ZephMarshack wrote:
I don't think he should necessarily face any consequences. I just happen to think the same standard one uses to judge this case should be consistent with how one judges cases where one may disagree more strongly with another person's exercise of free speech.
Leash's post expresses a coherent and consistent position on this. Personally I am not in favor of the idea that any employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason at any time and think that kind of employer discretion is pretty damn dangerous (far more so than any Twitter outrage mob). But I think if you are in favor of that kind of narrow legal standard when it comes to people you disagree with facing consequences for their speech, you better be ready to embrace it for cases where people you agree with (or even merely neutral about) face consequences for their speech as well. And you better be ready for people you disagree with, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, to look to mobilize their own outrage.
I agree with this post and would think it would be tough for anyone to disagree.
So I guess our only disagreement is you think McHale and Kaep's forms of expression should be treated as the same and I think the different forms of expression used necessitates that's wrong. Neither should or should have lost a job, but there is a clear and distinct difference between using the platform of the job in question and simply attending a public event without actually saying anything controversial.
Quote:
Edit for your edit:
Quote:
Edit: I was also the most vocal Kaep backer on the board so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your double standard talk.
I don't recall a lot of the Kaepernick thread, but I'll just say that very frequently on this board, when conservatives face consequences for their speech or are no-platformed, there's a sudden shift from talking about free speech as a procedural right that doesn't guarantee freedom from consequences to a more robust understanding of free speech as a social norm where it's unhealthy and undesirable for such regulations and consequences to occur. Recent examples of this include Sommers, Ingraham, and the idiot TA trying to teach Jordan Peterson. When it comes to people on the left losing their jobs for their speech however, we're back to speaking only in terms of what's strictly allowable under the law, rather than any robust understanding of free speech.
I see this at times but not as widespread as you seem to. In general I think it's the same as any other political issue - listen and read the folks that look at an issue in good faith and are generally balanced, consistent, and fair in their analysis and ignore the partisan hacks as much as one's able to. I realize the partisan hacks are making the balanced folks leave these discussions more and more though.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
