Separating Art From Artist
-
I really don't see what the Forstater case has to do with freedom of speech.
If she works at a thinktank, being evaluated on how she thinks is pretty important.
If that thinktank's mission statement is ending inequality on a global scale, having thinkers who actually understand inequality and support marginalised people is, again, pretty important.
Maya Forstater wasn't prosecuted for misgendering transpeople. She sued the company she worked for because they just didn't want to renew her contract after she'd repeatedly insisted on her right to misgender people, including via work emails, and she lost that case.
This is a freedom to be an arsehole issue.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is a freedom to be an arsehole issue.
In the United States, this is a freedom of speech issue.
I am aware of the UK law at issue, and I think the court came down on the correct side (because I think it rejected Forstater's claim). It's not even an interesting argument: Forstater was a jackass, acted like a jackass for a long time, and got kicked for being a jackass. She just had a jackass for an attorney -- there are a lot of them -- who kicked up a hornet's nest because she has money.
But in the United States, your freedom to be an asshole sort of fits under freedom of speech: to-wit, the Westboro Baptist Church.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is a freedom to be an arsehole issue.
In the United States, this is a freedom of speech issue.
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
Hmm. I like our laws better.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
Hmm. I like our laws better.
The 2010 Equality Act does provide you with a defense to talk about all kinds of horrible things at the work-place as long as they don't infringe on anyone elses fundemental rights. It's easier in general for religious people because saying you'll burn in hell for doing X or Y doesn't affect anyones rights.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
You sure can. You may even become partner or obtain tenure doing it.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
You sure can. You may even become partner or obtain tenure doing it.
what the fuck
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
This is sort of a benefit to at-will employment. Because in an at-will state, an employer could absolutely fire you for -phobic rants.
People often worry about 'but what if I get fired for being LGBT and my boss is religious' and at-will does not apply where it'd be illegal (you can't be fired for your religion, sexuality, race, etc.). I mean, the argument can (and has) been made that a person could be fired for that reason but the on-paper is something else ('did not meet expectations'), but that happens in non-at-will states, too. And usually the business/person ends up in a lot of trouble for it.
But in an at-will state, if you are being disruptive (which saying shitty things to people is), you can be let go. I had a coworker at a job fired for constantly ranting about political (I use political loosely... he was kind of a fringe nutjob who would go into conspiracy theory 'the government is out to get us' stuff) shit and disrupting the work environment.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
-
@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
So in the US, you can say whatever you want around your colleagues, behave unprofessionally, prove yourself unsuitable for the job you were hired for and not get fired?
This is sort of a benefit to at-will employment. Because in an at-will state, an employer could absolutely fire you for -phobic rants.
People often worry about 'but what if I get fired for being LGBT and my boss is religious' and at-will does not apply where it'd be illegal (you can't be fired for your religion, sexuality, race, etc.). I mean, the argument can (and has) been made that a person could be fired for that reason but the on-paper is something else ('did not meet expectations'), but that happens in non-at-will states, too. And usually the business/person ends up in a lot of trouble for it.
But in an at-will state, if you are being disruptive (which saying shitty things to people is), you can be let go. I had a coworker at a job fired for constantly ranting about political (I use political loosely... he was kind of a fringe nutjob who would go into conspiracy theory 'the government is out to get us' stuff) shit and disrupting the work environment.
From a quick glance at that wiki article, I don't support that at all.
But in the UK we have laws against discrimination at the workplace, which also covers things like verbal harassment, workplace bullying, hate speech, etc. (Note: I am not a lawyer so may be misusing terms, but these are the basics as I understand them and my employee rights.)
You still need to give a valid reason for firing someone. Going on a racist tirade is just allowed to be one of them.
This is 100% not a danger to me. This is a benefit to me. I shouldn't have to put up with horrible, unprofessional, bigoted treatment at work. If it occurs I can go to HR.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
From a quick glance at that wiki article, I don't support that at all.
But in the UK we have laws against discrimination at the workplace, which also covers things like verbal harassment, workplace bullying, hate speech, etc. (Note: I am not a lawyer so may be misusing terms, but these are the basics as I understand them and my employee rights.)
You still need to give a valid reason for firing someone. Going on a racist tirade is just allowed to be one of them.
This is 100% not a danger to me. This is a benefit to me. I shouldn't have to put up with horrible, unprofessional, bigoted treatment at work. If it occurs I can go to HR.
In America, we have been fighting bitterly for more than a hundred years against ever introducing any legislation that includes the words "all people are equal under the law."
-
@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is sort of a benefit to at-will employment. Because in an at-will state, an employer could absolutely fire you for -phobic rants.
People often worry about 'but what if I get fired for being LGBT and my boss is religious' and at-will does not apply where it'd be illegal (you can't be fired for your religion, sexuality, race, etc.).
You absolutely can be, in a number of states. I think that one is actually before the Supreme Court presently (and given the makeup doesn't look good)?
I brought this double-edged at-will employment sword up already. I think most of us agree that people being fired for being raging asshats isn't bad, but the idea that at-will employment is good is a far stretch, and historically I daresay it's been used largely for oppressive reasons/outcomes. So its weird to see people treating it positively, even if they like some person getting fired for something they said on twitter in a very specific case, it's hardly a pro-labor concept.
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is sort of a benefit to at-will employment. Because in an at-will state, an employer could absolutely fire you for -phobic rants.
People often worry about 'but what if I get fired for being LGBT and my boss is religious' and at-will does not apply where it'd be illegal (you can't be fired for your religion, sexuality, race, etc.).
You absolutely can be, in a number of states. I think that one is actually before the Supreme Court presently (and given the makeup doesn't look good)?
I brought this double-edged at-will employment sword up already. I think most of us agree that people being fired for being raging asshats isn't bad, but the idea that at-will employment is good is a far stretch, and historically I daresay it's been used largely for oppressive reasons/outcomes. So its weird to see people treating it positively, even if they like some person getting fired for something they said on twitter in a very specific case, it's hardly a pro-labor concept.
Literally no one is treating at-will employment as a good thing.
In the UK you can get fired for a very specific list of things that include racial harassment/discrimination at the workplace. This is not the same as firing people for any reason you like with no explanation given.
-
@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:
sexuality,
Only in like two circuits, where sexual orientation is regarded as an inherent characteristic of sex. Otherwise you sure the fuck can be fired for being whatever.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Literally no one is treating at-will employment as a good thing.
I mean, @Auspice called it a 'sort of benefit.' You seem to be arguing that you don't support it, but only because you're in the UK. In the US, the only way people are getting fired for tweets (which you 100% support) is via at-will employment laws or (equally shady and anti-labor) 'morality clauses' in contracts. You can't separate the two things. If you want people to be able fired for (edit: relatively trivial - yes people can be fired for crimes and such) things that have literally nothing to do with their job, you're in favor of anti-labor employment laws. Consequences, as you like to say!
Which circles back to where I started. It's not that I want people to be immune to consequence. It's that I want consequences to adhere to reasonably just standards, and not mob whim. I want free speech protected while I would also like the law to catch up to the internet age of harassment, bullying, and doxing, and do more to punish those things. You presumably want most of the same (because you don't want women getting death and rape threats for speaking), but it seems to me you're just not willing to concede that it might limit you in even the slightest way in the process.
You want to fight the troll war, because it's cathartic to bully the badguys. Unfortunately, in the US, the winner of the troll wars proved to be Trump.
-
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Literally no one is treating at-will employment as a good thing.
You seem to be arguing that you don't support it, but only because you're in the UK. In the US, the only way people are getting fired for tweets (which you 100% support) is via at-will employment laws or (equally shady and anti-labor) 'morality clauses' in contracts. You can't separate the two things. If you want people to be able fired for (edit: relatively trivial - yes people can be fired for crimes and such) things that have literally nothing to do with their job, you're in favor of anti-labor employment laws. Consequences, as you like to say!
This is a false dichotomy.
You want to fight the troll war, because it's cathartic to bully the badguys.
This is a strawman.
Intellectual honesty is a baseline for civil discourse, otherwise I'm not interested.
-
@Ganymede I'm no kind of lawyer, and you are. But is it really the case that an employer is required to renew a contract (not terminate an existing one) if they don't care to? That sounds... exactly the opposite of how every contract job I've ever heard of has gone.
And a company can have a legitimate reason to fire someone for their personal conduct. Who remembers Jared?
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is a false dichotomy.
And that was kind of a weak pivot, given that you didn't actually refute the claim. He's not wrong -- various forms of ideology are protected classes under united states law, and therefore it is illegal to retaliate against someone in the workplace for simply adhering to one you don't agree with. You cannot use this as a basis to fire them. You have to either rely on at-will employment standards, wherein you don't have to provide a reason, or find some other (pretextual) reason for engaging in the action, at which point you are simply using some aspect of their job to take action against them for something unrelated to the performance of the actual job. It's not a false dichotomy, it's an actual dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive options. You either refrain from firing them for something under the auspices of a protected class, or you find some reason to take an action against them in another way since you are barred from doing so under the protected class. Suggesting that you are in favor of taking action against someone for a legally protected status leads, by necessity, to the idea that you are attempting to circumvent the very laws which protect them in the first place. Q.E.D.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
Except no, because I live in the UK, where we do not have at-will employment laws and I have illustrated it's entirely possible for a better system to exist. So yes, this is a false dichotomy, and saying that I'm in favour of at-will employment laws when I've explicitly said I'm not is, also, another strawman.
I also detailed my reasons for wanting to oppose bigoted behaviour which are about protecting marginalised people, not bullying. I even had the courtesy to include causes I care about in those examples, veganism and environmentalism, acknowledging that it would be perfectly fair for people in certain circumstances to not want to hire someone whose views may indicate that the person could likely be a threat to their business. It would make no sense for battery farm to hire someone who's a known supporter of animal liberation, and it would make no sense for any office to hire a blatant misogynist when half their staff are women.
Every example I've given also has everything to do with a person's suitability for their job so to also say that I want people fired for things that have nothing to do with their job is, again, disingenuous.
-
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Except no, because I live in the UK, where we do not have at-will employment laws and I have illustrated it's entirely possible for a better system to exist. So yes, this is a false dichotomy, and saying that I'm in favour of at-will employment laws when I've explicitly said I'm not is, also, another strawman.
We aren't talking about the UK. We're talking about the United States. So what you're actually attempting to do is argue the counterfactual by imposing a set of standards outside of the stated parameters. In the context of 'what options are actually available to citizens of the United States within the laws available to them', which was the actual example given, there is no false dichotomy, and pointing out that your support of one outcome under the given premises necessitates your making a certain set of choices is hardly a strawman.
Do you see why your response is problematic in this context? Someone said 'these are our currently available choices' and you attempted to impose others into a system where they are not available, and then proceeded to try and deflect from that by trying to call out their arguments as fallacious and intellectually dishonest when, in fact, you were the one that was engaging in the traditionally intellectually disallowed behavior.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
We aren't talking about the UK. We're talking about the United States. [You're] imposing a set of standards outside of the stated parameters.
You're talking about the United States.
Nowhere did I sign up for these parameters.
A comparison was made between UK and US laws. I stated I like UK laws better. It's quite a leap to go from that to, 'Oh, so you support this set of completely different US laws on another extreme?'
I know it's hypocritical for a Brit to say, but quit colonising my thread.
-
127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.Yeah I could see where this crap could get way outta hand.
Imprisoning Nazi pugs.
