The Law Freedom of Speech

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37 said:
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL



LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Click to expand...

Lol? that's you retort - yeah lol alright. You've got zero cred now mate, I've just shown you up as contradicting your own post and you come back with lol.

Move on, I won't reply to you anymore on this thread because you're false.
 
sonicthelaconic said:
Agreed.

Unfortunately, in reality, "enforce consequences where warranted" will always be disputed when the consequences are on groups and people the critics identify with ideologically.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere! I deliberately posted that knowing that there will be widely varying opinions of what is "warranted" to point out the widely varying opinions.

For example as I've said earlier in this thread some factual comments will be taken as offence. I'm going to state this and even though it is not intended as offensive, someone somewhere will take offence to it.

"Human male and females are biologically different"

There is lots of evidence to support that theory even though arguable it is drawing a long bow to suggest it is not true.

Is that hate speech? Of course not but someone somewhere will get their nose out of joint over it.

So how and where do we draw the line on what is "warranted"? Truth is it's too grey of an area to actually police it.

We do have laws that has consequences for "hate speech", problem is everyone's view of it varies widely - very widely.
 
Soft Downhill Skier said:
Orwell was an antifa socialist.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Orwell was an anarchist (a real one, not the antifa poseur version).

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
 
Snake_Baker said:
Not even close. Orwell was an anarchist (a real one, not the antifa poseur version).

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's correct. He started that everything he had written was for the advancement of socialism. Perhaps his political views changed over time?
 
ShanDog said:
I'm not sure that's correct. He started that everything he had written was for the advancement of socialism. Perhaps his political views changed over time?
Click to expand...


Okay, he aspired to be one when he witnessed the shortfalls of socialism/anarcho-syndicalism.

"As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 116

"If I had understood the situation a bit better I should probably have joined the Anarchists." George Orwell - Collected Essays; Vol 1 page 289

You need to remember that anarchist thinking and momentum in this period was closely aligned with Marxism.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ported 70 said:
Incredible. A tradie was fired for calling Islam a violent religion. Goodness me, imagine if every person was fired for calling Christianity violent!

https://trib.al/QfSWQNn
Click to expand...
Read the article... he wasn't fired.

- On the Wednesday after the massacre he went into work only to be told by his manager that he had been assigned to another job.

I sounds like he also didn't just say one thing. Sounds like he went on a bit of an Alex Jones rant.

Hopefully we have a lot of people jumping up in defence of the boss's right to manage his workforce how he sees fit... ;)
 
Ported 70 said:
Incredible. A tradie was fired for calling Islam a violent religion. Goodness me, imagine if every person was fired for calling Christianity violent!

https://trib.al/QfSWQNn
Click to expand...
Does it not depend on the terms of his contract, and do or do not businesses have the right to what their employees say whilst representing them at work?

Free speech does not mean the right to say whatever you like in any context. He's 4 days into a new job, and he's saying that at work? I'd have thought that was rather silly.
 
Gethelred said:
Does it not depend on the terms of his contract, and do or do not businesses have the right to what their employees say whilst representing them at work?

Free speech does not mean the right to say whatever you like in any context. He's 4 days into a new job, and he's saying that at work? I'd have thought that was rather silly.
Click to expand...

I read the article, whether or not it was silly to say what he believes is irrelevant. Just because he has a belief doesn't mean he shouldn't have a right to say it just as much as he must accept the consequences.

He stated that he voiced his opinion with respect and raised no profanities, the consequences is that he has now been re assigned and has to pick fruit or so he claims and on the sample we have it seems the case.

There's nothing wrong with stating your concerns in conversation in a respectful manner even if it is debatable what his beliefs. And the fact there are consequences for it is a little reactionary.

If he went off in a rant, raised profanity and suggested violent action against a group then fair enough bring the consequences on.

Calmly stating a concern about a group or its ideology shouldn't warrant consequence, preferably respectful disagreement is in order not getting re assigned to a shitty fruit picking job.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
I read the article, whether or not it was silly to say what he believes is irrelevant. Just because he has a belief doesn't mean he shouldn't have a right to say it just as much as he must accept the consequences.

He stated that he voiced his opinion with respect and raised no profanities, the consequences is that he has now been re assigned and has to pick fruit or so he claims and on the sample we have it seems the case.

There's nothing wrong with stating your concerns in conversation in a respectful manner even if it is debatable what his beliefs. And the fact there are consequences for it is a little reactionary.

If he went off in a rant, raised profanity and suggested violent action against a group then fair enough bring the consequences on.

Calmly stating a concern about a group or its ideology shouldn't warrant consequence, preferably respectful disagreement is in order not getting re assigned to a shitty fruit picking job.
Click to expand...
In most societies, when we possess rights we balance some against others, to ensure that my right does not infringe on yours. In this case, he - the worker - made a rant whilst at work to colleagues, which (we don't have a lot of information in there to go on) could've been in full view of a customer. So, in this respect, does that worker's right to free speech trump the owner/employer's right to ensure his business is represented by the person he's paying to do so in the manner he desires from them?

This is codified somewhat in law, an employee is classified as a limited agent by their employer. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm fairly certain that he was probably not employed to espouse his political opinions, ergo he was acting outside that role as an agent of the business. Society at law has determined that the rights of the employer - specifically, his ownership rights over his money and his business - trump the rights of the employee to his freedom of speech.

That's how I see this. Like in most cases, you're free to do what you wish, but that will not keep you from the consequences of your actions the second your rights impinge on someone elses.
 
Gethelred said:
In most societies, when we possess rights we balance some against others, to ensure that my right does not infringe on yours. In this case, he - the worker - made a rant whilst at work to colleagues, which (we don't have a lot of information in there to go on) could've been in full view of a customer. So, in this respect, does that worker's right to free speech trump the owner/employer's right to ensure his business is represented by the person he's paying to do so in the manner he desires from them?

This is codified somewhat in law, an employee is classified as a limited agent by their employer. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm fairly certain that he was probably not employed to espouse his political opinions, ergo he was acting outside that role as an agent of the business. Society at law has determined that the rights of the employer - specifically, his ownership rights over his money and his business - trump the rights of the employee to his freedom of speech.

That's how I see this. Like in most cases, you're free to do what you wish, but that will not keep you from the consequences of your actions the second your rights impinge on someone elses.
Click to expand...

You're right we're speculating on what actually happened because we weren't there. We don't know if he made a rant or not (he claims he didn't) and we don't know if was ranted in front of customer. Having a calm opinion out of customer view should not warrant consequence, so I'll state this again:

"If he went off in a rant, raised profanity and suggested violent action against a group then fair enough bring the consequences on.

Calmly stating a concern about a group or its ideology shouldn't warrant consequence, preferably respectful disagreement is in order not getting re assigned to a shitty fruit picking job. "

If you're having a discussion with your colleagues which he claims.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
You're right we're speculating on what actually happened because we weren't there. We don't know if he made a rant or not (he claims he didn't) and we don't know if was ranted in front of customer. Having a calm opinion out of customer view should not warrant consequence, so I'll state this again:

"If he went off in a rant, raised profanity and suggested violent action against a group then fair enough bring the consequences on.

Calmly stating a concern about a group or its ideology shouldn't warrant consequence, preferably respectful disagreement is in order not getting re assigned to a shitty fruit picking job. "

If you're having a discussion with your colleagues which he claims.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

See, from a purely superficial level, I don't disagree with you. I don't agree with him at all, but I do believe that political conversations should be possible at work without threat of dismissal by a manager, and that he was dismissed is a contravention of his right to freedom of speech.

However.

At most jobs, there is an trial period, in which a manager can fire/dismiss someone without much notice, for almost any reason. Like I said, this is due to society's ranking an employer's right to control their employee's behaviour whilst paying them over an employee's free agency, because that is what it takes to make work relationships possible. That being the case, while I can certainly empathise with the man, on the balance of right vs right all I can do is shrug and say that he got more or less what he deserved for being very, very foolish.

Having said that, it'd be interesting were some prominent NZ barrister to take up his cause gratis, and to inquire at law if an employer is justified in dismissing his employee for his political views discussed quietly away from customers (if that is indeed what occurred) even within a potential trial period.

That's my other issue: like most things reported in the media, we do not have nearly enough information to make an informed decision in either direction here! I get that this board is almost entirely jumping the shark at all moments, but this article is less descriptive than a toddler's finger painting. We cannot truly discuss the issue at all, really, because we are free to interpret how he behaved as suits out respective arguments, so without agreeing first as to what occurred there can be no true argument. We wouldn't even be arguing about the same thing.
 
Gethelred said:
Hmmm...

See, from a purely superficial level, I don't disagree with you. I don't agree with him at all, but I do believe that political conversations should be possible at work without threat of dismissal by a manager, and that he was dismissed is a contravention of his right to freedom of speech.

However.

At most jobs, there is an trial period, in which a manager can fire/dismiss someone without much notice, for almost any reason. Like I said, this is due to society's ranking an employer's right to control their employee's behaviour whilst paying them over an employee's free agency, because that is what it takes to make work relationships possible. That being the case, while I can certainly empathise with the man, on the balance of right vs right all I can do is shrug and say that he got more or less what he deserved for being very, very foolish.

Having said that, it'd be interesting were some prominent NZ barrister to take up his cause gratis, and to inquire at law if an employer is justified in dismissing his employee for his political views discussed quietly away from customers (if that is indeed what occurred) even within a potential trial period.

That's my other issue: like most things reported in the media, we do not have nearly enough information to make an informed decision in either direction here! I get that this board is almost entirely jumping the shark at all moments, but this article is less descriptive than a toddler's finger painting. We cannot truly discuss the issue at all, really, because we are free to interpret how he behaved as suits out respective arguments, so without agreeing first as to what occurred there can be no true argument. We wouldn't even be arguing about the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ok, just to clear I'm hypothesisng a situation at two ends of the spectrum.

I see no reason to apply consequence IF which he claims he was engaged in civil discussion expressing his concern and if out of view of the customary public. Just because it's law that allows to discipline an employee IF what this person claims is true does not make it ethical.

I see every reason to apply consequence if it was the opposite.

And just because he was "foolish" suggests that we have to tip toe around egg shells whenever anyone is in ear shot of us. Is that what we really want? Isn't that a deterrent to free speech anyway?
 
Carringbush2010 said:
Ok, just to clear I'm hypothesisng a situation at two ends of the spectrum.

I see no reason to apply consequence IF which he claims he was engaged in civil discussion expressing his concern and if out of view of the customary public. Just because it's law that allows to discipline an employee IF what this person claims is true does not make it ethical.

I see every reason to apply consequence if it was the opposite.

And just because he was "foolish" suggests that we have to tip toe around egg shells whenever anyone is in ear shot of us. Is that what we really want? Isn't that a deterrent to free speech anyway?
Click to expand...
No, we just tiptoe around what we say when our time is not our own, as you're meant to do when you are subject to the employment relationship.

If he was fired for something he said when he was not at work - merely for espousing right wing views - then I'd be standing right next to you shouting about freedom of speech, but when you are at work your speech is not free.

Where we are arguing here is that you are prioritising his freedom of speech over the employer's right to his time as constrained by the employee/employer relationship. If you did that, that relationship would not be worthwhile en masse, for how can you control whether an employee bags out their business if they have freedom of speech? If you insist on society maintaining its current shape - if you don't, I'm actually all for that; I'm an anarchist, albeit a pacificic one - then you cannot really change that balance without upending the apple cart. Either his speech is free and you change society to compensate - and it would require heavy, heavy compensation - or while his time is his employers he should watch what he says at all times.

If it's an ethical problem on the part of his employers, all I can say is, sure? Whether it is or isn't is almost irrelevant, because in practical terms there is little anyone can do, based on what parameters we know of this scenario, to change things to allow for political speech his boss doesn't like.

Were he in a union, though, that could be radically different.
 
Gethelred said:
No, we just tiptoe around what we say when our time is not our own, as you're meant to do when you are subject to the employment relationship.

If he was fired for something he said when he was not at work - merely for espousing right wing views - then I'd be standing right next to you shouting about freedom of speech, but when you are at work your speech is not free.

Where we are arguing here is that you are prioritising his freedom of speech over the employer's right to his time as constrained by the employee/employer relationship. If you did that, that relationship would not be worthwhile en masse, for how can you control whether an employee bags out their business if they have freedom of speech? If you insist on society maintaining its current shape - if you don't, I'm actually all for that; I'm an anarchist, albeit a pacificic one - then you cannot really change that balance without upending the apple cart. Either his speech is free and you change society to compensate - and it would require heavy, heavy compensation - or while his time is his employers he should watch what he says at all times.

If it's an ethical problem on the part of his employers, all I can say is, sure? Whether it is or isn't is almost irrelevant, because in practical terms there is little anyone can do, based on what parameters we know of this scenario, to change things to allow for political speech his boss doesn't like.

Were he in a union, though, that could be radically different.
Click to expand...

We could go round and round in circles on this, so I'll end it on this note and this is part of the problem.

You've stated "merely for espousing right wing views" is part of the problem. You think it's right wing where as I think he's expressing concern.

So one's view of what is concern and what is motivated obviously varies from the next and I don't think it's ethical to discipline someone with reasoned concern but if said employer inadvertently believes the expressed views are motivated and the bloke who claims they're concerns then we have a problem.

My view on the whole debate is that we have societal pressures that are a little suffocating in the name of "protecting the meek of mind".
 
Carringbush2010 said:
We could go round and round in circles on this, so I'll end it on this note and this is part of the problem.

You've stated "merely for espousing right wing views" is part of the problem. You think it's right wing where as I think he's expressing concern.

So one's view of what is concern and what is motivated obviously varies from the next and I don't think it's ethical to discipline someone with reasoned concern but if said employer inadvertently believes the expressed views are motivated and the bloke who claims they're concerns then we have a problem.

My view on the whole debate is that we have societal pressures that are a little suffocating in the name of "protecting the meek of mind".
Click to expand...
It would not matter if his views were right or left wing. They are political in nature, at a time which is not his own, and you are certainly correct that we are going in circles.

In this case, the employer can dismiss him for almost whatever reason, because society has valued the employer/employee relationship ahead of his freedom of speech. You don't. That's more or less the end of the discussion, as it isn't practical to uproot society to make him not fire him for reasons of freedom of speech, unless you actively want to change society to make such a change possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
574
Rusty Brookes
R
mr bagcroft
Politics Rich Men North of Richmond
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Chief
Chief
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
903
zeggie
zeggie
Back One Out
The Law FNQ's Bob Katter proposes outback camps for young indigenous offenders
Replies
21
Views
1K
baris
B
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
CD Xbow
Europe Mary, Queen of Tasmania
Replies
10
Views
677
CD Xbow
CD Xbow

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top