Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To : MRO
From : Boraxman
Date : Sat May 24 2025 12:08 am
-=> MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
MR> @MSGID: <
[email protected]>
MR> @REPLY: <
[email protected]>
MR> Re: Re: Most memorable modern
MR> By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu May 22 2025 10:01 pm
>
> Read the Second Amendment. Again, it says that a right cannot be
> infringed. It prohibits an action.
>
> They understood that in order for "rights" to exist, you must prevent
> people from infringing them. Only this can make a "right" real.
>
> Declaration of rights alone are meaningless. The Soviet Union is a
> good example of this. They too declared that people had Freedom of
> Speech, even more enthusiastically than the US Constituion, but it did
MR> now i have to read the second one?!!?
MR> i told you i can't read.
MR> i think you are looking at this through a weird lens; we have laws,
MR> tons and tons of laws. laws on top of laws. overlapping laws. old
MR> laws. those complex laws state what our rights are and how it's to be
MR> handled.
MR> we then have judges to interpret the laws when things go caca.
Its like the first, it prohibits actions, not grants rights.
You perhaps have too many laws. But do you have the right ones?
Rights shape laws. They shape what laws are valid, and what are
invalid, and also shape contracts. If the state grants rights, but
will enforce contracts which infringe those rights, or pass laws which
infringe those rights, you have a problem.
> Declaration of rights alone are meaningless. The Soviet Union is a
> good example of this. They too declared that people had Freedom of
> Speech, even more enthusiastically than the US Constituion, but it did
> NOT prevent the state from infringing on that right. So the US had
> freedom of speech, and the Soviet Union didn't.
>
MR> our entire legal system is not the declaration of independance
Is that not a different document to the constitution?
> Free Speech was understood to be important before the First Amendment
> was drafted. Its philosophical roots came from a realisation that
> society needs Free Speech, because the right to Free Speech allows
> pathological ideas to be challenged. This is the misunderstanding I
> think. It has been turned into "individual rights", but the purpose
> wasn't keeping the government out of your life. Free Speech has a
> *social* utility, which they understood because they saw the ill
> effects of religious and monarchical power structures that shielded
> themselves from challenge.
MR> you are interpreting our free speech laws incorrectly. you are free to
MR> say what you want. it wont protect you from getting canned from your
MR> job if they decide you are not a fit to what they represent. You are
MR> only protected if you are part of a protected category of person and
MR> your rights have been violated based on your race, origin, age, sex,
MR> disability.
You are stating what IS. I am stating what OUGHT to be. The state
SHOULD be protecting you from this. This protected category of person
is deeply troubling too.
> If you have already accepted that there are exceptions being able to
> freely fire people, why are you reluctant to include an individuals
> beliefs and statements as protected?? You've already accepted that
> right is not absolute, which I agree with.
MR> it's (being fired from the workplace because of speech) not an
MR> exemption because there is no actual violation of our laws. that's just
MR> how it is. it's only a violation based on what it is and if it
MR> violates a protected class of person.
If the contract explicitely states that it can be terminated because
of what someone says or listens to outside of the scope of works, then
if the state enforces that contract and considers it legitimate, it is
infringing upon the right to free speech, and really, it should not
enforce or consider such a contract legitimate, much in the same way
it would not consider a contract of slavery as legitimate.
If the contract does not have any conditions regarding what someone
can and can't say, or listen to, outside of work (I wouldn't consider
a contract that did, legally enforceable), then what they do say, or
listen to, is not grounds to terminate the contract. The contract was
being fulfilled.
I can't see any justifiable reason for this "I can fire someone
because they have views I don't like" argument, except a very childish
and immature inability to deal with other people. That is YOUR
problem. It is not the employees problem, and it is certaintly not
something the state should accomodate.
> By prohibiting people being fired for their speech you neuter to
> some degree this effect. This is precisely why you need laws to
> protect people from being fired for their speech! If an
> organisation DOES
MR> so far it hasn't been an issue except people were canceled for dumb
MR> shit during those witch hunts.
MR> if it is an issue it can become a bill and be put through our system.
No, it can't be a bill. The people won't be free to discuss it, they
won't be free to lobby the government, they won't be free to run for
office to address this issue. It will be TOO LATE. You'll get fired
just for following someone who is discussing how this group, or this
ideology is wrong. Hell, the company might even now want you just
because of how you voted! Remember progressive companies saying that
Trump votes were not welcome? This is a major issue right now.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
