Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To   : Arelor
From : Boraxman
Date : Fri May 23 2025 08:22 am

-=> Arelor wrote to phigan <=-

Ar> @MSGID: <[email protected]>
Ar> @REPLY: <[email protected]>
Ar>   Re: Re: Most memorable modern
Ar>   By: phigan to Boraxman on
Ar> Wed May 21 2025 06:58 pm

> Freedom of speech is about someone
> being arrested or somehow legally
> impacted by their speech. Meaning, the
> government shouldn't be able to stop
> you from saying things.
>
> Now, it's your choice to say things
> that other people may not like. And
> it's your employer's choice to employ
> you. Your employer is other people and
> if they don't like what you say, they
> should also have the right to have
> nothing to do with you. Being employed
> is not a right. What if you were the
> employer? Do you want someone telling
> you who you can't fire? Seems silly.

Ar> Fundamentally, there is a big difference between recognizing somebody
Ar> has a right and aproving of the way the right is used.

Ar> I may have the fundamental right of hitting my knee with a
Ar> sledgehammer, that does not mean you have to accept it is a wise course
Ar> of action.

Ar> In the same way, an employer has the fundamental right of not employing
Ar> people he disagrees with in things that are absolutely not related to
Ar> the job. And, just the same way, that does not mean I have to believe
Ar> it is a wise way of managing a firm.

Ar> For all the calls we get to diversify the workforce and people is
Ar> pushing for the notion that we have to eject anybody who does not
Ar> follow the uniparty out of the workforce. Good job, diversifiers.

I kind of disagree here.  Employment contracts are contracts, and exist because
the state enforces them.  In this case, then it is valid for the state to
define
parameters which may make the contract invalid, or breach of it unwarranted.


Slavery is not legal because the state does not allow, nor honour, any such
contract.  Employment, which is the rental of a human being, is recognised, but
it
is reasonable for the state to define what makes it valid, and invalid.  It has
the choice to enforce the contract or not.  The state is permitted to set
boundaries.  It should go without saying that those boundaries should be based
on good philosophy and human dignity.

This idea of "rights" that most people hve really is a modern, Hippie era
Leftist idea.  The whole 60s "I can just do what I want man!" attitude now
defines almost all of the philosophy behind freedom, and it just doesn't work
because its myopic and self centered.

I see no conflict, at all, in the state recognising that the termination of a
contract, because of something that is outside the scope of the contract, is
invalid, and that the employee (the one who had the contract terminated) has a
right to recourse.  Likewise, I see little conflict in the idea that an
employment contract, in order to be considered legally enforceable (ie valid),
cannot infringe upon any of the Free Speech rights of those involved in the
contract.  What I am saying is that the situation of "At will" contracts, which
can be considered justifiably terminated due to the speech of someone outside
of
the scope of the contract, is incongruent with a society that has Free Speech.


Now in the USA, it could be argued that if the states employment laws, ie,
which employment contracts it honours and allows, infringe upon the Free
Speech, then this not in the spirit of the First Amendment.

... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org