Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

globaltimes.cn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

#11

Post by goblin89 »

isaack wrote: post #8

Cathay Pacific CEO stepped down after China’s civil aviation regulator issued a major safety risk warning to Cathay and set out a list of demands, including giving full information on crew flying into its airspace [1]. The news is first reported by China's state-owned CCTV [2]. [1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/302312... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/cathay-pa...

The old technique of threatening company’s business with mainland, unless it does what’s favorable for the political system. Easier to handle if you’re based in the US or elsewhere, but China’s closer here so the situation is challenging.

I feel like HK & post-Brexit UK could make great friends…

Re: Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

#13

Post by mef »

deogeo wrote: post #10

Will censorship apologists claim this isn't censorship, because "no-one is owed a job", or "they're private companies that can do what they like", then link to this 'insightful' comic https://xkcd.com/1357/ ? I know this comment may seem shallow and argumentative, but these arguments regularly show up when the speech is unpopular, to explain why it's "not censorship".

if you don’t see the difference between a business not hosting what they consider hate speech and a business firing its employees at the direct request of the government, I don’t know what to tell you.

Re: Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

#14

Post by deogeo »

mef wrote: post #13
deogeo wrote: post #10

Will censorship apologists claim this isn't censorship, because "no-one is owed a job", or "they're private companies that can do what they like", then link to this 'insightful' comic https://xkcd.com/1357/ ? I know this comment may seem shallow and argumentative, but these arguments regularly show up when the speech is unpopular, to explain why it's "not censorship".

if you don’t see the difference between a business not hosting what they consider hate speech and a business firing its employees at the direct request of the government, I don’t know what to tell you.

The difference is the power of the censor - the act is the same (Yes, people have been fired for controversial statements. And less controversial ones: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/cartoonist...).

Re: Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

#15

Post by kthejoker2 »

deogeo wrote: post #10

Will censorship apologists claim this isn't censorship, because "no-one is owed a job", or "they're private companies that can do what they like", then link to this 'insightful' comic https://xkcd.com/1357/ ? I know this comment may seem shallow and argumentative, but these arguments regularly show up when the speech is unpopular, to explain why it's "not censorship".

First: I am literally one of the least-informed people on the current situation in Hong Kong, and specifically Big 4 employees' roles in the protests. So I am in no ways casting judgment or agreeing with either side here - I have no position from which to do so.

But taking the article at face value, they specifically mention "violence" and "illegal acts", which are by no means "free speech."

If an employee of a company is indeed objectively causing violence and performing illegal acts, that's certainly a fireable offense.

Which is all the anodyne statements from the companies come out and say - we don't condone violence or illegal acts, and individual employees' free speech and political participation otherwise is their own.

Re: Top accounting firms urged to fire pro-riot staff

#16

Post by mieses »

The one and only comment on that article says a lot:

> Top accounting and other professional services doing business in Hong Kong cannot operate, bid and win any business employing people that have criminal records for perpetrating violent rioting and committing terrorism.

> Besides, why would top professional services companies even want to hire an employee that is easily brainwashed to be a Useful Idiot ?

For the time being, the big 4 are free to do what they like. The same does not apply to globaltimes.cn and their moderators.

Post reply on HN