101–110 of 121 posts
In two words: bite me. there aren't too many things that i'm a raving aboslutist about, but the freedom of political speech is one of them. If my employer attempts to step on my neck for saying things about china that china doesn't like, on my time, and my personal accounts, their next contact from me will be from an ACLU lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Blizzard's muzzling/suspension of a Hearthstone tournament player count? Sure, the player isn't an employee, but essentially earns money by playing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190265
Not really. Blizzard cites a specific rule that all the tournament players agree to that allows them to do that. Most employees don't have any such agreement with their employer. Even so, with at-will employment, employees have always been subject to being fired for saying something controversial on social media, so this is nothing new.
Corporations hr departments have firing down to a fine art.
In two words: bite me. there aren't too many things that i'm a raving aboslutist about, but the freedom of political speech is one of them. If my employer attempts to step on my neck for saying things about china that china doesn't like, on my time, and my personal accounts, their next contact from me will be from an ACLU lawyer.
In two words: bite me. there aren't too many things that i'm a raving aboslutist about, but the freedom of political speech is one of them. If my employer attempts to step on my neck for saying things about china that china doesn't like, on my time, and my personal accounts, their next contact from me will be from an ACLU lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what your brain tells you. Is it reality? A better explanation: China is much more unstable than Russia, and revolution is a much more dangerous and consequential threat.
That's an interesting take on it. I wonder if you're right. (And I'm torn as to whether to hope that you're right, or to fear that you are.)
The major issue is that the mythos of the Chinese state has always required a unified China, and unifying such a large, heavily populated country is difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't sound like he did at all. The first cartoon states that you should have the right to say everything you feel you should say, while the second states that no one is forced to listen to you.
"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"
I don't think it's unfair to presume that the author wasn't considering "people" to be "nations" in this context.
oh wait, capitalism. Nevermind. Let's pander to them instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia jails critics and worse on a frequent basis. From the Gulags to Pussy Riot to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/russian-parlia... > The law, which critics say is reminiscent of Soviet-era legislation used to target political dissidents, stipulates fines of up to 100,000 roubles (£1,155) for “indecent” online posts that demonstrate a “blatant disrespect for society, the country, Russia’s offic…
Sure they do. They don't do as much to exert international pressure, though. Perhaps I should have said that, while China and Russia are both very concerned about their image inside the country (showing that they have some fear of their own population, perhaps), China is much touchier about its image outside the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.newsweek.com/cathay-ceo-refused-name-hong-kong-p... https://www.ibtimes.com/cathay-pacific-ceo-praised-not-givin...
You provided two links which both reference the same news source, which cites their source as > One of the first netizens to share this news, David Ng, a student at the Education University of Hong Kong, told Taiwan News that this information came from a trusted source who works as a manager for Cathay Pacific Airways
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it. It’s not protected in many cases and they can always just fire you and exhaust your resources in any resulting legal battle. If you had a union on the other hand, it could stipulate protection of this kind of speech as part of the employment contract an…
> While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it. Sounds an awful lot like a socialist euphemism for an ideologically-motivated blend of censorship.
Socialism, yeah okay. Pro-censorship?