law. It does not mean you may say anything on behalf of any organisation and not experience consequences.
1
The U.S. constitution forbids government from censoring speech except in very rare circumstances. Freedom of speech as a concept goes far beyond the realm of the legal. It's legal for WaPo to do this. That doesn't mean it's consistent with liberal values.
1
By what definition? Show me one source that uses that definition of freedom of speech.
You ignore WaPo's financial stake. He could have created an account that omitted his employer, but chose to tweet under the masthead. WaPo have a fiscal duty to preserve profits.
1
All of these arguments could be thrown at the one who took offense. What she did is also damaging to the reputation of the company, as well as trust within the workspace.
1
She literally just messaged him on the WaPo internal server "I'm sorry, but what is this?", and suggested it was contrary to company policy. He deleted his tweet and apologised, and that was her done. What did she do wrong?
1
She blasted his retweet all over Twitter claiming it was appalling that one of her co-workers was allowed to retweet the joke. Normal protocol is to handle disputes in the workplace in the workplace. Public image suffers when you don't.
1
That's a blatant lie. Her exact words were "Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed", and a screen-cap of the retweet in question. The word appalling is not present.
You obviously didn't look. Here's a screen-cap.
But if he's allowed to tweet without it having any bearing on their employer, then so can she. If his tweet is fine, hers must inescapably be fine too.
1
I'm not sure if she should be reprimanded for it. I haven't really thought about that. I only care that he was, and that it was over a joke.
1
Show replies
This is a weird gotcha. I accurately summed up her message. Go to her Twitter right now. She's on the warpath against her colleagues, repeatedly demanding WaPo act on their "problematic" behavior.
1
And what happened in between that and the original tweet? Did this dude send a long abusive email to her? Did management send a bulk message out suggesting people not mention sexism anymore?
Does she in fact deserve the "war path"?
1
Show replies