USA Politics

Absolutely, but I think that can be a problem too. While representing said company obviously a certain standard of, for example, behaviour is expected. But companies variously (sometimes through professional association, not just employment) try to extent this power to controlling behaviour (particularly what you say) beyond the workplace i.e. when "off-duty". Or even beyond this, simply by association e.g. your FB page says who you work for; suddenly everything you say falls under their radar. It's increasingly happening. Sorry if this is off-topic...
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Obsolutely, but I think that can be a problem too. While representing said company obviously a certain standard of, for example, behaviour is expected. But companies variously (sometimes through professional association, not just employment) try to extent this power to controlling behaviour (particularly what you say) beyond the workplace i.e. when "off-duty". Or even beyond this, simply by association e.g. your FB page says who you work for; suddenly everything you say falls under their radar. It's increasingly happening. Sorry if this is off-topic...
Click to expand...
It's happened here, too. I think I'm okay with it most of the time - for example, one of the notable incidents here was when a female reporter got FHRITP'd by a man. The internet quickly identified the man as a Hydro One employee (the Ontario provincial power company). He was fired pretty damn quickly, because Hydro One doesn't want to be associated with people who yell vulgar things at women on live tv. I'm not OK with it if the company is crawling everyone's twitter feed and stuff for little things. Then again, public-facing social media doesn't have an expectation of privacy.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Interesting discussion, although I have no real feel for how this is actually playing out in the US.

There are "occupational restrictions" on free speech in most employment, is there not?
Click to expand...

There’s more resistance toward what’s seen as legislation having chilling effects on free speech in the US when compared to the UK and Commonwealth nations. Our first amendment supposedly guarantees unrrestricted free speech but supreme court cases have said otherwise in certain instances.

Employers can have HR policies, sure, but they aren’t codified into law and the penalties typically involve dismissal vs any criminal charge. Civil lawsuits could also result.

Due to article 88 of the UCMJ, the military is one place in the US where merely stating a political opinion or saying the wrong thing towards the wrong person can carry a penalty more severe than a mere firing.

https://www.bileckilawgroup.com/cou...he-ucmj/article-88-contempt-toward-officials/
 
Last edited:
Saphrax said:
There’s more resistance toward what’s seen as legislation having chilling effects on free speech in the US when comparef to the UK and Commonwealth nations. Our first amendment supposedly guarantees unrrestricted free speech but supreme court cases have said otherwise in certain instances.
Click to expand...
Over time, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been subject to extremely cautious restrictions. This isn't abnormal; rights have to be balanced cautiously against other people's rights.

Saphrax said:
Due to article 88 of the UCMJ, the military is one place in the US where merely stating a political opinion or saying the wrong thing towards the wrong person can carry a penalty more severe than a mere firing.

https://www.bileckilawgroup.com/cou...he-ucmj/article-88-contempt-toward-officials/
Click to expand...
This interpretation was required due to the fact that the employer is the United States Federal Government, which is specifically restricted by the 1st Amendment.
 
LooseCannon said:
Over time, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been subject to extremely cautious restrictions. This isn't abnormal; rights have to be balanced cautiously against other people's rights..
Click to expand...

Exactly, plus, the U.S’s founders couldn’t have foreseen the advent of, for example, broadcast media and need for an FCC to regulate and fine for use on public airspace of what George Carlin called “the 7 dirty words.”
 
Saphrax said:
Exactly, plus, the U.S’s founders couldn’t have foreseen the advent of, for example, broadcast media and need for an FCC to regulate and fine for use on public airspace of what George Carlin called “the 7 dirty words.”
Click to expand...
I still can’t see the need for this.
 
Saphrax said:
I think the case of Justine Sacco’s firing for a bad twitter joke (sent only to a handful of followers on her persinal account initially) is a good example of this. Jon Ronson’s book “So you’ve been publicly shamed” covers this topic pretty well.

Also, doxxing and trying to get a person fired for things posted online is a tactic keyboard warriors of all types seem to employ.
Click to expand...
If you're a public figure and you make statements in public, that's really unfortunate. I'd be extremely careful if I was in that position. Hell, I'm not in that position, and I am extremely careful. Doxxing is defined differently in different political spectrums. Sharing a picture from a public profile or image (IE, the FHRITP people) and seeing if someone knows who it is? That's not really doxxing. Sharing someone's life info, including home address and workplace, with a group of people known to be violent to those who disagree - that's certainly attempting to incite harm.
 
Jer said:
Censorship on broadcast media.
Click to expand...

Well apart from the public/state channels that obviously need to follow decency guidelines, I don't see room for censorship. If you don't like what you hear don't tune in.
Besides, they're going to censor swearwords and pretend like nothing indecent or amoral (compared to their arbitrary standard) exists, and then play some pop song that's full of porn euphemisms.
 
Zare said:
Well apart from the public/state channels that obviously need to follow decency guidelines, I don't see room for censorship. If you don't like what you hear don't tune in.
Besides, they're going to censor swearwords and pretend like nothing indecent or amoral (compared to their arbitrary standard) exists, and then play some pop song that's full of porn euphemisms.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s absurd. And now that every TV sold in the U.S. has had a “V chip” for at least 25 years or so, the argument that people with delicate ears would have no protection is gone. Everyone can set their TV to self-censor any program with a rating higher than what they're comfortable with, so in principle there’s no reason why CBS shouldn’t be able to show hardcore porn on Saturday mornings if they wanted to. (Yes, of course there would be severe public blowback if they did that, but there shouldn’t be any legal prohibition of them doing so.)
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
A "V chip"? What is this?
Click to expand...
It’s something that was pushed for back in the early 90s that TVs were required to adopt so they could block content above a certain rating if the owner of the TV chose to enable it. Few people used it, but there it is. If you dig through your TV’s options enough you should find a way to block by rating.

One would think that as soon as you’re guaranteed a way to opt out of content you might find objectionable, that there should no longer be any speech restraints on broadcast TV.

EDIT: I guess the V chip was only required in Canada, the U.S., and Brazil, and only since 2000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
 
Zare said:
Well apart from the public/state channels that obviously need to follow decency guidelines, I don't see room for censorship. If you don't like what you hear don't tune in.
Besides, they're going to censor swearwords and pretend like nothing indecent or amoral (compared to their arbitrary standard) exists, and then play some pop song that's full of porn euphemisms.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of when I used to DJ school events, like graduations. The school would give us a list of songs we were not allowed to play, because they promoted drug use and had explicit lyrics. However, there was this one school in which the fathers would put on a choreographed dance for the kids and one particular year one of the songs in the medley was Flo Rida's "Right Round." Sooo.... no drug use or swear words, but the dads can dance to a song about oral sex... good to know.
 
When it comes to the internet legislation in all fronts, not just free speech, is WAY behind. Cyber crimes outpace applicable laws by leaps and bounds.

As for the feminists being in ok with legalizing prostitution is from the point of view that work is work, period. Also, the vast majority are female. This way they can pay taxes, get healthcare, etc.
 
Saphrax said:
One thing that it surprised me to learn recently about modern social justice feminism is that many of them consider sex work a valid choice. I grew up in an era when feminists were largely against it.
Click to expand...
Feminism has changed to be much stronger on social justice than original feminism, which was more concerned about attaining the same privileges afforded to white males. This is a healthier thing, in general.
 
Not all sex workers are victims of human trafficking, and not all of them are exploited. If a woman is signing up to be a sex worker, and the working conditions are regulated appropriately, don't see what the issue is. Legalization of prostitution ensures the possibility of greater regulation, thus lowering the risk of exploitation.
 
The Flash said:
Not all sex workers are victims of human trafficking, and not all of them are exploited. If a woman is signing up to be a sex worker, and the working conditions are regulated appropriately, don't see what the issue is. Legalization of prostitution ensures the possibility of greater regulation, thus lowering the risk of exploitation.
Click to expand...

I read an article many years ago of a red-light citadel in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico where prostitution is legal, sex-workers are tested monthly (at least), condoms are mandatory and security is high. With everything, give the girl a little extra and they'll forgo the rubber, but otherwise they are treated well, paid well and have access to healthcare. Don't know if that is still the case, but I do wonder how that compares to other red-light areas such as that of Amsterdam and Nevada where it is also legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top