There is no freedom of speech if there is a consequence. Being outcasted by society for expressing your opinion, religion, belief..etc is a form of punishment. Not all forms of punishments are jail time or torture by the gov.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Fires Newly Hired Ex-Facebook Product Manager Following Revelations of Past Misogynistic Comments
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is no freedom of speech if there is a consequence. Being outcasted by society for expressing your opinion, religion, belief..etc is a form of punishment. Not all forms of punishments are jail time or torture by the gov.
So according to your interpretation, freedom of religion does not mean free from consequences! The government may not jail Muslims, but surely Apple can sack every Muslim employee! But patriotic Americans know that "private" religious discrimination is as repugnant to the founding principles of this nation as government discrimination.
Freedom of speech does not apply to private enterprise.
Freedom of Speech means the government cannot exercise prior restraint. People are free to speak, and private citizens are free to decide not to associate with those whose opinions they find distasteful. At the same time, they are not forcing you to not speak, that is, and remains, and individuals choice.
What's next? The right to bear arms means no consequences if you shoot someone?
And now an appeal to extremes. There are laws against religious discrimination; although is some cases it is permitted.
Real patriots can make the distinction between religious discrimination and choosing not to hire someone or fire them for making public statements that cause problems at work.
It is precisely because American voters recognized that private institutions are no less powerful than the government, that discrimination in "public accommodations" no less deprives individuals of meaningful participation in our society as discrimination in government facilities, that they outlawed religious discrimination. Our unique principle of religious freedom protects the same interests and values as those of expressive freedom: no person should be punished for professing a faith different than our own, or expressing a view harsh to our ears.
We have become a culture of witch-burners, that’s for sure.
Brilliant. Using something that was a profound anti woman atrocity in history, as an insult to people arguing against people seemingly agreeing with someone’s anti woman writings.
Simply cannot make this stuff up.
Bay Area women is a huge generalisation. It might as well be ‘all women’ for how generalised it is. Can you imagine someone saying ‘all Bay Area men’?
There are about 3.5m men and 3.5m women in the Bay Area. There are many countries that have smaller populations.
2 things.
This has nothing to do with the crowding out effect which relates to government entering markets.
What you consider to be a small minority, might well be in % terms but far far more current employees expressed deep concern about his hiring. I hear something like 2000. Small compared to Apple overall, but why upset 2000 people, many long term employees, just to keep some guy who just started?
People just need to learn to just never speak about anything to anyone other than the weather - small talk. Only discuss politics, religion, financial, or anything that can be seen to be somewhat "touchy" to only family and friends - outside of the internet.
This is a real shame, as I personally think we need MORE communication, not less. But it seems the rest of society does not like this thinking.
I was raised to never discuss politics, religion, finances and anything like that unless you are with very close friends or family. This certainly causes a division as we cannot feel like we can openly discuss things and potentially make things better. But it seems we must all get back to doing this. Social media needs to go away, its doing quite a bit of harm in many ways. I am no longer on Facebook or Twitter or anything once things changed a few years ago. When I was in college, when Facebook was really starting to pick up, it was not this crazy. We just talked about what we had for dinner and stuff. Things have certainly changed for the worse lately, and this is why I no longer log in to the site.
This is a real shame, as I personally think we need MORE communication, not less. But it seems the rest of society does not like this thinking.
I was raised to never discuss politics, religion, finances and anything like that unless you are with very close friends or family. This certainly causes a division as we cannot feel like we can openly discuss things and potentially make things better. But it seems we must all get back to doing this. Social media needs to go away, its doing quite a bit of harm in many ways. I am no longer on Facebook or Twitter or anything once things changed a few years ago. When I was in college, when Facebook was really starting to pick up, it was not this crazy. We just talked about what we had for dinner and stuff. Things have certainly changed for the worse lately, and this is why I no longer log in to the site.
Then it should be called "The Choice to Speak" because you are not free to do so as there is consequences, but you can choose to do so and take responsibility for the consequences.
If you are not going to shoot someone, why are you bearing arms in the first place?
Then, why upset the majority to pass laws for LGBTX and marriage between non-standard pairs?
Because, human rights. The LGBTX people have it, he has it too.
Expect when you speak you are not offering a public accommodation or service; and thus there is a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.
He has not had his freedom of speech imperiled, he is still free to say what he wants, when he wants, how he wants.
The government has not exercised prior restraint. Apple made a business decision based on what his presence would do to their work environment, and decided he was not worth the cost.
What I don't understand is why you and others are arguing that a person should bear no personal responsibility for their speech and that their should be not consequences for saying something that results in others not wanting to be around him or have him part of their group.
that essentially is what it is - you have the right to choose to speak or not; not the right for not having any consequences.
My point was the first no more waives consequences for actions than the second; or any other for that matter.
.
I disagree with the claim that someone suffering consequences in this case is a human rights violation on par with denying LGBTX people the same rights afforded others. The government has not said he is forbidden to speak, arrested him for what he said, denied him services or protection afforded others, etc. He is free to continue writing and expressing his viewpoint, and others are free to not associate with him should they chose.
I am not a fan of having something someone did or said years ago being used against them now; although in his case it was more recent and indicative of his views, which would cause issues in the workplace. However, being held responsible for your actions is not a bad thing.
Generalisations about any diverse group can per definition never be true.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
I don't think people should be opening up a new front in the Great Culture War over this. Bear in mind no one has a right to a job with Apple. Nor do we have immunity from the consequences of how we use the liberty given* to us. I've written elsewhere that reputation is everything and that a business that makes an executive hiring decision, and subsequently finds that decision may affect reputation, typically beheads that hire and moves on.
The calculations are pretty brutal - I think I'm safe to assert Apple calculates no net loss in sales (or other negative impacts) over this sacking. Personally, I'd prefer to talk to people who have views I disagree with but that's no the world with live in right now.
* And yes, it is given to us and can be taken away (and if it couldn't be taken away from us, why all the guns on the other side of the pond?).
The calculations are pretty brutal - I think I'm safe to assert Apple calculates no net loss in sales (or other negative impacts) over this sacking. Personally, I'd prefer to talk to people who have views I disagree with but that's no the world with live in right now.
* And yes, it is given to us and can be taken away (and if it couldn't be taken away from us, why all the guns on the other side of the pond?).
Internaut
macrumors 65816
Yes they can?
"Men are on average taller than women" isn't invalidated by the fact that you know a very short man or a very tall woman.
Then what about diversity and inclusion for him and his views?
We are not allowed to not hire or not rent or not sell things to LGBTX.
Not just a government policy saying the government cannot stop you from being LGBTX, and other people are allowed to “not associate with” you being LGBTX.
Reading between the lines here, you’re upset about non-straight marriage.
Haven’t you got something more important to worry about than how other people live their lives?
Needless to say, what people do in their private lives is different to someone publishing disparaging views of many of their new colleagues. It’s no surprise they didn’t want him there.
