For the record, when a third party comes in and makes overtures about the employment of an individual when it is neither relevant to their job or unbidden, it's a civilly actionable action.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Unfortunately, the ACLU has fallen down on the job as of recently.
It is my conspiratorial belief it's largely due to the one sided nature of their donation funding.

Because you like the studio killers?
...wait, it's not showing your birthday on the main page. Did I miss it or is it unlisted? Or are you just trying to score free cake?

I'm not sure Tortious Interference would quite come into play, since the termination of any at-will employment is not a breach of contract but a valid action within, but it's good to know in any case.

~~~

Happy maybe-birthday, Heliosphoros!

If you're such a believer in free speech, why are you trying to let people be taken to court for saying what other people's opinions are? Isn't that like, a thousand times worse?

Honestly it feels like whenever someone tries to bring up "free speech" as a defense of something, it's because they fundamentally agree with a lot of what's being said, or at the very least think it's within the realm of reasonable ideas deserving of consideration, but they understand that defending the idea itself would look bad so they just go for some stupid meta-process-based argument.

Yes, its my birthday, I don't know why it isn't showing either because I'm pretty sure I set it to 22 June.

Happy birthday, Helio!

Noah Bradley is currently getting #metoo'd so it's probably time to make your farewells with him as well.

Happy late birthday Helio!

Bon anniversaire

Thanks everyone, it means a lot to me.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
And I very much don't like what several of the people Terese followed has to say, but at the end of the day, what she chooses to follow is not mine or ANYBODY else's business if it does not interfere with her work, which I don't think this does at all.
If it was an issue between herself and WOTC, that'd be one thing, but this is thought policing by the mob, which is fundamentally abhorrent. Her work has nothing to do with the mob mentality and I have a real issue seeing how she could negatively interact with them just because she likes a few posts on twitter. Speech isn't violence and going after someone's job because you disagree with them is a disproportionate reaction. The consequences do not match the perceived slight.


~~~~~

Happy Birthday Helio.
Sorry it got stuck on the end of this rant.

Its alright, thanks.

>Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

Okay, so why doesn't that apply here? Why is it okay to say that Jewish people are secretly controlling the government, but not (accurately) say that someone is favoriting tweets saying that Jewish people are controlling the government? Why is it morally okay to have consequences for the latter, but imposing consequences for the former is destroying free speech?

It's a question of damages. saying something terrible only proves you're kinda terrible. Getting someone fired has a measurable negative impact on that person's life. Damages are basically everything in civil (rather than criminal) law. If you can determine a dollar value or actionable injury that somebody's terrible opinion caused the loss of, and can prove that the stating was the cause of that loss, you too might have a case.

And no "But it's related to an ideology that causes damage elsewhere" doesn't count. You can get incitement, if there was a direct call to violence, but if that's not the case, it's not actionable. We judge those who do wrong for the wrong they do, not people for the wrong they have not yet and may not ever do.

Wouldn't someone being taken to court and either have to pay thousands of dollars in fines or be thrown in jail just for pointing out that someone said something online also count as "damages" to them?

No, it would not, because they initiated the contact when they were not previously involved.
It's one thing if someone acts upon you and you reach out for those reasons, but if you're otherwise uninvolved and observe behavior that you aren't engaged with, reaching out because you've seen something rather than been the target thereof, you interject yourself into a situation that you would have likely never been involved with and if your actions then cause damage, you're liable for those damages.

They could have been offended and just went about their day and nobody would have been effected.

If that were the case every court case would result in an endless loop of repeats. It doesn't, because we have a robust legal system that handles judgments under the law; you can't sue someone for winning a lawsuit against you (frivolous lawsuits are another thing, and largely on the attorney filing for failing to do due diligence); those aren't wrongful damages, they're the result of a court-ordered judgment. The purpose of a hearing (or trial in a criminal case) is to determine whether a particular action warrants judgment, which it may or may not. For Tortious interference (as started this discussion), you would have to prove intentional or negligent damage to contractual business on the part of the defendant.

So you shouldn't be allowed to say something about someone, even if that thing is true, because it might potentially harm their reputation and lead to them facing consequences? Isn't that the antithesis of free speech?

"Might potentially" is where you're wrong.

Don't deliberately try to get someone fired from their job for things not related to their jo if they're doing their job just fine.

But the things they said about her that got her fired were actually true. I don't get how they're legally liable for that. They weren't lying about her to get her fired, they were literally just saying the things she actually said and did.