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

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#221

Post by Mezzie »

mjmsmith wrote: post #37
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

I could certainly imagine a larger pro-life contingent at Facebook than other tech companies. Business Insider posted an article in 2019 on Facebook data showing that its "best-performing content is almost entirely from right- and far-right-wing publications and personalities" [1] It's not entirely unlikely that in the intervening years, left-leaning employees have been more likely to leave, and right-leaning employe…

I'd expect FB to have more of a pro-life contingent than say, Twitter, but still small to my perspective. (I live in a purple district in a purple state, so it's not uncommon for half and half workplaces to exist).

I'd also expect that the majority of FB's right-leaning employees are of a SV libertarianish bent, and most of them are pro-choice or apathetic.

FB strikes me as a company with a very mercenary, self-interested workforce more than a partisan one.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#222

Post by rayiner »

thrown_22 wrote: post #154
rayiner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. Even Thomas doesn’t disagree that there are implied rights. His view is that they originate from the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “due process clause.” But nobody disagrees, for example, that marria…

>The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives. A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status th…

> That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again.

No it’s not. The existence of an independent, unchallenged basis invariably kills the possibility of Supreme Court review.

Thomas is on solid legal footing to argue that the “Due Process” clause doesn’t protect anything other than the right to receive legal process before being deprived of a legal right.

Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which rests on a different and vastly firmer legal ground, is a dirty smear tactic against a man who is himself in an interracial marriage.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#223

Post by nathanaldensr »

feet wrote: post #215
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem). My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum. This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points. It is not like someone, when hearin…

Quoted post unavailable.

Murder is okay as long as my religion says it is.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#224

Post by paulryanrogers »

fatherzine wrote: post #169
drewcoo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern. There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.

It's not the trolley problem. There are plenty of avenues for political activism /outside/ the workplace. Adults should be capable of not conflating the workplace with their entire existence. The only acceptable activism is unionization, understood as narrowly focused on workplace issues. For a sample size of one, while I am very guilty of having many politically charged conversations with coworkers, I have always ke…

With healthcare tied to employment I don't think this issue can be considered strictly unrelated to work.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#225

Post by thrown_22 »

rayiner wrote: post #222
thrown_22 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives. A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status th…

> That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. No it’s not. The existence of an independent, unchallenged basis invariably kills the possibility of Supreme Court review. Thomas is on solid legal footing to argue that the “Due Process” clause doesn’t protect anything other than the right to receive legal process before being deprived of a legal right. Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which r…

>Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which rests on a different and vastly firmer legal ground, is a dirty smear tactic against a man who is himself in an interracial marriage.

You're calling him so morally bankrupt that he would only vote impartially on laws that don't impact him personally, while he would vote with his self interest in all other cases.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#226

Post by edanm »

diordiderot wrote: post #196
HumanReadable wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sentence. I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues: First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it. Secondly there is a debate over states rights…

I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not. Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive? I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.

I understand your point and it's a valid one, but you're not actually engaging with (part of) parent's argument.

If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#227

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #220
dragonwriter wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well. No, he flat out stated that all substantive due process precedent, including but not limited to the cases establishing the right to same sex marriage, marital contraception, and freedom against sodomy laws, are “demonstrably erroneous” and that it is obligatory for the Court to “correct the error” that they represent…

You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause. Thomas doesn’t deny that there are unenumerated rights that were recognized at the time of the founding. Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold. It’s Constitutionally infirm, and if they don’t need it, why do we?

> You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause.

Yes, and I also leave out (as, hiwever, does Thomas as well) that many of the substantive due process cases, including the line of marriage cases including Loving and Obergefell, were, in their own decisions, were found to be mandated independently by each due process and equal protection clauses, such that the Privileges and Immunities clause analysis Thomas suggests would be entirely superfluous unless the Court not only through our the substantive due process theory but also just read the Equal Protection Clause into a nullity.

Thomas also leaves out that the Court has (long before coming up with the Substantive Due Process theory he calls on it to reject), actually already done the P&I analysis he calls for and rejected the idea that that clause covers anything other than explicitly enumerated rights, and only (as it expressly states, so it would take a rather tendentious reading to remove this limitation) those of citizens (note that this problem would not exist with the Ninth Amendment which is fairly explicitly about unenumerated rights and, along with the EPC, is a more commonly cited alternative basis for the same rights that have been found on substantive due process grounds raises in legal scholarship, concurrences, and even, IIRC, expressly in some substantive due process decisions as an express concurrent ground for the decision the way the EPC is in the marriage cases and some others.

> Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold

The US doesn't even have a doctrine similar to Griswold; the right in Griswold was upheld by later cases on a substantive due process basis (closer to Byron and Harlan’s concurrence), but Griswold itself wasn't actually a substantive due process case.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#228

Post by rayiner »

thrown_22 wrote: post #225
rayiner wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. No it’s not. The existence of an independent, unchallenged basis invariably kills the possibility of Supreme Court review. Thomas is on solid legal footing to argue that the “Due Process” clause doesn’t protect anything other than the right to receive legal process before being deprived of a legal right. Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which r…

>Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which rests on a different and vastly firmer legal ground, is a dirty smear tactic against a man who is himself in an interracial marriage. You're calling him so morally bankrupt that he would only vote impartially on laws that don't impact him personally, while he would vote with his self interest in all other cases.

You stated upthread: “while having your interracial marriage dissolved.”

That suggests that Thomas would vote to overturn Loving, not that he would avoid it out of his own self interest.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#229

Post by BrandoElFollito »

feet wrote: post #215
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem). My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum. This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points. It is not like someone, when hearin…

Quoted post unavailable.

I do not know to which point you have separation of church and state, taken that the oath is done on the Bible (at least traditionally), with a formal "So help me God" at the end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_presiden...). It sure can be omitted and you could swear on something else than the Bible but this sends a message.

We French do not have a clear cut separation of the two either, but this is more a cultural thing because a minimal percentage of the population is religious, at least with the religion our culture was raised with (Christianity, roughly speaking).

Also, when we passed in 1975 the abortion law (Loi Veil), the opposition was not for religious reasons but, sadly, a pure masculine view on the role of the woman and her rights.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#230

Post by thrown_22 »

rayiner wrote: post #228
thrown_22 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Extrapolating from that to interracial marriage, which rests on a different and vastly firmer legal ground, is a dirty smear tactic against a man who is himself in an interracial marriage. You're calling him so morally bankrupt that he would only vote impartially on laws that don't impact him personally, while he would vote with his self interest in all other cases.

You stated upthread: “while having your interracial marriage dissolved.” That suggests that Thomas would vote to overturn Loving , not that he would avoid it out of his own self interest.

Yes, I'm well aware I am not you.
Post reply on HN