Comment by stagbeetle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stagbeetle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> or to be free of the consequences of such.

This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's:

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.

Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc.

See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0]

[0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...

Oh, you have the right to hold opinions. You just don't have the right to hold opinions WHERE you want.

And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as someone asking you to leave their house isn't. A private company, just like a private house, is not "society".

Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression[0].

Private homes are not sovereign lands and neither are companies.

[0]https://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html

That source states that the limitation is defined as being by a public (ie. government) body.

>The nature of the public body is irrelevant. It could be legislative, executive or judicial, or a publicly owned enterprise

You're correct, I misread the source.

Google is not a government, so your point is moot.

The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments.

Citing your own source:

"The right to freedom of expression cannot be limited at the whim of a public official"

Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.

>"The source you provide, which is just an opinion, talks only about governments."

This is incorrect. Article 19 is a prominent humans right organization, specifically focusing on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also the second source agreeing that you cannot fire someone for what they say.

Here, I'll add a third: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol7en... pg 54, Ross vs Canada. This is straight from the UN.

They can, except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government.

So again, your entire argument does not apply at all to Google, or any other non-government entity.

Discrimination in the common-sense, against political idealology and permanent factors (race, gender, etc).

It's illegal to retaliate/discriminate (being fired is covered under this definition) on the basis of an employee's political activity.[0]

[0]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html

But it is ok to fire an employee if such political activity creates a hostile work environment and so on.

You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot.

Legally, sure.

Fairly, under the United Declaration of Human Rights, or if it were a just world, no.

"You could even argue that nothing in the essay was political activity, then, again, your point is moot."

I don't think so. Any topic that has a clear dichotomy between two political parties is in-itself a political issue. Again, the umbrella for political activity is a wide one.

Now you have resigned yourself to using your personal interpretations of "fair" and "political activity" as your arguments. Not much left to discuss then...

These are the terms our discussion was based on.

You said "Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such."

I rebutted with authority sources saying the opposite and your following rebuttals were all opinion.

I'm not going to point blame, but this is a two-way street and requires effort from both parties.

No, you rebutted with interpretations from a single party which are actually referring to governments only, not companies.

So, again, you have provided no argument regarding Google's case.

This is dishonest.

The first party was the Centre for Law and Democracy (based in Canada). The second party was Article 19 (registered in UK) -- however I was informed I misread the print on this one. The third party was the Office of the United Nations (based in USA/NY and SWI). The fourth party was the California Labor Code.

You have offered, in this entire comment chain:

1). Your opinion on how freedom of expression should be restricted (unsourced)

2). Your opinion on what constitutes a societal sanction (unsourced)

3). Your opinion on what constitutes fair grounds for dismissal (unsourced)

So I will rebut, once again, with sources countering your claims.

You: "They [Google] can [discriminate on what you say], except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government."

Employees are protected under "anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. "[0]

Local laws include California's Labor Code - LAB § 1101: "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."[1]

Google would also be in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"[2] for retaliation against objections of its discriminatory practices against men (section n, paragraph 1). Which Google, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex...

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."[3]

I ask of you to show me the courtesy of not wasting my time if you don't wish to take this seriously.

[0]http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-i...

[1]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html

[2]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

[3]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

I am taking you seriously, and my point is that arguing about how Google could possibly be breaking a law if the judge decides to interpret anything as a political activity doesn't make much sense.

The argument came down to you saying that almost anything is a political activity, and that Google being regulated by the government makes it equivalent to a government entity. No matter how many sources are provided, only one can actually matter: the judge who will decide that.

That's the problem with legal interpretation, until a judge clears it, all discussion is just speculation.

Look at your own points:

> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.

Yes they can.

> Being fired is a societal sanction, a.k.a a limitation on freedom of expression

No, it isn't, your source only talks about a public entity.

> Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job

Again, no, it isn't.

And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about ethics, let's talk about ethics. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground.

It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.

So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.

Alright.

> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.

This was a simplified point and I have to apologize for being vague. Google, in certain circumstances covered under the law, cannot discriminate against someone for what they express or what they would otherwise express.

This is shown in under the EEOC links as "illegal to retaliate against employees that speak out against discrimination in the work place." Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Whether he wins or not, I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics. However, this doesn't change that it is possible he has a case.

> Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.*

This is incorrect and I have to accuse you of not reading the sources I provided you. The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.

> So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.

Exactly is impossible and exactly is not how precedent is set. There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated: http://www.quarles.com/publications/employers-take-note-nlrb...

> Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for.

Is there a lawsuit already? I can't find any news about it.

> I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics

That's my point about this discussion, it became about interpretation of laws. We can continue to argue forever here, but ultimately it will be up to the courts, if he pursues legal action, to decide the correct interpretation.

> The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.

"International law" is a vague term that carries little weight. It has no "law" power unless any country actually formally agrees and implements internal laws with the same effect.

So, again, it carries no weight here.

> There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent.

That could illegal due to precedent.

> Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated

Again, you make the claim that Google has violated, with nothing but your opinion to back it.

And from your own source:

A policy that is written in the context of unprotected comments toward coworkers (e.g., unlawfully harassing comments), rather than protected criticism of the employer, will be deemed lawful.

That's what Google claims that the author violated, and apparently was fired for.

Remember, California is an at-will employment state. You can fire someone for ANY reason except a few clearly defined reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that Google has fired for one of those reasons, not on Google (or me) to show that the firing WASN'T for those reasons.

Google doesn't have to justify a firing at all.

I see my error. There is little point in continuing since it'll be just opinion.

And a correction on my part, Damore is filing a labor complaint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com