In other words, by using their freedom of speech.
Clearly you're in the camp of "I have a right to persecute people for their political beliefs".
"Demanded" huh? What did they use to coerce the employers?
A lot of these "demands" are made without any leverage. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Sure, there are limits on free speech. Torts like slander and libel, for example.
Right...because those cause damage. It's not just because the person doesn't like what that other person said....but also because what they said caused damage (usually monetary).
What specific crimes are committed when a bunch of people use their freedom of speech to voice the opinion that a particular person should be fired?
I'm not sure what you're asking me here....
Are you conceding that this is mostly done by the left and it's mostly done to punish people "with the wrong beliefs"?
Because these elements are going to change the nature of the crime.
The "left" and the "right" are no different here. Each side believes the people doing things they agree with are good people.
Right...and while I had seen the "right" laugh and celebrate whenever the left eats one of its own for stepping ever so slightly out of line....they don't really call for people to be fired for their opinions. They tend to call for people to be fired for the way they do their jobs.
But that's not what's happening.
Do you agree that...
1. People are trying to punish people, not merely complaining about their conduct, but actively punish them by getting them fired or deprive them of an opportunity?
2. The reasons for this happening tend to be political (or both political and moral if you're on the left)?
Those calling for someone to be "cancelled" aren't the employers.
Right.
They aren't inflicting economic hardship on anyone...they lack the ability to do so.
Sorry no....in a great many cases, they're actively trying to identify people in real life through IP addresses, doxxing them, and complaining to their employer's social media directly. I can show you tweets where people are viciously attacking companies for employing someone they disagree with.
The entire point is to inflict monetary damages. If it wasn't....why would they contact the person's place of employment?
If the person being cancelled feels their employer isn't justified in firing them, they can always file a suit for wrongful termination.
Yeah, in the case of this Starbucks barrista....they did.
The lawsuit alleged Starbucks was instead taking steps to “punish white employees” who worked in the area “in an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident.”
During closing arguments on Friday, Phillips’ lawyer Laura Mattiacci told jurors that the company was looking for a “sacrificial lamb” to calm the outrage and show that it was taking action, Law360 reported. Picking a Black employee for such a purpose “would have blown up in their faces,” she said.
I don't know if you remember the story...
But it involved 2 black men who were asked to leave after they hadn't ordered. They refused, got arrested, and Starbucks fired some white manager in response to the situation because the actual manager in charge was black lol. They figured that the best way to reduce the bad PR was to play into the racist beliefs of the left and blame some white person.
Personally, this sits on a grey line for me as far as canceling because it's a complaint about employees doing their job poorly....but it is judged through that bonkers left wing racial lens that assumes that the men were thrown out because they're black and at the bottom of this racism must be some white person.
But they can't do that to someone on twitter who expressed an opinion.
Sure they can. Lawsuits have been filed over what people said on Twitter.
You're welcome. But you brought it up. I'm just following the train of thought. So feel free to take the credit.
Well ty.
Yup. As I said, making the case against a bunch of people who called for someone to be fired would be a difficult case to make.
Well it would require...
1. Identifying the people contacting the employer demanding the employee be fired.
2. The employer stating to the employee that they're being fired because of what the defendants from social media saying.
Most employers have legal agreements with employees that allow them to fire employees for nearly any reason at all. If the reason why is the people who think the employee should be fired....then you've pretty squarely established who is responsible for the damages.
And it isn't likely to happen a lot....because most regular people hurt by this can't afford lawyers, don't have unions, or even don't make enough money to bother with the damages.
If however, these barriers were removed or if someone with adequate resources was cancelled....I can see this going poorly for the people cancelling.
Heck, just serving all those subpoenas would be a massive undertaking;
Well I doubt you'd need to serve one on everyone. Pick 10-20 primary culprits that you've checked to ensure your former employer has seen the demands of....and they may end up sharing the damages.
plus which, I don't think a judge would see calling for someone to be fired as defamation.
It really depends on what the claim is....but most of them are valid "this guy is racist and should be fired" is defamation unless you can prove they are in fact racist. Good luck with that.
I think you're missing the bigger picture though. If you think that destroying the lives of people who disagree with you politically is acceptable....you're an authoritarian and a threat to democracy itself.
Everyone should be able to freely express their political beliefs in a democracy. Without that...how can we possibly remain a democracy?
But that's not for me to decide...anyone cancelled is free to hire a lawyer and pay for all those subpoenas.
Elon Musk looks like he has a good case against Media Matters. He seems confident he's got evidence that they manipulated search/algorithm data to scare off advertisers.
Assuming, of course, they are able to find some legal means to figure out who everyone is.
Oh it's not illegal to snag your IP address, they use it to identify your location, and if your identity is a simple matter of public record (is your name on the lease/mortgage?) then it's not very difficult at all.
I mean, far more data about people is sold between tech and advertising companies and apparently the government all the time.
No, they enjoy free speech. They're using it.
They enjoy political persecution. As people who are fundamentally authoritarian moralists....they clearly can't even handle a tiny amount of power responsibly.
Your only argument is that you don't agree with what they're saying.
No...I've actually agreed with the opinions of people canceling others. Sometimes someone is acting in a way that I would describe as racist, or inappropriate, or the person they're victimizing believes something generally awful.
I'm simply not some fascist who thinks everyone who disagrees with me should be silent or impoverished. Only the truly ignorant or truly fascist think that's good response to disagreement.
For a democracy to even exist people have to be able to voice their honest opinions on things. If they can't, and only one viewpoint is allowed to be voiced without any fear of losing your livelihood....then you don't have a democracy anymore. It doesn't matter if you vote or not.
I mean...people vote in Russia and China, right? China outright has eliminated any opposing political parties....they're a one party state. The people vote, but it doesn't really matter at all. They're essentially pretending that they have a say in anything. Russia isn't quite as restrictive....openly anyway. People can criticize the government....up to the point where it appears that they're convincing people that Putin isn't running things well and perhaps someone else could do better. Then those critics find themselves falling out windows of large buildings.
There's plenty of nations that are democratic...and several that pretend to be but aren't. The difference is whether or not you can openly express your political beliefs without punishment....from either the government or its supporters.
Feel free to try and make that case in court. However, I think it would be difficult to prove that any single individual is directly responsible for your being fired, so who are you gonna sue? Everyone?
Again, all it would require is an employer willing to answer a few questions. I don't see why they wouldn't. It's not as if they enjoy having to deal with the mob....and it seems unlikely they'd protect anyone in the mob. It's not as if the mob cares if they lose some of their own either....they regularly sacrifice their own just to get that fix they receive from abusing power...or perhaps it gives a sense of meaning to their empty lives...makes them feel like they're making a difference in the world that's meaningful.
And really, that's just one of the ways that this ends...
Politicians have proposed various ways to "solve" the problem....but the left only proposes ways they can enforce their views online. I think Nikki Haley wants to require all social media to become verified and non-anonymous. That would lead to a landslide of legislation. I'll admit, it would be interesting to see a class action suit where the individual is suing the group....instead of a group suing some individual or corporate entity....but no reason why it couldn't happen.
I think it would be simpler to just pass a law adding political beliefs to the list of protected features so employers can no longer fire anyone for their political beliefs....at least those not expressed at work. Then all that "outrage" would just disappear....
Of course, we can continue pulling apart into hyper-partisanship until it breaks out into violence or civil war. These things are avoidable though...all it takes is some bipartisan agreement that even though the left thinks this is going great for them now, it could easily turn on them tomorrow.
-- A2SG, gonna need deep pockets for that, bud....
Again, it's not a problem I have. I can't really be canceled. It's too hard to find out who employs me, and if someone did, they'd be wasting their time anyway. Anyone working hard enough to find out who signs my checks is going to trigger an investigation lol. I've got a pretty strong union and we keep multiple lawyers on retainer.
I only care because I see these young people who are fired for their political beliefs and that's an injustice. Unlike the left, I actually think free speech is important and persecution of political opponents is reprehensible behavior. It's not just the social media stuff either....this happens on college campuses and in schools now.
Hundreds of “radicalized” kids rampaged through the halls at Hillcrest High School this week after they discovered a teacher had attended a pro-Israel rally.
www.google.com
Between Trump's endless prosecution, children demanding their teachers be fired "for supporting Israel", the almost total lack of willingness on the left to engage with the right in open political discussion....
It's clear that the left has gone far astray from the principles of democracy. All across the spectrum of the left, you can see clearly that they not only believe that it's acceptable to persecute their political opponents....they believe it's morally good to do so.
Those kids may as well have been goose stepping through the halls of their school....I mean, they were outraged that a teacher supported Israel. At least the authorities seem genuinely concerned about it and recognize it as a problem...but unless they genuinely care, they will probably be convinced by the media in a year or so that those kids were both brave, fighting oppression, and the teacher was to blame....that the teacher is free to support Israel, but that comes with "consequences" (political persecution) and you'll be telling me that they were just exercising their right to protest...by chasing a teacher into a locked room and demand they be fired.
