Ok, first, the op said nothing about UNspoken believes.
Second, it is NOT a criminal act to be fired for saying something stupid in public. The OP is saying it SHOULD be illegal to fire someone for saying something stupid in public.
Yes, the OP is suggesting freedom. The current practice of firing someone because of what they say privately (IE on their personal Facebook) is basically thoughtcrime.
No, not privately. If it’s private, the employer never finds out. Publicly. Not “thoughtcrime”, but “say-stupid-thing-publicly-get-fired”.
Plus, being fired from you job is not being convicted of a crime, thought or otherwise.
Doxxing is a thing.
Holding the “wrong” views is increasingly becoming a social crime, which can get a person in essence blacklisted by society. Do you deny it?
This thread has nothing to do with social crimes and everything to do with actual crimes.
Yes, for people who said things publicly. They may have attempted to be anonymous, but such attempts aren’t foolproof.
There is no such thing as a social crime. However, I’m not seeing the downside of KKKers being blacklisted. I certainly would not hire a member of the KKK, even though word on the street its that some of them are very fine people…
Why always back to the KKK? How about someone who goes to a rally to support a living wage?
I think more speech is the answer in this case. Boycott threats might be appropriate for cases in which someone is fired for trivial reasons like that.
I think you’re wrong that it being illegal to fire employees would stop the boycotts - that presumes that human beings are calmly rational and not emotional beings, which they’re clearly not, generally speaking.
Regarding how you don’t get a lot of boycotting of business that hire black employees, if that’s actually true I’d say that’s because we have relatively few people who are willing to be openly racist (in places without such boycotts), and they fear counterprotest. It’s the same reason nazis aren’t going to topple america. However the counterprotesters could topple america, if they really tried, and they could certainly carry out a boycott. And likely would, no matter how tightly the company’s hands were tied.
Not quite accurate. People can be videotaped in their home and other places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Exactly.
If an employer fires an employee over a bullshit reason, let the angry mob protest and boycott them to hell and back. Let them face the logical consequences of their actions. And also allow employees face the logical consequences of their actions.
Everyone has the right to run their mouth, but no one is entitled to love, friendship, or a job.
Are people who go to such rallies in threat of losing their livelihood? Wouldn’t, in fact, the employer who fires such a person be the one more likely on the chopping block?
That’s fine, like I said, I’m not sure how I feel ultimately. But falling back on KKK as an example is not useful, IMO. Generic political advocacy is a more nuanced way to look at it.
Let’s take a moment to recognize that this political-firing trend is a symptom of the country’s democracy, which is far too large, and the only way this sniping and retaliation will end is through changing the hearts and minds of the Mob on many sides of the issues, and/or letting the groups go their separate ways.
I can definitely see the Trumpists jumping on this. This would align nicely with their goal of making white men into a protected group. Of course it is against conservatism in many ways, another plus for them. It would empower the state at the expense of the most powerful voluntary institution in modern society, the private sector. Conservatives should seek to strengthen civil institutions, not subject them to the whims of bureaucrats and politicians.
Or not. This political firing trend is a symptom of twitter and facebook, which allow the masses to ‘mobilize’ large responses quickly without mobilizing themselves off the couch. It has nothing to do with the size of the country in general and certainly nothing to do with our political system, give or take that we’re not a tyranny that limits social interaction and political speech.
I don’t think that’s quite right. If you look at the history of laws that are in place offering protection for various forms of political activity, some have been around for a while.