There’s an upcoming TV series starring Jeremy Piven, “Wisdom of the Crowd,” in which Piven’s character gathers the combined input from millions of computer users/observers in order to solve crimes. That appears to be happening in real life as pictures of the far right protestors in Charlottesville are being widely circulated and their lives are crashing down around their ears. There are already several instances where they have been fired from their jobs because their employers didn’t know that they were employing right wing Nazi sympathizers. Observers are cheering these results because they are determined to destroy these guys. Indeed, that’s why members of the KKK always wore hoods, so they could do whatever they wanted while avoiding the consequences those actions might result in.
This may outrage fans of mine, but every time I hear about another far right guy losing his job or having his life destroyed, I hate it. Just hate it.
Now if it’s someone who performed a criminal action–he assaulted somebody, for instance–then I’m all for it. Bring him down.
But if all he did was open his mouth or wave a sign, I’m sorry, no. He shouldn’t lose his job for that. He shouldn’t be prosecuted for that. I mean, obviously it didn’t interfere with his ability to do his job because his employer was fine with keeping him on as long as he didn’t harass others with his views. But now they’re being fired because their employer knows where his sympathies lie? That’s just not right. For two reasons.
First of all, all it’s going to do is drive him further underground. He might indeed start wearing a hood and, cloaked in anonymity, do worse things than he was already doing. His boss and fellow employees couldn’t sit him down and say, “Why do you feel this way? Have you ever considered maybe you’re wrong?” Engage in conversation that might change his mind (as unlikely as that may seem.).
And second, getting him fired is simply going to galvanize his hatred of the left. Before his reasons for prejudice were all lies that were fed to him by right wing sources. Now, though, he has a genuine reason to hate those who were opposed to him: they got him fired. They wrecked his life. What’s to stop him from planning revenge against his enemies? What’s to stop him from hopping behind the wheel of a car and running over some of those lefty bášŧárdš and exacting some payback? Before he was just an áššhølë. Now he’s a genuine enemy.
It is NEVER a good idea to punish somebody just because you don’t like their opinions.
PAD
THANK YOU!! I keep sayting this every time the internet mob goes into doxxing mode. Yes, bigotry and hatred must be fought. But while it’s popular to say ‘freedom of speach doesn’t mean freedom from consequences’, I can only reply that the answer to free speach is more speach and that the concept of ‘let the punishment fit the crime’ should come back into style.
I agree with you that the act of speech alone should not get someone fired (one of these guys just lost his job at a hot dog restaurant, if I read it correctly). But if the person’s job is being a loan officer? Realtor? Cop? Could we feel reassured that this person’s views would not manifest themselves in subtle biases, imperceptible to the bosses? I don’t know, PAD.
If they are in any of the latter jobs, they should continue at their job but know they are going to be scrutinized for all of their actions to look for bias on their part.
I agree with Kathleen. Furthermore, if the knowledge of his employees activities prompt his boss to go over his recent job performance – to see if there is any hint of these biases affecting his work – that would seem A valid concern. But if as a loan officer, for instance, he treats both black and white customers equally, I don’t see how you could then fire him on the chance that he might do something in the future.
.
PAD
I would partly disagree on one point.
.
There has been an effort by white supremacist groups to get members into the ranks of the country’s various police departments.
.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement/
.
If an agency has an officer identified at one of these rallies, at minimum they need to be taken off the street and have their cases reviewed as well as a full IA investigation opened up.
.
After that, it’s a tough call. I’m not even going to get into lawsuits, because people will try that with any of the referenced professions. If the facts are on your side with regards to no on the job bias being shown, you can likely deal with that issue. But, depending on where the agency is, you have to factor in how much of a danger such an individual creates for your department’s officers. If you’re already dealing with a touch and go situation, having someone suddenly identified on scene as the KKK Cop might just make things worse.
.
You also might create huge trust issues with the people you have to work with every night. You don’t have to worry about whether or not the loan officer in the cubicle next to yours is going to risk his safety or life on your behalf when it hist the fan. If that becomes a question in our line of work, it can be bad.
.
If there’s no way to reassign an officer to work off of the street or to an area where their newfound fame is not as likely to create issues, allowing them to “quit” may in fact be the best option.
.
This particular example is one of the ones that falls into the realm of an incredibly tough call. You’ll find it to be a touchy subject in a lot of agencies.
The guy who lost his job at the hotdog restaurant was actually caught on tape assaulting a man with a pole, so maybe read up before you use that example?
Peter, can I call you Peter? David, I think you may have meant to use the word “persecuted” in paragraph 4, line 2, rather than prosecuted. People being fired, whether justly or not, morally or not, is a form of persecution. Prosecution requires a very important legal component. Just an FYI.
I know we all like to circle around and rub our tummies and pat our heads about Freedom of Speech, but you may want to look into it and check if there are any legal limitations of it (there are many), and if those limitations have not been changed over time (they have, many times) and realize that perhaps this goes deeper than a simple all encompassing phrase?
In addition, employers have the right to terminate employment for a myriad of different reasons, one of which is protecting themselves and their customers from individuals who are openly members of a violent domestic terrorist organization or support system. The idea that they should wait and do some kind of job performance hoop jump before firing Joe Swastika and Jenny StarsAndBars to protect their precious well being is about the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.
And to my hand wringing Constitutional scholars down the thread here. Hey, if the white supremacist movement wasn’t powerful, and dangerous, then we’d probably have a lot more effective and less controversial society. You know, police force, education system, economic and social equality. But we don’t have those things. That’s white supremacy.
The Germans make it illegal to identify as a Nazi or white supremacist, because they know and remember. If you don’t, maybe it’s because you’re too comfortable, safe, and benefiting from the white power structure.
Peace out Pete!
I’ve had similar issues with this entire incident over on Facebook. People I know were posting comments that, no, freedom of speech doesn’t cover or protect groups like this coming into a place and speaking their mind and that anyone who thinks it does can unfriend them. So, of course, I felt the need to say otherwise…
.
This has been equally troubling. The idiots that got violent and hurt people? I want them to be found and to face justice. The thing with this incident and many others over the last year where I seem to be parting ways with a lot of people I know and a huge chunk of the new left in general is I feel that way about the people calling themselves Antifa as well. Strangely, they want to give violent Antifa twerps a pass.
.
But the idiots who just ran their mouths and looked like dámņ fools? Don’t give them reasons to hide their identities. Let them have their moment of free speech, and let them have it out in the open.
.
It makes it easier to be able to point to them and know who the mental defectives in our population are.
As i said to Steve Leaf at the Book Nook manymany years ago: It makes them a lot easier to identify/find when it’s necessary.
Peter, I had been thinking the same exact thing.
I really appreciate you saying this because, As someone who is white and who is not Jewish, I am not able to do so. I completely understand the angry rhetoric coming from the left, but the whole thing makes me very uncomfortable none the less.
I’m seeing people losing their ever loving minds and if you make even the mildest of observations that mayyyyybe they should rethink this you will get ugly-jumped by lunatics. I mean genuinely unhinged people.
And its sad because I love my friends but some are becoming way more dangerous than the nazis. The American Nazis will never be anything even close to a legitimate political force to be reckoned with. Anything they touch is the worse for it. Even some of the fringiest of the alt-right are pushing them away. They are the NAMBLA of politics. When they attack the first amendment I can sleep soundly at night, safely certain that this will push any fence sitters to the light.
But the ex-military guy who sincerely wants ex-military people caught at a rally he disapproves of to be stripped of any and all military benefits? The guy I know who has a Che Guevara poster on his wall but is cutting off all contact with any family members who voted for Trump (and cannot understand why even the non-trump voters in the family are preferring to let him go rather than cater to his demands)? The people who, in the words of one wag, think there are 500 genders but all political persuasions can be categorized as either “People who agree with me” and “Nazis”?
And more and more and more…the folks who are all for free speech and free thought…BUT…HOWEVER…AT THE SAME TIME…(followed by reasons why they are NOT, in fact, for free speech and free thought). They want the government to start cracking down on the doubleplus ungood badthink…
The government.
You know, the one led by DONALD F’ING TRUMP.
Yeah, great plan! Brilliant! What could go wrong?
If 2016 proved anything it’s that there is nothing dumber than assuming one’s side will always be ascendant. And, on that assumption, handing the powers that be a cudgel and the permission to use it against the other side.
But I’m not throwing myself into this fever swamp. Too much crazy and I’d rather not know how easily some of my favorite people will gladly throw away their freedom (and for what? For all the virtue signalling and chest thumping on my feed, hardly a one is really likely to be on the ramparts of any battle. They are ceding total control to some imagined progressive military coup or something.)
And Peter, you’re a good man and a sincere man and I admire your stand but for what it’s worth I would rather you keep your head low. You are the kind of person they will go after. They’ve skirted around the edges of it before. Whether or not they could actually do you harm largely depends on stuff out of your control–how slow a news day it is, whether someone with the right combination of obsessiveness and grudge holding has time on their hands, how much heat Marvel is willing to take for standing up for a valued creator. I’m not saying take down the post, hëll no, but I would not let them drag you down the rabbit hole.
“The American Nazis will never be anything even close to a legitimate political force to be reckoned with… You know, the one led by DONALD F’ING TRUMP.”
Sorry, Bill, I couldn’t help myself.
Regardless, they are certainly emboldened right now due to the crap coming out of The White(s Only) House.
Am I going to shed any tears over any of these guys having their lives supposedly ruined/destroyed by their own actions? No. After all, the entire point of white supremacy is ‘at best’ to ruin the lives of those who are not their (im)perfect vision of the melanin-challenged.
Peter, I absolutely couldn’t agree with you more. On another site I frequently visit on if their columnists started with a headline that said “we have a right to ruin their lives”.
.
Absolutely not. We do have an obligation to oppose them, to call out their lies and hypocrisies. But the goal is not to ruin their lives.
.
It’s wrong when a redneck sets out to ruin the life of a transsexual because they don’t like their lifestyle. It’s equally wrong when a liberal wants to do it to a skinhead.
.
I do think it’s fine to expose their actions. That’s part of calling them on their šhìŧ. And if those who know them (friends, family, coworkers) decide to treat them differently and/or distance themselves, well, actions do have consequences.
.
But if we make our goal the ruination of their lives and ability to provide for their families, them we have become the people we claim to oppose.
I have similar feelings. I have said in the past, “The most dangerous kind of racist is an unemployed racist.” Sort of tongue-in-cheek, but I do feel there’s a kernel of truth to it. I used to say it specifically in reference to people getting fired from their jobs because of objectionable tweets.
Objectionable tweets now seems like a far cry from armed neo-Nazis marching in the streets, and I confess to a bit of schadenfreude in knowing some of them are suffering for such overt, dangerous hate. But it is correct to worry that taking away their livelihoods will increase their hate, and give them nothing to lose by lashing out even more violently. Things are on a trajectory to get much worse before they get better.
“Wisdom of the Crowd” worries me. I’m willing to see how they handle it, but in real life this kind of thing will result in mobs ruining innocent people.
I’m in 90 percent agreement with this.
I do think there is a positive aspect to shining a light on these roaches as it were, but doing so in the hope of ruining their lives is a different matter. And it always runs the risk of pushing them into new locations where they breed.
The main reason its only 90 percent is that there are some occupations where this would be possibly warranted (and where employees typically have some protection against unfair practices) namely public safety officers of any type. There’s too much potential for abuse there.
Generally speaking tho, doxxing with intent of doing harm is wrong, even if the goals are laudable. If we complained about it during gamergate, etc we cannot support it now.
“After a day of work at the Engineering Research Center at the University of Arkansas, Kyle Quinn had a pleasant Friday night in Bentonville with his wife and a colleague. They explored an art exhibition at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and dined at an upscale restaurant.
.
“Then on Saturday, he discovered that social media sleuths had incorrectly identified him as a participant in a white nationalist rally some 1,100 miles away in Charlottesville, Va. Overnight, thousands of strangers across the country had been working together to share photographs of the men bearing Tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus. They wanted to name and shame them to their employers, friends and neighbors. In a few cases, they succeeded.
.
“But Mr. Quinn’s experience showed the risks.”
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html
Bingo.
I loved most John Wayne films because the Duke was always right.
In what we laughingly call Real Life, we don’t have the option of being sure about that.
I love you work Peter, but I disagree with your point here completely.
Punishing someone for hateful opinions is essential.
Social conditioning is real and we go through it every day – every time we tell a joke or express an opinion we are putting ourselves up for the judgement of our peers. We are all constantly learning and gaging what is ok, or clever, or funny or ultimately just not acceptable.
Being a racist is just not acceptable. Openly being a nazi, given the history involved, should be way, way beyond that.
Of course that is not saying it should be illegal. Freedom of speech (and thought) is absolute. But the social consequences of such positions should rightly be drastic.
I think the current irrational and harmful anti-immigrant zeitgeist has largely come about because of the normalizing of such rhetoric which only a decade ago was widely seen as obviously scapegoating racism.
We need to do everything we can to make sure that racist ideas are not further normalized so that believing that some humans are inherently superior to others does not become just another “alternative pov” that deserves respect and debate because that would have dangerous consequences.
Sure people don’t like being told that what they think or feel is wrong and they totally hate facing real consequences for what they believe are legitimate opinons. That is where the reaction in reactionary comes from. But these are not legitimate opinions and that needs to be made very clear.
No. Tolerance is essential. Punishing someone because you don’t like what they have to say simply gives them incentive to hate them even more. There is NOTHING to be gained by going after people and trying to destroy their lives. And that doesn’t even take into consideration Kyle Quinn, an Arkansas man who was a thousand miles away when the protest was occurring, was mis-identified on line and was harassed, threatened, and had all his personal information including his address put on line.
.
The problem with you and others who have this is that, to some degree, you are just like a typical Trump supporter. Trump supporters do not care about facts. They don’t care that Trump has accomplished nothing, that he has made countless blunders, that he is not suited to be president. All they know is that he makes them feel good. They are allowing their guts to rule over their brains. It is the same with advocating that protestors with whom you disagree should be persecuted and punished. When broken down logically, it doesn’t hold together. But you don’t care, because it makes you feel good. Evil should be punished; Nazis are evil; therefore Nazis should be punished. Well, no. If they’ve committed no crime, they should not be punished, no matter how good that may make you feel.
.
It wasn’t all that long ago that righties targeted doctors who were giving women abortions. They picketed them, they harassed them. In some cases they even shot them. We of the left were horrified at that. These people were simply doing their jobs, which they were legally entitled to do. We set the bar. We don’t get to kick the bar over when we are presented with the same situation. These áššhølëš, aside from the murderer in the car, were NOT doing anything illegal. You don’t get punished for not doing anything illegal, no matter how gratified it may make you feel.
.
Oh, and by the way, people on Twitter are declaring I support Nazis and should be fired. I guess they’d agree with you. How does that make you feel, if they manage to succeed and I can no longer turn out the work you love? All because I have an opinion with which you disagree.
PAD
Let’s see, one side is a philosophy of let people live their own lives, the other is a philosophy of hate, cross-burnings, genocide, and discrimination.
I’d say that the people who promote discrimination and hate don’t deserve the same courtesy as those that promote individual freedom and equal rights.
Really. Allow me to rebut:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuvEJ-U1UDc
“Oh, and by the way, people on Twitter are declaring I support Nazis and should be fired.”
.
Wow…
.
Not surprising in the Twitter and Facebook age I guess. But, still, given everything you’ve said against them in the past…
.
Wow…
Wow that escalated. I don’t care about facts and Im like a Trump supporter? gee thanks Peter.
Let me be clear – I think protest, speech thought should be completely free and should not be subject to any legal regulation. That does not mean that I, or any private corporation, must respect all opinions or those that espouse them. Thats some topsy turvy thinking right there.
I don’t agree that “protestors with whom you disagree should be persecuted and punished”. We all disagree all the time(like now) – I don’t think you deserve any punishment!
But the stuff we are talking about here is an a special category – clearly hateful, racist speech which promotes the subjugation of other people. There should certainly be negative (social, not legal) consequences for espousing such views.
All our actions have consequences after all.
You are a funny guy Peter. You tell jokes all the time – no doubt some of them fall flat occasionally. I imagine your daughters let you know when this happens and they do so in the (probably vain) hope that it will help you moderate your future behaviour.
This happens to us all all the time and its the way we learn to moderate our social behaviour. Take it away and you are not simply “tolerating” these views you are passively allowing them to be promoted.
Hateful speech and actions are an extreme version of this and they require extreme disapproval, not bland “tolerance”. We cannot legitimise this stuff.
The nazis were a murderous hateful cult that were responsible for the genocide of millions of people. You obviously are well aware of this fact. So are those identifying with them. To be polite, this should reflect very poorly (to say the least) on those individuals.
I would not be comfortable working in a company that employed self confessed Nazis. I honestly don’t believe that this is a controversial opinion.
I understand that you are a writer and columnist who likes to engage with controversies, so the idea that if you were to get something “wrong” (by disagreeing with the arbitrary consensus of the moment) and then suffer extreme consequences must be a particularly scary thought.
But as I understand your work I feel pretty confident that you have a fundamental respect for people and a belief that we should be treated equally. As long as people don’t stray from those pretty fundamental principles I think they are safe. These nazi idiots are a long way gone from that.
Mitch …
.
“I’d say that the people who promote discrimination and hate don’t deserve the same courtesy as those that promote individual freedom and equal rights.”
.
Quite so. We should hate and be free to discriminate against that former group in our quest for freedom and equal rights.
.
Oh, wait …
I’m unsurprised. You make them feel bad. And it’s all about their feelings.
Looking over the postings of some of these types I see virtually NOTHING but screeds against their enemies. This is their proof that they are good people. They hate bad people. QED.
Telling them they are maybe not entirely in the right in the way they hate is the same as just out and out questioning how good they are, in their minds. So, by calling you a nazi, problem solved.
I think its kind of funny that you seem to defending these guys’ anonymity on (tenous imo) freedom of speech grounds but you seem not to be allowing me to post my reply to your post which directly insulted me.
Uh, no, the program does that itself. At random. Oftentimes it holds my own comments “for moderation” and I have to go in and allow it to be posted. I don’t know why it does that. If I see posts being held, I release them unless they’re obvious spam bait. But much thanks for assuming that I’m a hypocrite.
.
PAD
Wow. Out of curiosity, I went to the spam filter, which I normally never check, and sure enough, that’s where your comments were. For some reason the program bypassed the whole “moderation” thing and just decided you were spam. How very weird. Now I know I have to check that every day as well. I immediately informed the program that your comments were not spam and put them up on the site.
.
PAD
Uh Hugh, that’s a limitation of the forum software PAD’s site uses, not censorship. Not if he starts disemvoweling you on the other hand….
“Punishing someone for hateful opinions is essential.”
Thoughtcrime. Doubleplus ungood.
Thanks for fixing that Peter, my apologies for assuming that you did it purposefully.
Jim – I am using punishment in a non-legal way – we are all punished by our peers for our anti-social behaviour – it is very important for our society that this is maintained.
This is my (and most people who disagreeing wth Peter’s post) main point, but people seem determined to conflate all punishment (or perhaps more aptly all negative consequences) with making certain things illegal. There is a massive difference that should be obvious.
See, for me, absenting avowed fascists from your company, personal or professional, feels like a necessary step of self-preservation.
I mean, talk about a hostile work environment…
How hostile could it have been if the workplace didn’t even know about it until internet vigilantes doxxed them?
And if they are causing problems in the work environment–if they’re hassling Jews or blacks, for instance–by all means, fire them. On the other hand, if their work place behavior is so normal that you had no idea what their political affiliations are, well, that’s a problem.
.
PAD
I’d be curious what you think of the Paradox of Tolerance: “The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
Also, I believe you’re underestimating the amount of damage white supremacists are doing, especially at workplaces and the like.
No, I am estimating exactly the amount of damage that the denizens of the Internet can do to people who were in fact causing NO damage at work or weren’t even involved in the protest in the first place.
.
As for the paradox of tolerance, I will take my chances by being internally consistent and defending the rights of those with whom I disagree to keep saying whatever they want, and let the rest of the chips fall.
.
PAD
Popper’s whole point was that it’s a paradox–one won’t be allowed to be “internally consistent” on this point, because the intolerant will take over.
“Let the chips fall where they may” is as morally irresponsible in this case, imho, as “they’re only coming for the black people, homos and Jews, so what’s the big deal”.
Popper’s whole point was written in 1945, shortly after Hitler, so it makes sense from that point of view. But I don’t agree with it.
.
PAD
Mr. David,
Respectful *bow*.
.
Quite so. As I’m sure I’ve commented before, I wish I could get to meet this black fellow who was on some American afternoon chat show. Shake his hand, even. He’d asserted that censorship and enforced political correctness was a bad move because it didn’t do away with bad thoughts, it merely made it harder to unearth and deal with them. Bravo!
I agree with you 100%. I am Irish, and in our constitution we are _not_ guaranteed freedom of speech in all cases, so it’s something I’ve always greatly admired in your constitution, the First Amendment, it’s such an amazingly powerful statement of individual freedom, and so admired all over the world. But it is also such a challenge, because it means you have to tolerate people whose ideas are repugnant to you.
Also, we’ve seen today how poor Kyle Quinn, who works at the Engineering Research Center at the University of Arkansas was incorrectly identified as being part of the march, when he was in a different state at the time, once you start doxxing, more innocents will be hurt.
You would think that – I’m sure at least one space on their list of minorities to target is reserved for Romani.
No doubt, considering the number that were slaughtered during World War II.
.
PAD
There are a few things I’ve never understood in arguments about free speech and hate speech.
1. When do words cross over from opinion to an actual threat? Threats aren’t protected speech, and “We’re going to throw you in the ovens” (not exactly what they chanted, but pretty close to it) sounds like a threat to me.
2. Unlawful assembly. One would think assembling as actual Nazis, a group whose ideology specifically calls for violence and genocide, would count. Hëll, I’m not entirely sure why is doesn’t count as treason, given that it calls for the overthrow of the United States.
3. Losing ones job? I can see that. The argument “They’ve done their job until now and nobody noticed a problem” could describe any mole in any organization. I can see a boss saying, “You are part of a group working to overthrow my freedoms and my government; I’m not obligated to support you doing that. You’re fired.”
4. Not entirely related, but when someone such as Alex Jones claims false flags (as he is doing with protestors and he did with the Sandy Hook families) why isn’t he sued for slander and libel? Last I checked, making false statements about others that causes them harm (and given that grieving families faced death threats) how is that not
harmful?
1. When do words cross over from opinion to an actual threat?
.
When it conveys to the listener a belief that they are in imminent danger. If someone shouts they’re going to throw me in an oven, it would be absurd to take that threat seriously, unless you’re–I dunno–in a bakery, I guess. So that’s not an actual threat. On the other hand, if someone shouts, “I’m going to punch you in the face,” THAT is assault because if he’s within range of me, I would totally believe he’s going to do it.
.
Unlawful assembly. One would think assembling as actual Nazis, a group whose ideology specifically calls for violence and genocide, would count.
.
The American Civil Liberties Union would disagree, considering they famously fought for the rights of Nazis to assemble in Skokie, Illinois in 1978. But if it makes you feel any better, they took a huge hit in membership because many people agreed with you–that the rights of Nazis to assemble was not protected free speech. Fortunately the courts agreed with the ACLU.
.
Losing ones job? I can see that. The argument “They’ve done their job until now and nobody noticed a problem” could describe any mole in any organization.
.
Yes, but it could also describe someone who just wants to do his job and pay his bills and keep his after hours activities to himself. He may well feel that his political affiliations do not interfere with his ability to do his job. When I write, my political affiliations don’t impact on my work, which of course doesn’t stop people who disagree with me politically from trying to get Marvel to fire me. Are you okay with that? Because if you’re arguing that political affiliations should be allowed to impact on your being hired, you really have to be.
.
Not entirely related, but when someone such as Alex Jones claims false flags (as he is doing with protestors and he did with the Sandy Hook families) why isn’t he sued for slander and libel?
.
Well, I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding that if you sue someone for slander (spoken) or libel (written) you have to prove that the defendant inflicted financial damage on you somehow. For instance, if Jones make claims of false flags and you were one of the parents and your employer believed him and fired you because of it, you could sue Jones. But if no one lost money over him, I don’t believe they have legal standing. You can’t sue someone just because they’re an áššhølë and made you feel bad. They have the right to say stupid things as long as you aren’t harmed financially.
.
Hope that helps.
.
PAD
I appreciate your responses. I just have to disagree with them.
.
For example, if an armed mob was moving towards me, screaming that they were not going to let me replace them, that they were going to defend America from me, that they were going to throw me in an oven, etc, I think it would be reasonable to assume I was in immediate danger. If they talked about hanging me, but didn’t have a rope, it would still indicate that I was in danger.
.
It’s interesting to me that you brought up Skokie, as we discussed that and other such gatherings in my synagogue’s Sunday School’ ethics class. The teacher wanted to provoke debate about both sides, but my entire class (myself included) said that such groups had a right to walk, march, and chant, “We hate Jews, We hate Jews.” I still think that people have a right to march and chant such slogans. What I’m less certain about is whether they have a right to freedom from prosecution when they join organizations that are expressly attempting to foment violence and violent rebellion. If that’s not unlawful assembly, what is?
.
I understand your argument from personal experience in people trying to get you fired from Marvel due to your political beliefs. Where I see a difference is this. Let’s assume you were part of some secret organization called “Let’s destroy Marvel comics” or “Let’s destroy all comics” in which you met with, plotted with, worked towards, and encouraged people to destroy Marvel and/or all comics. For years you kept it secret. One day, photos surface of you at their meetings and rallies, obviously in a support position. If Marvel then fired you for working against them, and you said, “No one at Marvel had problem with me working there all those years, I never said anything hateful when at work.” I wouldn’t see it as much of a defense, and I wouldn’t see it as similar to writing a story about abortion, the death penalty, etc. Your actions in the group were specifically meant to harm Marvel and they are well within their rights to fire you. Similarly, if someone is working with a group specifically formed to destroy America as we know it, their employers have every right to see that as a threat, and to fire such people.
.
Lastly, I agree with you that slander and libel can be confusing. When I look at someone such as Jones making threats that put someone in danger (such as all those death threats that were made towards Sandy Hook families after he accused them) I see that as deliberately endangering someone, and if people are afraid to walk outside, continue their lives, in some cases have to quit their jobs and move to avoid danger, I see that as having financial consequences.
.
I mean, let’s say that I had a radio show with of millions of listeners, many of whom had shown in the past that they would harass and stalk others based on my statements, and one day I said on my show something like, “Back in the 1960’s, Peter David sent Pussy Galore and Oddjob to blow up Fort Knox” while knowing you didn’t, and this claim caused you, your family, and friends to receive threats, causing them to spend money on security measures, cancel paying appearances at events due to safety issues, move, etc. it seems like a pretty solid case for slander to me.
“1. When do words cross over from opinion to an actual threat?
.
When it conveys to the listener a belief that they are in imminent danger. If someone shouts they’re going to throw me in an oven, it would be absurd to take that threat seriously, unless you’re–I dunno–in a bakery, I guess”
.
If only everyone were as rational as you. There’s a Professor at the University of Toronto who is lauded in his profession, who has written many widely respected papers and is generally considered to be a very good teacher.
.
He is also castigated and under attack by the forces of political correctness run amok because he refuses to address ‘other’ students by their chosen (and made-up) pronouns such as ‘zhir’. The consider it hate speech and a threat.
Jon Roth: “Unlawful assembly. One would think assembling as actual Nazis, a group whose ideology specifically calls for violence and genocide, would count.”
.
Jon, the problem with using legal wording that you don’t understand is not knowing what you’re talking about.
.
This rally? It was preplanned and approved. They had a legal right to be there backed by a permit and then backed by a federal judge.
.
Do you know who was guilty of unlawful assembly? The people that showed up in large, organized groups to get in their faces and counter-protest.
.
You really want to pull that trigger now?
If I have a permit to hold a rally, and then I threaten violence at other people present, am I still legally in the clear? I would say no.
If you have a permit and people show up threatening you, what next?
.
If the people that showed up shouting threats and shouting you down were there and having a rally against you without a permit- an unlawful assembly -and their group has an almost year-long history of initiating violence under the name “Antifa” where they throw sticks, rocks, bottles, and bricks as well as setting things on fire, what next?
.
If you’re so stupid that you let me bait you into a confrontation and I’m by far better armed than you, how big of an idiot are you?
.
The alt-right supremacist šhìŧhëádš were absolutely more prepared for a fight. They absolutely came better armed. They were absolutely more violent once things kicked off and significantly more of them were extremely violent than on the other side. Also, only one side can be accused of murder over the weekend.
.
But you know the nasty, fûçkìņg annoying problem here? They’re still sifting through the days events to actually determine who threw the first punch. And, frankly, where the Antifa áššhølëš are concerned, it’s a 50/50 proposition.
.
Once the riots kicked off, everyone was declared to be involved in an unlawful assembly.
.
But you only want that to cut one way.
.
Not how the law works.
Oh fûçk…
.
Oh, it is about to get so much worse. Trump just went full Trump- even more so than my last post -and painted the white supremacists and the white nationalists as the victims in the scenario. They were the victims of the club waving “alt-left” in Charlottesville. He looked insane and unhinged ranting like someone off of their meds.
.
And then David Duke and the Klan and other hate groups just praised and thanked Trump faster on social media than Trump can insult someone on Twitter.
.
He just made it out like he was forced to give the statement he gave yesterday, didn’t believe in it anyway, and just emboldened the hate groups 100X more than he did during a year of pandering to them during last year’s campaign.
.
The fallout from this is going to be unbelievable. The crazies are going to get scary stupid.
.
Anyone who shares my particular day job and is going to be dealing with these gatherings? The human šhìŧ stain in the White House right now just made our jobs in the coming year so much harder.
.
Anyone who doesn’t share the skin color of áššhølëš like David Duke? Trump’s unhinged rant just now will be translated by them as a license to declare it open season. Trump just let them feel- and, frankly, maybe not wrongly -that the man who sits in the White House has their back.
.
It’s about to get worse for all of us. Everything all of us believe and everything we believe needs to be fought for or against is about to get tested to the nth degree.
.
https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/897559892164304896
And this is why everybody better be prepared to punch Nazis.
Only if they punch first.
.
If not, you get the new jewelry.
Sorry Jerry, but “I’m just following orders” didn’t work after WW2 either
Mitch Tye,
.
Since I didn’t mention or try to excuse any actions under the concept of just following orders; what the fûçk are you talking about?
You start acting on behalf of the Nazis to defend them, and you get painted with the broad brush both sides like to use AS a Nazi, and post WW2, the tribunals didn;t accept the nazi excuses that they were just following orders
Okay… Let’s follow this line of discussion.
.
Craig J. Ries: And this is why everybody better be prepared to punch Nazis.
.
Me: Only if they punch first. If not, you get the new jewelry.
.
MitchTye: Sorry Jerry, but “I’m just following orders” didn’t work after WW2 either
.
Me: Since I didn’t mention or try to excuse any actions under the concept of just following orders; what the fûçk are you talking about?
.
MitchTye: You start acting on behalf of the Nazis to defend them, and you get painted with the broad brush both sides like to use AS a Nazi, and post WW2, the tribunals didn;t accept the nazi excuses that they were just following orders
.
Nope. MitchTye still isn’t making the first dámņëd bit of sense.
“Oh, and by the way, people on Twitter are declaring I support Nazis and should be fired.”
Sadly, throwing an accusation back at the accuser is a common tactic of Trump and his supporters. “You call me racist? You’re racist for suggesting that!” “You say I’m sexist? You’re sexist for suggesting women can’t stand up for themselves.” And so on and so on and so on…
Yeah, but this is being thrown around by others of the left, my ostensible political allies. They really are becoming Trumpian in their thinking, which I consider a bit alarming.
.
PAD
Indeed. I had somebody PM me a photo of captioned “Nazi Sympathizer”. It was a photo of a French woman whose hair had been shaved off and swasticas painted on her face. Seems that wanting people publicly humiliated is popular now. All for the ‘crime’ of disagreeing.
“They really are becoming Trumpian in their thinking, which I consider a bit alarming.”
.
But not at all surprising.
.
I work in a college town. We have been dealing with protest rallies and marches- organized and impromptu -involving the demographic of the left that has been derisively called SJWs and the faction now calling itself Antifa.
.
No matter their actual age, the vast majority of them come off as petulant, uniformed children who have an inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to demanding that the world bend to their demands about how things must be. They also have a delusional sense of who is a good guy and who is a bad guy.
.
Bad guys in their world are largely anyone who does not agree with them and agree to support their cause. They define their cause as the right one and the one that qualifies as justice or fairness. If you disagree with them, refuse to support them, or, worse by their world view, stand in their way when they demand you let them have what they want, you’re the bad guy.
.
And once the declare you the bad guy, they take it to extremes and make you the ultimate bad guy. You’re a fascist, you’re a Nazi, or you’re sympathizer of these things. That doesn’t just make you bad, it makes you evil.
.
And, well, if you’re evil, that makes them the champions of all that is right and good and means that whatever they want to do- simple disruption, getting violent, bringing traffic to a standstill on an interstate at rush hour, setting things on fire, etc. -is all okay because the end justifies the means.
.
They are every bit the cancer on society that the alt-right áššhølëš are.
I am torn on this front. On the one hand, I am diametrically opposed to the “mob justice” that has arisen on the internet and the black & white thinking that helps fuel it (on both sides – you’re either leaving confederate statues in place or on your way to ripping down the Marine Corps Memorial, either completely on board with the ACA or in favor of killing the poor, et al).
On the other hand, these men (and…well, actually, haven’t seen that many women in the pictures) have openly and willing, even proudly, put their faces on an ideology that’s been considered villainous for the better part of a century. That could allow them to do damage in a million tiny ways (a realtor who shows certain races only certain houses, a teacher who gives some kids just a little less leeway in behavior or grading than others, a a co-op board member who’s just a little more stringent about the charter with some people than others) that would be incredibly hard to track. And that’s a danger to the future of our nation.
And I further find it dangerously naive to think that these Nazis couldn’t gain a foothold in American politics, because they (together with many other groups of disaffected – and mostly white – people) helped elect the current president. They feel like he’s their guy and he doesn’t try to disabuse them of that notion when speaking off the cuff*. And while he hasn’t had a whole lot of legislative success, he and Jeff Sessions have worked hard to reverse strides made in combating inequalities in our justice system, strides that were baby steps compared to what’s really needed.
So I’m of two minds. On the one hand, we’ve clearly not done enough to fight this cancer if the hoods are coming off and the White House is focusing on how good these Nazis are as people after they’ve killed a person. On the other hand, even properly targeted public shaming just sends these people into deeper holes to fester.
Almost as though real life is messy, huh?
*Dagnabit, here’s what I meant to expand on:
I do not think that President Trump is truly in sympathy with Nazis, since that would require me to believe he was in any way a principled man. I think he’s a base narcissist. I think he’s found that fascist-style rhetoric get him an audience. I think he’s found that the Charlottesville Fascists like him, and the anti-fascists do not. And I think he values simple-minded and one-sided loyalty to him above just about anything else. If fascists think he’s great, then they’re good people in his book and he’ll keep feeding them applause lines ’til their hands bleed.
I haven’t worked out how I feel about this but in thinking it through I came up with this (admittedly somewhat narrow-casted) thought experiment:
If an elementary school teacher is found to be a member of NAMBLA but there is ZERO evidence he’s committed any crime, should he be allowed to keep his job? If so, how do you justify that? If not, then if one of the Nazis in Charlottesville has a job where 90% of his coworkers are black or Jewish is his employer right to fire him?
Again, I’m still mulling this, but if I were black/Jewish/Muslim/other and discovered one of my coworkers was one of the áššhølëš in Virginia and my employer DIDN’T fire him I would feel incredibly betrayed and probably even unsafe at work.
False equivalence – stick to one argument.
The question is, is it right to dox people you don’t approve of? If that demonstrator in Charlottesville has kept his sympathies private to the point that none of his co-workers knows about it, why would it be right to inform anybody what he did on his own time?
Well, he’s demonstrating in public so he has no expectation of privacy. If a newspaper published a clear photo of one of the demonstrators in color on the front page is the newspaper doxxing that person?
Daniel T,
.
I don’t think you understand what doxxing is.
.
Celebrities and politicians have all been doxxed. It has nothing to do with what you talk about. Having your picture on the front page isn’t doxxing. Thousands of internet users posting your workplace name, your workplace phone number, your workplace address, your personal information up to and including phone numbers and home address, personal information, etc.
.
That’s doxxing.
Yes, Peter. In any sane world, people learn to live with those with different opinions, even disgusting opinions, and don’t pull crazy stunts like Internet sleuthing to get them fired.
But in any sane world, Trump and Bannon would not be in the White House. In any sane world, Nazis, Fascists, and White Nationalists wouldn’t be coming back in style (sorry, Bill Mulligan, but they are coming back in style, even if they’re as disgusting as NAMBLA, I tried to disbelieve it too, but they’re not fading away).
That is your problem, Peter. Trying to be sane when everybody is going insane. You ever watched Serpico? The scene with his girlfriend telling him that, if everyone has gone crazy, and you’re still sane, then maybe you’re the crazy one?
And it’s not only the US. My own country, Brazil, is also grappling with this madness. Not a few people here are agitating for the return of the right-wing military dictatorship that ruled us from 1964-1985.
We’re not idealistic like you Americans, we’re a more pragmatic people, so being a Nazi or belonging to any organization based on ethnic hatred is actually illegal here, and yeah, I’m very much okay with Brazilian law on this.
And no, this one exception to free speech hasn’t made us an Orwellian society either, advocates of American free speech always seem to assume that there are only two options: total free speech or Big Brother. But no, we can read all the novels and watch all the movies and discuss all the things Americans discuss.
On the other hand, outlawing Nazis didn’t stop folks here from embarking on this worldwide national-authoritarian madness. So…
Honestly, I don’t see any solution here, any light in the end of the tunnel. The world is just frigging crazy now.
PAD, under the circumstances I’m curious how you feel about Go Daddy refusing to host Daily Stormer any longer?
I have no issue with that. They are a private company and if they don’t want to provide a host site for a hate group, that makes perfect sense. Indeed, I think it was remarkably tolerant of them to provide a space for as long as they did, and it was only when the Stormer did an article trashing the poor murder victim that they said, “That’s it.” They showed amazing restraint. indeed, I have no question in my mind that Go Daddy would have likely faced pressure from people to dump them and were just anticipating public demand.
.
PAD
DS violeted Terms of Service.
.
That is, they violated the contract under which they were supplied a service.
.
GoDaddy stopped supplying that service.
.
If an antifa (ghod, what an ugly word) group likewise violated ToS – kick ’em off.
For the first time, I’m genuinely not looking forward to your weekly summary of the world of Trump. His comments make me physically ill. The knowledge that we have a leader that straight up supports Neo-Nazis… It’s stomach churning.
Wow that escalated. I don’t care about facts and Im like a Trump supporter? gee thanks Peter.
Let me be clear – I think protest, speech thought should be completely free and should not be subject to any legal regulation. That does not mean that I, or any private corporation, must respect all opinions or those that espouse them. Thats some topsy turvy thinking right there.
I don’t agree that “protestors with whom you disagree should be persecuted and punished”. We all disagree all the time(like now) – I don’t think you deserve any punishment!
But the stuff we are talking about here is an a special category – clearly hateful, racist speech which promotes the subjugation of other people. There should certainly be negative (social, not legal) consequences for espousing such views.
All our actions have consequences after all.
You are a funny guy Peter. You tell jokes all the time – no doubt some of them fall flat occasionally. I imagine your daughters let you know when this happens and they do so in the (probably vain) hope that it will help you moderate your future behaviour.
This happens to us all all the time and its the way we learn to moderate our social behaviour. Take it away and you are not simply “tolerating” these views you are passively allowing them to be promoted.
Hateful speech and actions are an extreme version of this and they require extreme disapproval, not bland “tolerance”. We cannot legitimise this stuff.
The nazis were a murderous hateful cult that were responsible for the genocide of millions of people. You obviously are well aware of this fact. So are those identifying with them. To be polite, this should reflect very poorly (to say the least) on those individuals.
I would not be comfortable working in a company that employed self confessed Nazis. I honestly don’t believe that this is a controversial opinion.
I understand that you are a writer and columnist who likes to engage with controversies, so the idea that if you were to get something “wrong” (by disagreeing with the arbitrary consensus of the moment) and then suffer extreme consequences must be a particularly scary thought.
But as I understand your work I feel pretty confident that you have a fundamental respect for people and a belief that we should be treated equally. As long as people don’t stray from those pretty fundamental principles I think they are safe. These nazi idiots are a long way gone from that.
Hugh,
.
First, on top of the system catching posts, including mine randomly over the years, it has a glitch with empty spaces. That’s why all your paragraphs run together.
.
That’s why everyone is using periods between paragraphs. Slightly awkward,but, like having to hold shift on Facebook, you get used to it.
.
Second, hate speech.
.
You might want to be careful how you declare and define and apply that. Go ahead, give the powers that be that power.
.
You’ll regret it.
.
The Southern Poverty Law Center released a statement about BLM in the wake of some recent comments. The clearly stated that BLM is not classified as a hate group.
.
I know Republicans and conservatives who disagree.
.
Pull that trigger. Give the people in charge of congress and the White House right now the ability to suppress the freedom of speech of BLM and to act on their speaking out anyhow.
.
Give the people in charge of congress and the White House right now the ability to suppress the freedom of speech of the people they keep calling hate groups or people uttering hate speech.
.
You’ll regret it fast.
Jerry, I think you’re misunderstanding Hugh’s point.
.
Just to clarify, I don’t agree with Hugh or with the doxing vigilantes, but I don’t think they’re after enacting laws or giving politicians the power to policy speech.
.
He’s talking about private individuals socially moderating each other. Think less 1984 and more the Scarlet Letter.
.
Because, the technology is new, but the tactics are old. SJWs are like the gossiping busybodies in Victorian villages that would tell everybody that “Mary has met strange gentlemen in inappropriate circunstances, she is not a good woman, and no one in this village has any business socializing or employing her, understood?”
.
This is what aggressive social moderation of each other’s behaviour is. It’s not about laws, since Mary may not have broken any laws. And it has been used a lot in history against “bad” women, against gays, against socialists, even when there were no laws against such people.
.
Ironically, it’s being used now by the defenders of women, gays, and socialists.
Well, here’s my two cents worth.
I’m a firm believer in Freedom of Speech, and up until very recently I would have sided with your views 100%. But I’ve been talking online recently with Marc Andreyko, who very firmly believes that hate speech and its offshoots…marching, chanting racist slogans, and in the VA case, doing so while armed….are essentially harassment, intimidation, and incitement, none of which are protected by FoS. And that therefore, while currently not illegal in this country, maybe probably should be, because of the harm they do and potentially could do. As an example, we currently make it illegal to drive after you’ve been drinking…not because you already HAVE run into and hurt someone, but because the likelihood is that you COULD or WILL. It’s a preventive measure based on past experience with drunk drivers. I’m not sure this is any different.
I’d also point out that in today’s society, where cameras are pretty much everywhere, that sooner or later, even if no one does doxx them, these protesters and their bigoted views will come to the attention of their employers anyway. And if the employer feels that having someone who has been PUBLICLY identified as a Nazi is bad for their business, they’re perfectly within their rights to fire them. For that matter, with Work At Will laws on the books, the employer doesn’t even have to admit that they were fired for being Nazis. They can make up any performance related issue they want and claim that’s the cause.
So I’m afraid that, admire and respect you and Kath as much as I do, I can’t really side with you on this one.
The employer has the right to fire them for attending an anti-abortion rally. Or a pro-choice rally. Or a Miley Cyrus concert. I find it problematic to support their right only when they are firing the people with which I disagree. (I recognize the feeling, I have it often, but I am still troubled by the urge.)
And having been in a situation of having a “discussion” with an armed individual, I agree with Mr. Andreyko that it goes beyond just speech. But again, until their actions go beyond speech, I have trouble saying they need to be shut down. (Again, understand the urge, just not happy.)
I think the disconnect here is in debating whether an employer can or should fire someone for actions outside of work- which, frankly, is questionable -versus one of what we were seeing with sites like Twitter or dedicated websites.
.
People are going over photographs, isolating individuals, posting their pictures, asking for help identifying, occasionally getting the IDs wrong,doxxing them, and flooding their employers with messages.
.
These people apparently have jobs where they do their jobs without letting their personal beliefs get in the way of their work. Presumably, no one they work with knows what they think or feel about these matters.
.
So they’re being fired for actions outside of work and, in some cases, in entirely different states than their job because people are scouring the internet to identify as many of them as they can with the intent to punish and penalize them.
.
People like to throw around the term “just like the Nazis” in a lot of discussions where it’s not truly applicable. Well, this is just like the Nazis. During the rise of Nazi Germany, this was encouraged. Watch your neighbors, Watch the people in your community. If they’re doing or saying things that they shouldn’t, that “society” and/or the state deemed inappropriate, report them to their employers and the authorities so that they can be properly dealt with. If you don’t know who they are? Get help. Identify them. Then report them so they can be dealt with.
.
And even if you want to rationalize this kind of action here, you want to say it’s different, realize that it won’t stop here.
.
The people in our society who are seemingly enjoying this newfound power the most are the same crusaders and zealots who tend to eat their own the moment they step out of line and disagree with them over the cause. The people I’m seeing all over the web who are the biggest proponents of this are the types of people who like to police thought and declare that anyone who doesn’t agree with their views of social justice and what’s right or wrong in society is in the wrong and, basically, a Nazi.
.
I don’t like the method. I don’t like the idea that speech is being targeted for punishment. The violent actors? Fûçk ’em. The ones that just ran their mouths? No.
Jerry –
.
And don’t forget that, in their urge to call everyone who disagrees with them a racist, the SJWs accidentaly help the real racists and Nazis out there, by making it seem like racists are a majority. There are many reasons why racists are emboldened right now, so I wouldn’t say that this is the biggest, but it’s one of the reasons, surely.
.
When you convince folks that everyone who isn’t on board with your movement is a Nazi or a friend of the Nazis, you end up normalizing the real Nazis.
Honestly, I think that if you fire someone for the reasons you just gave, you’re opening yourself to a wrongful termination suit. Could be wrong, but that’s my instinct.
.
PAD
“Harassment, intimidation and incitement.” Funny. I’ve heard those charges leveled at BLM. And feminists…I’m sorry, femiNazis. And left wing radicals. And protesting gays. And Jews…actually heard a lot worse about Jews.
.
Don’t you get it? We have a chief executive who doesn’t distinguish between Nazis, White supremacists and liberals. The moment we shut down Nazi áššhølëš, the moment we deprive them of free speech, then we are kicking wide the door for people in power to shut down others with whom you agree. And you can’t stand there and complain “That’s not right!” Because YOU are the one who lay the groundwork for censorship.
.
PAD
My problem with the doxxing is that what goes around, comes around. I attend gay Pride parades — and beyond that, kink events — and I don’t want people opposed to these things taking pics of attendees and asking the employers of me and my friends to have us fired.
This isn’t something that stopped in the 1970s. Ten years ago, our country-western dance club had a Pride parade contingent — you don’t get much less controversial than that. One of our members worked with teens at the Catholic diocese; in the parade, he only engaged with adults, and in fact with the dancing, he only danced with women. But apparently someone from his job was at the parade, saw him, turned him in, and he lost his job. (Never mind the question to his accuser of “And why were *you* at the Pride parade?”)
Exactly.
.
That is my problem with a lot of the tactics of modern-day left-wing social crusaders. They’re essentially the very same tactics right-wing social crusaders have used for centuries.
.
The wisdom of trying to be tolerant, kind, and open yourself has been replaced by policing and denouncing your peers and neighbours to see if they stray from being tolerant, kind, and open.
.
Liberal ideas that are pretty great as a body of personal ethics run the risk of mutating into a repressive “church” that punishes heretics and infidels.
As I wrote before “…but if I were black/Jewish/Muslim/other and discovered one of my coworkers was one of the áššhølëš in Virginia and my employer DIDN’T fire him I would feel incredibly betrayed and probably even unsafe at work.”
I haven’t seen any comment that really addresses this so I’ve decided fûçk these guys. They demonstrated in public and gave up their expectation of privacy. Every newspaper in the country could publish every photo ever taken in Charlottesville. If they want to announce their inclinations to the world then they should be prepared to face the consequences. Dox ’em all!
I think you’ve expanded “expectation of privacy” far beyond anything reasonable. Obviously they had no right to expect to not be photographed. That’s a far cry from being doxxed – possibly in error. That’s happened at least twice from this single weekend thanks to amateur internet vigilantes.
In the past, and still now, LGBTQ+ people have been outed and fired after participating in Pride events. Most agree that that’s a horrid thing to do. Thanks, but I’m not willing to allow that an internet mob has the right to decide when an activity is ‘okay’ or not.
Speaking of not having something really addressed, I keep asking why anything an employee does on their own time is any business of the employer – however vile – if up to that point the employer had no clue as to those activities. The way I see it, you’d have no reason to supposedly feel unsafe more after finding out that they were white supremacists than before. But after you fired them and made them even more angry – yeah, then you might have reason to feel unsafe after their resentment festered for a while.
Jan: “I keep asking why anything an employee does on their own time is any business of the employer – however vile – if up to that point the employer had no clue as to those activities.”
.
Because it would be wrong for an employer to turn a blind eye to something they now are aware could be a problem just because previously they were ignorant of it.
.
I agree that what a person does on their own time is none of their employer’s business.
I’d make an exception if, like with the FBI for example, a) what an employee does outside work is of legitimate interest to the employer and b) that checking up was an understood condition of employment. But outside of that I’d object to any employer who went snooping around in their employee’s lives.
.
But…
.
The fact is sometimes employers, through no direct action of their own, happen to become aware of things employees do in their outside lives. Like see a news story featuring an employee.
.
In that case, I could see where an employer does have a legitimate reason to be concerned and feel unsafe. Extreme example to show the point: Someone running a daycare finds out one of their employees spent their Saturday joining in a march supporting NAMBLA.
.
It would be a dereliction if that employer didn’t start being concerned about that employee. The employer’s previous ignorance doesn’t mean they ignore what they now know could be a bad situation. Either because of the harm they could do to customers, or just the damage to the business if customers started finding out about the employee.
.
And I guess that’s where I see a distinction. Snooping into your employee’s private lives is objectionable. Firing someone for their political views is wrong. But if the employer happens to find out that the person presents a potential risk to customers or the business, getting rid of them is OK.
.
Jan: But after you fired them and made them even more angry – yeah, then you might have reason to feel unsafe after their resentment festered for a while.”
.
That’s akin to the reason battered women stay with their abusers. “I would have left (fired him) but I was afraid of what he’d do to me if I did. So I stayed in the harmful relationship.”
I keep getting that same example tossed at me: a teacher or daycare worker is a pedophile or supports NAMBLA.
.
Here’s the thing: Such people typically sign a morals clause when they begin their employ. If you support sex with children, that is a clear violation of the terms to which you agreed. So of course you should be fired.
.
So that’s the end of THAT discussion.
.
PAD
Just to be 100% clear, Mr. David, let me ask this way: if a school teacher was an at will employee and his NAMBLA membership card was posted on Twitter, should this teacher–who has never broken the law or done anything inappropriate with a student– keep his job?
There is no way to answer that question. If I say no, then immediately there’s a story on Bleeding Cool that announces, “Peter David doesn’t care about endangering children.” If I say yes, then it becomes, “Peter David is a hypocrite. He is indeed willing to draw lines. He is saying NAMBLA members are worse than Nazis.” It is a lose/lose question and I’m not going to give anyone fresh ammunition, sorry.
.
PAD
Sorry, but people get fired all the time for things they do on their own time. Smoking marijuana, hëll, smoking regular cigarettes at some places. It depends on your work contract.
Well, it’s all well and good to be showing such sympathy for the neo-Nazis and Klan wannabes who are being fired for their bigotry, but let me ask this: Remember Gamergate? Remember how a bunch of obnoxious sitting-at-their-computers trolls decided that a woman’s right to espouse a completely sensible idea that more women and girls should get to play online video games without worrying their characters should be sex slaves for their male co-players merited being doxxed and forcing her to quit her online presence for months because she quite literally could NOT keep up with the hate she was getting. Her home address and phone number were published on numerous gaming sites with some really sleazy sick sexually explicit comments about what should be done with (and to) her.
But we should feel sorry for some “poor schlub” who was “just” protesting and lost their job over it.
Well, here’s another idea. Fûçk ’em. They felt strongly enough about showing their support for white supremacy over the rights of Jews and Blacks and Latinos and pretty much everyone NOT a “straight white heterosexual” so they should have no problem when their employers feel AS strongly that they’d rather not have an employee who can travel hundreds of miles away to show how much they hate people based on race, religion or anything else.
I’m sorry. If I were one of these fascists’ co-workers (especially if I were Black or Jewish) and saw one of them on TV chanting “White Power,” I certainly do NOT think I could stand being in the same room with them at work.
And, this is kind of ironic in a way. I seem to recall Marvel terminating the contract of an artist who’d “inserted” anti-Christian and anti-Semitic messages in a comic book. I don’t recall your commenting on THAT controversy on this site. Instead of firing Ardian Syaf, shouldn’t Marvel have “sit him down and say, “Why do you feel this way? Have you ever considered maybe you’re wrong?” Engage in conversation that might change his mind (as unlikely as that may seem),” instead of cancelling his contract? I know you don’t have a ton of say-so with Marvel but it does seem odd that you didn’t weigh in on THAT issue on this site, given your beliefs vis-à-vis neo-Nazis and Klan wannabes. I went back and checked the archives. You were busy in April resolving your tax problems and engaging in the weekly doses of Trump-bashing–which I applaud, by the way.
Joseph –
.
Don’t confuse being appalled that doxxing tactics are being used (and in some cases targeting people like Kyle Quinn, that were misidentified) with “sympathy” for Neo-Nazis losing their jobs. Neo-Nazis are total scum, and I doubt anyone posting here has sympathy for these freaks. Rather, people are worried about unwanted consequences (like these Nazi losers becoming even more energized) and disappointed that our own side, the good side, is using these tactics.
.
As for Gamergate, don’t you think that the fact that these very same tactics were used against Anita Sarkeesian is reason enough for shunning this kind of mob justice?
.
By the way, I fear and hate Nazis more than I can put into words. I think they must be fought and opposed at every turn. I just don’t think that any and all tactics are okay in this fight, particularly tactics that right-winger crusaders have employed in the past.
So you’re holding up the fact that Gamergate idiots did the EXACT same thing that liberals are doing now, and you don’t see the issue with that? Shouldn’t we be endeavoring to follow a better path than those we despise, rather than utilizing the exact same tactics?. Anyone with a knowledge of history is aware that the concept of ratting out your neighbor goes back to Nazi Germany…hëll, to the Salem Witch trials…and should be wary of emulating that strategy if for no other reason than that it is always, ALWAYS used for personal gain. In this day and age, how difficult would it be for someone to–for instance–photoshop someone they don’t like into the Nazi side and get him doxxed. Sure, cooler heads may discern the fakery, but poor Kyle Quinn is STILL being harassed even though his story made national news.
.
As for the artist who was fired from Marvel…of COURSE he was. He allowed his beliefs to interfere with his work. And if that guy who worked for the hot dog vendor was caught painting swastikas on the men’s room wall of his restaurant, by all means, fire his ášš. But his boss had NO idea he was someone who felt the way he did.
.
I’m pleased you approve of my Trump bashing. And if the far right targeted me for it and tried to get a groundswell of support to pressure Marvel into firing me for disrespecting the President, and they succeeded, how would you feel about that?
.
PAD
You’re lucky Marvel hasn’t fired you already, considered the sub-basement-level sales of everything you’ve written in the last few years.
I’ve often thought the same thing. Fortunately Marvel seems to value me far more highly than either of us does.
.
PAD
And JosephW goes the full Fox & Friends path of when not having something intelligent to say declare that people are “sympathizing” with bad people.
.
Nope.
.
Standing firm on the belief of freedom of speech and freedom of expression is not showing sympathy for any specific group. It’s standing firm on the belief of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the James Damore situation at Google? It’s a slightly different one since he actually published his paper at work.
It wasn’t “slightly” different. It was completely different. When you do stuff at work among other employees, not to mention violate your terms of service contract, you’re out.
.
PAD
You know, it is a sign of the craziness of the Trump years that seeing the Bushes (and James Murdoch, I just saw) proclaiming they are steadfastly against Nazi-Fascism seems brave and statesman-like, when it should have been the minimum required of any sane public figure and politician.
.
I’m no fan of George W. Bush, I think he and his pack of lying neo-cons were horrible for the USA and the world, and they paved the road for Trump in so many ways, but I can’t deny how intelligent, sensible, humane, and PRESIDENTIAL George W. Bush seems as compared to Donald Trump.
.
And I thought I’d never use those words to describe Dubya. Incredible.
Welcome to what Robert Heinlein correctly foresaw – almost 80 years ago, mind you – as The Crazy Years. First reading about them 50-odd years ago was an interesting exercise in improbable ‘what-if’. Actually living them is just depressing/frightening.
It’s a bit spooky, yes. Particularly in how Nehemiah Scudder re-creates the Ku Klux Klan and the parallels with Trump and the alt-right.
.
But Heinlein got one thing very wrong. He was a Libertarian, so he believed in the unrestricted free market as a bulwark against tyranny.
.
But events seem to prove that the left was correct instead: the unrestrticted free market as a corrosive agent that removed the bullwarks against tyranny.
I respect PAD’s position because I also know he doesn’t support gay people losing their jobs because of their sexuality or women losing their jobs because they got pregnant. It’s the right wingers who suddenly support worker rights when it comes to Nazis that irk me in their selective outrage.
Anyway, as someone who has worked in management and dealt with HR, the reality is that publicly being a Nazi is not sustainable in the workplace. It’s not a matter of persecuting someone for their beliefs but the reality that their presence now creates a hostile work environment. A Jewish woman can reasonably argue that working at the cubicle across from a known white supremacist is not conducive to productivity.
And if the Nazi manages anyone, it’s game over. Lionel Hutz could win an employment discrimination case against ant POC he fired or passed over for promotion. Even if the Nazi is able to separate the personal from the professional, try and find a jury that would buy it.
The risk to a company is too great. If I’m a small business owner running a hot dog restaurant, should I really take a “wait and see” attitude on the Nazi? If he does insult a minority customer or worst case scenario turns violent, I’ll be sued into oblivion because there’s documentation that I knew of the potential risk. My kids who I’ll have to pull out of college or my mother who is dependent on me paying for her asisted living will likely not applaud my principled stand for freedom of expression against all good sense.
It really comes from both ends: In a world with NO worker rights, then an employer can just fire a Nazi because he’s bad publicity and there’s no upside. Can he do fhe job? Who cares. He’s not De Niro. A non-Nazi can collate those copies. And in a world WITH worker rights, there are more laws and policies defending people terrified of Nazis than there are defending the rights of people to be Nazis.