My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions. — Michael

I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that.

And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? If roles were reversed, would you feel the same way, or does it only apply when you agree with what is deemed reasonable and what isn't?

Us. We're the arbiter of everything. [...] That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all. — Michael

Mankind's history is near entirely comprised of unreasonable lapses of moral judgement.

Ironically, the fact that at one point certain enlightened individuals understood the value of free speech is one of few exceptions to an atrocious track record that doesn't suggest even the slightest ability to responsibly wield power of any kind, let alone power over fundamental human rights.

You wouldn't let a toddler play with a scalpel.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them. — Michael

Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. — Michael

Then what are you saying people should do? And why?

If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. — Michael

Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion?

Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. — Michael

And who should be the arbiter of this?

People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable".

No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. — Michael

That doesn't seem to be what you're arguing at all.

Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.

Should you now fire them?

I don't need a "way out". — Michael

Clearly you do.

Lets say you're working hard trying to provide for your family, but then news reaches my ears you have some funny ideas about freedom of expression.

Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions?

I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. — Michael

I'm sure they matter to people, but why?

Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor)

But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood.

That begs the question why.

You believe opinions matter enough for people to be fired and censored over them. That much is obvious or you wouldn't be espousing these ideas.

The question you refuse to answer is why these opinions matter so much to you.

That directly contradicts your desire to see people with private opinions you dislike unemployed and censored.

You're dodging the question.

The fact that Russia (or indeed any country with a veto) is able to block security resolutions that it feels undermine its strategic interest is a sign that the United Nations is functioning exactly as it should, in that it seeks to avoid powerful nations being backed into a corner where their only way out is more violence; something that would be an inevitable result of excluding certain nations from the UN and counter to its founding principles.

Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread.

I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me? — Tzeentch

You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like, but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you?

... , Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), ... — neomac

The United States and their meddling in Russia's backyard with Europe as its forward pawn is what is an existential threat to Europe.

I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me?

An unfortunate opinion. How exactly should that affect me?

My argument is that I'm not obligated to keep him as an employee. — Michael

Depending on the terms of contract, you may very well be.

But you're beating around the bush. Your example doesn't feature an expression of an opinion, but an insult.

Another attempt to justify your desire for punishment, which reaffirms the need for my question to be answered.

You're obligated to whatever was agreed upon in the contract.

If that contract states one is able to fire an employee at any time, for whatever reason, then that's part of it.

But you're ignoring the fundamental question here:

The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

A bit too confrontational for comfort, perhaps?

most (all?) of us are just saying that even if the government ought not have the power to prevent people from speaking or imprison/fine those who do, it is right that people are held accountable for the things they say and face reasonable social consequences such as being fired from private employment or having their social media account suspended. — Michael

What these arguments amount to is that expressing one's privately held beliefs can be sufficient reason for someone to end up unemployed or without a voice.

Of course we can think of examples where one's privately held beliefs can make one unable to hold certain jobs. In such cases a good argument needs to be made why that is so, but the grounds for firing someone would not be them expressing their beliefs, but them being unsuitable for a job.


The question is, why can't we contend with shrugging our shoulders and disagreeing?
Why is there a need to punish people who we strongly disagree with?

Fear or a desire for control, neither of which are good councillors for reasoned thought. (And both of which are the prime movers of human evil)

And you think that any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, i.e. without a breach of contract? So employers should not be able to require that their employees refrain from expressing certain opinions? I cannot make it a condition of employment at my synagogue that employees must not condone Nazism? — Michael

No, I don't think that.

I just thought I'd point out that freedom of expression is a human right, thus unalienable and not suspended as the result of a contract.

What two parties agree upon consensually to be the terms of their contract is none of my business.

You count being fired from private employment as a legal consequence? — Michael

Assuming there was a contract involved that would be breached, yes.

It is possible that expressing certain opinions constitutes a breach of contract, which would make losing one's job a legal consequence one has agreed to as a result of them signing the contract.

Though, it should be noted that freedom of expression is a human right and is thus unalienable, therefore cannot be suspended as part of a contract.

It might not be OK to fire someone for expressing certain kinds of extreme political opinions, like the abolition of government, but OK to fire someone for expressing other kinds of extreme political opinions, like Nazism. — Michael

I disagree.

Any opinion should be able to be expressed without legal consequences, assuming they're expressed in a non-disruptive manner, and not a direct threat of or call to violence.

Reason being, whatever lowest common denominator of humanity is represented by governments would have to arbitrate what we consider reasonable limitations on free speech.

Wielding power over speech in a responsible manner and being able to estimate what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable" are things that governments (and indeed most individuals) have time and again proven to be incapable of.

Furthermore, it testifies of a fundamental distrust in the individual's ability for reason if one believes that free speech can lead to dangerous ideas taking hold. Usually ideas that are labled as such are dangerous to those who would rather hang onto their power. It's that distrust of the individual in which we find the roots of authoritarianism and all the suffering it brings.

It is in the crucible of free discourse that extreme ideas get tested and discarded. That's the power of free speech. It is in a climate of censorship that extremism thrives, usually by pointing at other extremists as an excuse to censor criticism.

"Fuck off and die" is not an opinion.

But you're right. I am trying to nudge you, towards being able to see things in perspective, so you too may one day formulate a worthwhile opinion on something as fundamental as free speech.

We're not quite there yet, it seems.

I don't get that. The only thing they've done that's disruptive is expressing their opinion. — T Clark

So a woman comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, ... — T Clark

The framing isn't obvious?

Why didn't you write "... and expresses an opinion about gay people I disagree with"?

Now suddenly it is a lot less obvious that this person did something that shouldn't be protected under the right to free speech. (Though one is always entitled to ask people to leave their house, of course)

So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him — T Clark

Why didn't you say "... and expresses an extreme political opinion"?

Should this person now be immediately fired? I think not.

So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses inappropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? — T Clark

Why didn't you say "and curses, swears and used inappropriate language in a fit of anger"?


You may agree that your way of framing certainly nudges us into a certain direction, doesn't it?

You're either consciously doing this, or perhaps more worrying, this happens subconsciously and this is how you perceive people you strongly disagree with; as people that are inherently unreasonable and disruptive, and that cannot be talked with in a polite way, or simply asked to keep their views to themselves or not share them in an antagonistic way.

I'm getting the impression that you are not interested in free speech at all, but instead wish to see people punished that hold opinions you strongly disagree with. That's why you seem so eager to frame such individuals in a way that can justify your desire for their punishment.

And also what is being said. — Michael

I don't think that is primarily important, and I'll explain why:

Should a government official be allowed to publish state secrets? — Michael

Of primary importance here is the agreement of the official not to reveal confidential information - not what is being said.

If an outside individual stumbles upon sensitive information pertaining the government, should they be arrested for sharing it? I think not.

Should I be allowed to knowingly and falsely accuse someone of having committed some heinous act and incite vigilante justice? — Michael

The demonstrable damage one is inflicting upon another is of primary importance - not what is being said.

People gossip all the time with malign intent. A sadly human trait.

Should you be allowed to post pornography on some popular website that children frequently visit? — Michael

Presumably the terms of service would disallow such a thing, and my previous reservations about public forums and monopolies on free discourse do not seem to apply in this situation.

Again, of primary importance here seems to be the disruptive nature and potential damage inflicted upon children. "What is being said", i.e. sharing porn, is not in itself problematic.

Unrestricted freedom of speech wouldn't be a good thing and shouldn't be allowed. — Michael

I don't think any of these examples constitute a restriction on free speech. Rather, in the first example it simply means to act according to the terms one has agreed to.

In the second and third, it is not about speech but about being willfully disruptive and/or harmful.

So it's OK for some social media company to remove your account should you violate whatever terms and services or community guidelines you implicitly agree to in signing up? — Michael

That is a complicated issue that must not only take freedom of contract and freedom of speech into account, but also social media's role as a public forum, and the almost monopolistic position it has gained in public discourse.

Ukraine is being destroyed? — Olivier5

Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

They would support retaliation, I think, if it comes to that. But the US is not the only player. Europe cannot tolerate a nuclear terrorist state at its doorstep. Ukraine also has the capacity to build their own nukes, given a year or two.
4m — Olivier5

What sort of fantasy land are you living in where countries can just be given nuclear weapons, or develop their own while their country is being destroyed?

So if I'm at work and I express the opinion that Jewish and black people are inferior to white Christians and ought not be allowed to marry then it would be wrong of my boss to fire me for my remarks? — Michael

Assuming those are one's genuinely held beliefs and one expresses them in a manner that isn't disruptive, I believe one should not face legal consequences (which is what being fired from one's job is), unless it constitutes a breach of the terms of employment as agreed upon in the employment contract.

Social consequences is a different matter. Of course people may treat someone differently for their radical ideas. That's their right.

So a guy comes to a dinner party at my house and starts saying derogatory things about gay people, I can't ask her to leave? So I run a business and one of my employees spouts Nazi slogans in the lunch room, I can't fire him? So a member of the YMCA curses, swears, and uses in appropriate language, they can't revoke his membership? Of course speech has consequences. — T Clark

This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing.

Free speech allows that I may hear something that I otherwise couldn't, something that I might want to hear. On the other hand, free speech doesn't itself mean free of consequences, one might be called out and deplatformed for continually lying for example. — jorndoe

The beauty of free speech is that when people are allowed to freely criticize faulty ideas, these processes will happen naturally and no arbitration is required.

If ideas can hold up to the scrutiny of the entirety of free discourse, they likely hold some merit.

In addition, free speech allows you to hear things you may want to hear, but perhaps more importantly hear the things you do NOT want to hear, but NEED to hear.

The neo-nazism/genocide yarn such an obvious attempt by both sides to paint the other as "the baddies", to lure people into accepting their narratives and adopt a black-and-white view of what is a complicated geopolitical issue.

You are better than this ThePhilosophyForum!

You two are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off PowerPoint presentations.

The sinking of the Moskva could mark a serious escalation in the conflict. And I think as long as the West is content with its role as cheerleader, happy to "fight until the last Ukrainian" it will not bode well for Ukraine.

Yes, but Russia isn't a normal modern state... — Christoffer

Personally, I think Russia is pretty much a normal modern state, or at least no less abnormal than the USA. Being a regional power it of course acts differently than Belgium.

They already broke such laws. If a criminal is shooting at the police after the police have shouted at them to put down the weapon and apply to the set rules of society, the police have the authority to shoot down the criminal. — Christoffer

Yes, but that is all written down in laws that provide legitimacy in such cases.

Nowhere in international law are such things legitimized. States have the right to self-defense, but that only goes so far to legitimize the use of force, and it certainly doesn't legitimize assassinations of non-combatants.

And what is happening in Ukraine right now? What about how Putin and his minions spread the rhetoric that being a "Ukrainian" is "invalid". It's still up for debate if there's a genocide going on, but there's a lot constantly being uncovered. — Christoffer

Considering the amount of restraint Russia has shown so far (that may sound weird, but given the amount of firepower Russia possesses, they have clearIy been holding back, probably to try and save their legitimacy) and the little they stand to gain by committing atrocities, I find these claims of genocide extremely questionable.

But if the claims turn out to be true, international law has ways of bringing war criminals to justice - through tribunals, not through assassinations.

That's what the international community has decided; that in order to uphold international order as best as possible, the international community cannot advocate and use the same methods that they condemn.

I think that's where we differ. Many said the same about Hitler, Stalin and Mao back in the day when information were still being gathered, but I have no problem considering Putin being cut from the same cloth as other authoritarian despots — Christoffer

"Being cut from the same cloth", perhaps. But considering people "cut from the same cloth" is no grounds to treat people as though they have already committed the crimes. That would be arbitrary lawlessness and against any principles of modern law.

If the head of state is ordering top military generals on matters of military actions, isn't that like killing generals on the battlefield? — Christoffer

You may have your own views on this, but at least in the modern nation state there is a clear division between political leaders and military leaders. But even the assassination of military leaders is a controversial topic, as we have seen with the targeted killing of Iranian general Soulemani.

Military leaders plan and execute military operations and Putin cannot be said to be "part of an operation" in a military sense, though he is of course involved, but indirectly.

If Putin is in direct line of command, it's strategic to take him out in order to disorient the chain of command of the ongoing conflict. — Christoffer

Things can be strategic and yet impermissable under international law.

Isn't what you are referring to regarded in peacetime, ... — Christoffer

No, the UN charter and similar international legal documents are active at all times, unless specified otherwise, like with International Humanitarian Law, for example.

Otherwise (and if our modern international laws of war existed back then) if Hitler didn't kill himself, having the invading alliance troops in Berlin send in an operation to kill Hitler would not have been a violation in such times of war. — Christoffer

It's hard to say whether Hitler couldn't also be considered a military leader, and therefore a legitimate military target.

Besides this, even if we consider him a strictly political leader (which he certainly wasn't) he was the orchestrator of a genocide.

As much as I condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I don't think Putin matches either of these criteria by any stretch of the imagination.

International community; members of the United Nations.

Do not accept assassination of heads of state as legal practice by virtue of having signed the United Nations charter which forbids the targeted killing of non-combatants under international law.

But you already know these things. You're just looking to start an argument for who knows what reason.

Arguing semantics already? Or you really want me to believe you don't understand what I mean with the term "international community"?

The international community, obviously, including those nations that are powerful enough to get away with it when it suits them.

Not accepted by whom, pray tell? The US tried to murder Castro dozens of times. The French helped locate and kill Ghadafi. The Russians tried to off Zelensky too. I could go on. — Olivier5

That certain nations are horribly hypocritical when it comes to their ideals and upholding international law is nothing new, but assassinations are certainly controversial and not accepted.

When powerful nations bully weak nations they may get away with it regardless.

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin — Olivier5

I hope you're not implying assassination.

It would not be beneficial to world peace that assassinating each other's heads of state becomes an accepted practice in international politics. There's a reason it is not an accepted practice today.

Besides, whoever would succeed Putin would have to deal with the exact same geopolitical, military and socio-economic problems Russia faces, and after an assassination the West will be a lot less likely to be part of a peaceful solution to those problems.

Can a fraud Buddha become a genuine Buddha? — Agent Smith

Of course, but it's unlikely they'll get there through fraudulent ways. "Fake it till you make it" only works when one wishes and manages to deceive others, but to endeavor to deceive oneself is irrational, and the reverse course to spiritual development.

Democritus believed that (modernizing his words) it's better to have the gun pointed at you than you pointing the gun at someone (conscientious objectors). Democritus was a pre-Christian Greek philosopher if memory serves. What did he mean by that? If given a choice, would it be better to be a slave than a slave-master? — Agent Smith

It's a thought many seem to obide by ("better him than me!"), but without the conviction that it is better to undergo evil than to perform it oneself, one cannot be truly moral. Within the "better him than me" mentality lies the admission that any moral conduct is a facade - a matter of convenience, and not truly part of one's being.

The assumption seems to be that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a war orchestrated by Putin and his oligarchs alone.

I think this is clearly wrong.

Ukraine is a key factor in multiple strategic and geopolitical challenges for Russia, including access to the Black Sea and Europe.

Getting rid of Putin does not change the fact that Russia inherently will be interested in control over this region, and whoever were to succeed him will have to face the same challenges and questions.