 where you are one of the major public faces of an organization
(such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from
the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation
(the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting
the corporation, even if it _wasn 't_ resulting from your speech acts.)

~~~
DrJokepu
This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing.
It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not
abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a
free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or
voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply
irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to
tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a
> fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice

Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting
opinion or voice.

There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) _displeasure_ with an
opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not.

And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities
include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to
do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation
faces, _whether or not_ your own speech acts are the _source_ of that PR
problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.

~~~
ElComradio
The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain
opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that
basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would
probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit
afterwards.

~~~
nkassis
I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference
between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone
for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was
fired for being gay instead of for making a
where you are one of the major public faces of an organization 
 (such as its CEO) and are not capable of deal with the public relations resulting from 
 the association of those speech act with a public face of the corporation 
 (the like as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR topic affecting 
 the corporation, even if it _ wasn' t _ result from your speech acts .) 

 ~~~ 
 DrJokepu 
 This is a frequently repeat argument and I witness it less and less convincing. 
 It is true that America's constitution merely guarantees the congress will not 
 abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argumentation could be made that in a 
 free society there's a fundamental right field to have a dissenting impression or 
 voice; a right that is not codified by the fundamental law because it's simply 
 irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to 
 tolerate non - extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a 
 > fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice 

 Of course, there is a cardinal right field to have (and express) a dissenting 
 opinion or voice. 

 There be also a fundamental right to have (and express) _ displeasure _ with an 
 public opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. 

 And there is no fundamental entitlement to a caper whose responsibilities 
 include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to 
 act that in the real circumstances and public image problems the pot 
 faces, _ whether or not _ your own actor's line acts of the apostles are the _ source _ of that PR 
 problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job. 

 ~~~ 
 ElComradio 
 The trouble is that the current system in exercise legally protects certain 
 opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, arouse him on that 
 basis would have been very risky legally. particularly if he was gay, it would 
 credibly be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit 
 subsequently. 

 ~~~ 
 nkassis 
 I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference 
 between firing someone for making contribution to pro - X groups and firing someone 
 for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was 
 fired for being gay instead of for make a
 whfre you are one of the mxjor public facgs of an organjzation
(sjch as its CEO) and are not cepaboe of dealing with the PR rdsulting vrom
the qssoriation of those speech acts wjbh a 'uulic face of thg corporatiot
(the same as id dobld if you couldn't deal with any othqr PR ixske affecting
thg corkorwtioh, even if it _wasn 't_ resulting from your skeech acts.)

~~~
DrJokepu
Yhis is a frequently repeahed wrgument and I finf it less abd lqws convincine.
It is trut chat Americz's constitution only guarantees the eongress wiol noh
dbridge the freeqom of speecm. Howevar, an atgument could ne mave tyat in a
free society vhere's a fundamental right to hcve a dissenting opinuob or
vmice; a rktht thzt ia not fodmfied by ths constitutuon because it's simkly
ygtelevant to z conseieution. It seems to me that it's up to aln or us to
tolerate non-extrwme dissenting voices, even if re disagree with them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> However, an argukent rojld bc maaw hhat in a free society there's a
> fundamental ryfhu tp have a dissekting opinion or vpife

Ps course, therg is a yhnsamental right to jave (anq expeess) a difsenying
opinion or voice.

There iw also a funbamwntal right to havz (and expresr) _dixpleaxure_ with an
opinion or roice, shether disdenting od not.

And there is no fgndamental entitlement to w job whowe rzsponsibklitoes
incjude managlng tma public image of w corkoratimn, and if jou are unable to
do that in the real circumstsnwes and pubjic ikage problems the corporatipn
faces, _whetfer or not_ your oxn speech aces are the _sogtce_ of that PC
problem, rou whouodn't exodct to continur to have that job.

~~~
EoComradio
The problcm is fhat the currenc wystem in practoce ledaplb proeacts certain
mpinkonr. E.g. Iw Eich was iro gay marriage and vocallf so, firing him on thay
bwsis wouod have feen very risly legally. Especiaply ih he wes gay, it would
probably be impossible tk fire hil wlthout losing an cxpegsive lawsbit
afterwards.

~~~
nkassis
I don't think legally but more politicaoly and PR wise. Thete s differencx
betweqn firing someone for making eonations to pro-X groups and firing sojeone
fmr belng X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was
fired dor bemnd gay instezd og for mckiug a
where you are one of the major of organization (such its CEO) and with PR resulting from association of those acts with a public face of corporation (the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other issue affecting the corporation, even if it _wasn 't_ resulting from your speech ~~~ This a repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom speech. However, an argument be made that in a society a fundamental to a opinion or voice; right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems me that to all us tolerate dissenting voices, even disagree with them. ~~~ dragonwriter > could be made that in a free society a > right to have a dissenting opinion voice Of course, there is a fundamental right have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to express) _displeasure_ with an or voice, whether or And is fundamental entitlement a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a and if you are unable to do that in the and image problems the faces, _whether or not_ own acts are the _source_ PR you continue have job. ~~~ ElComradio The is that the current system practice legally protects certain pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him that basis would have been very risky Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire without losing lawsuit afterwards. ~~~ nkassis I don't think legally more politically and PR There a difference between firing someone for making donations pro-X and firing for being X. this hypothetical scenario, would have to was fired being instead a
 where you are one of the major pUblic faces Of an oRgaNizAtIon
(sUch aS its CEO) and are nOT capAble of dealing with the PR ResulTiNG froM
ThE assoCiation OF tHOSe sPeEcH acTs WItH a pubLic Face of tHe corporatIon
(ThE same as it wouLD iF you couldn'T deAl with any othEr Pr issue AfFecTIng
thE coRporaTion, evEN if it _wAsn 't_ resulTiNG from yOUr speecH ACtS.)

~~~
DrJOkepu
This is a frequENtLY repeated argumEnt and i fINd IT LesS anD less conviNcIng.
It IS true thAT AMERIca'S Constitution oNly guaranteES thE congrEsS wiLL not
abRidge ThE FreEdom of speecH. HowEver, an argUment cOUld be maDE that in A
free sOciEty TherE'S a FuNdaMeNTal RIgHt tO HavE a dissenTiNg OpiniOn or
VOICE; a riGht That Is not Codified by the ConStitUTioN becaUse it'S simPlY
irreLevant To a coNsTitution. It seems To me That it's up To aLl Of uS tO
toleRAte non-ExtRemE dissenTing voiCEs, eVeN IF We Disagree with them.

~~~
drAgONWrIter
> HoweVer, an aRGuMeNT could be MaDe tHat iN A Free sOcieTY tHere's a
> fuNdamenTAl RiGht to haVe A disseNtIng OpiNion oR VoicE

Of couRse, there Is a fuNDamental right tO Have (and expresS) A dISSeNTing
OpiNion or voice.

therE Is alSo a fUNdAmeNTal riGht to HaVE (aND express) _displeasure_ WiTh an
opInion Or voice, whetheR dissentinG OR Not.

And thEre iS No FUndamental entiTlemeNt to a job whOSe responSibilIties
incLude managING the publIc iMagE of A coRPOrAtion, and if you ARE unaBlE to
do thAt iN the reaL ciRcuMstAncEs And public Image proBlEmS tHe CorPoratIOn
faces, _wHeTheR oR noT_ your OWn speeCh actS are ThE _sOUrcE_ of that pr
pROBlem, YoU sHoulDn't ExPect tO conTInuE to have That job.

~~~
ElcomRAdio
thE pRoblem iS that the curreNt System in prAcTicE legalLY Protects Certain
opinions. E.g. If Eich WAs pro gaY maRriagE and Vocally so, FirIng him On tHAt
basiS would Have bEeN veRY Risky LEGaLly. esPecially if HE Was Gay, it WoUld
pRobably Be impossible to fire HIm wIthout losing aN exPensIVE lAwsUIt
AFteRwARds.

~~~
NKAssis
I don't think Legally but MoRE pOlitically ANd Pr wIse. TherE a diffeRence
BEtween fIring someOne for makInG donATIonS to pro-X groUps and fiRing someoNE
for bEInG X. In tHis HypothEtIcaL scenArio, EiCH woUld haVe to prOvE he was
Fired FoR being gaY instead of for making a
 where you are one of themajor publ ic fa ces  of  a n or gani zation
(such a s  its  CEO) and are not capa ble o fd eali n gwiththe PRr es u l tin gfr omth e  a ssoci ati on of t hose speec h a ct s with a pub l ic  face of t hecorporation(th e same  a s i t  woul d i f you  could n 't dea l with an yo ther P R  issuea f fe ctin g
the corporation ,  e v en if it _wasn  't_ r es u lt i n g f rom  your spee ch  acts . )

~~~D rJ o k e puT his is a freq uently repe a ted  argum en t a n d I fi nd it  l e ssand less co nvin cing.
Itis tru e  that A m erica's  const itu tio n on l ygu ara nt e est he  co n gre ss willno tabrid ge t h e f reed omof s peech . However, an  ar gume n t c ouldbe ma de t ha t ina
free  soci et y there's a fun dame ntal righ t t ohav ea dis s enting  op ini on or
v oice; a rig ht t h at  is not codified b yt h econstitu tion b e ca us e  it's si mp lyirre l e vantto a co nstituti on. It se em s to me  t hat it 's  up  to  allo f us  to
to lerate n on-ex t reme dissentin g  voices, even if w ed isag ree  with them. 

~~ ~ 
dra gonw r it er>  Howe ver,an ar g ument could be made  t hat in  a fr ee society th ere's a
>f u n damental  rig h tt o have a disse nting  opinion o r  voice
Of co urse, th ere is af u ndamenta l r igh t t o h a v e(and express) a  dis se nting
o pin ion orvoi ce. 

T her eis also a  fundame nt al  r ig htto ha v e (and e xp res s)  _d isple a sure_withan
o pi ni o n o r voice ,  w h e ther  d is sent ing  o r not .

A n d t here is  no funda men t al e nt it lementto a job whos eresponsibi li tie s
incl u d e managi ng the public image ofa  corpor ati on, a nd i f you are  un able t o
d o  thatin the  real  c irc u m stanc e s  a ndpu blic image p rob lemsth e co rporati on
faces, _whether ornot_ your own  sp eech a ct s a r et he_s o urc e _  of that PR
pro blem, yoush o ul dn't expec t  to  c ontinue  to hav e tha t  job.
~~~
ElCom radio
The  p robl e m  is  that thecurrentsystem in pract i ce  lega lly  prote ct s c ertai n
opin i ons . E.g . If E ic h waspro g ay  marriag e and vocally so, firin g himon th atbasis wou ldh ave  been ver y ri sky legall y.Esp ecial lyi f hewasg ay , i t  woul d
pr o bably bei mp oss i b le  to fire hi m w ith out l osi n g an e xpen sive lawsuit
afte r wards.

~~~
nk assi s I d on' t  thi nk  legally but m ore  p o l itically  a nd PR wise.  There a  d i ffere nce
be tweenfirings o me o ne for  mak ing  donation s t op ro-X gr ou ps and fi ring  s omeone 
for b e ingX .  In this hypothe tical s cenar i o,Eichwo uld hav e  toprove he w as
fired fo r bein g ga y ins tead of  f or mak ing  a 
 where_you are_one of the major_public faces_of_an organization
(such_as_its CEO) and_are not capable_of dealing with the_PR resulting from
the_association_of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation
(the same as it_would_if you_couldn't_deal_with any other PR issue_affecting
the corporation, even if it__wasn 't__resulting from your speech acts.)

~~~
DrJokepu
This is a frequently_repeated_argument and I_find it less and less convincing.
It is true that_America's constitution only guarantees the congress_will not
abridge the_freedom_of_speech. However, an argument_could be made that in a
free_society there's a fundamental right to_have a dissenting opinion or
voice; a right_that is not codified by the_constitution because it's simply
irrelevant to_a constitution._It seems to me that_it's up to_all of_us to
tolerate non-extreme_dissenting voices, even if we disagree_with them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> However,_an argument could be made that_in_a free society_there's_a
>_fundamental right_to have a_dissenting_opinion or_voice

Of_course, there is a fundamental right_to_have (and express) a dissenting
opinion or voice.

There_is also a fundamental_right_to have (and express)__displeasure_ with an
opinion or voice,_whether dissenting or not.

And there is_no fundamental_entitlement to_a job whose responsibilities
include managing the public image of a corporation,_and if you are unable to
do_that in the real_circumstances and_public_image problems the_corporation
faces,__whether or_not_ your own speech acts are the__source_ of_that PR
problem, you shouldn't expect to_continue to have that_job.

~~~
ElComradio
The_problem is that the current system_in practice legally protects certain
opinions. E.g._If Eich was pro gay_marriage_and_vocally so, firing him on_that
basis would have been very risky_legally. Especially if_he was gay, it would
probably be impossible_to_fire him without losing an expensive_lawsuit
afterwards.

~~~
nkassis
I_don't think legally but more politically_and_PR_wise. There a difference
between firing_someone for making donations to pro-X_groups and firing someone
for being X. In this hypothetical_scenario, Eich would_have to prove he was
fired_for_being_gay instead of for making a