I prefer freedom of speech because it tells me who I should avoid.
However, although I am sympathetic with your thesis, as an employer I would have a hard time trusting someone capable of statements applauding murder to make any public statements on my behalf (as an employer, avoid this person) There is a reason many in sports and entertainment have morals clauses in their contracts. For those in entertainment, marketing, or public relations I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for them exposing their unsuitability for the position. More pointedly, as a US citizen, I rather prefer that those expressing a willingness to tolerate political violence be kept out of my country, please (as a citizen in a civilized nation, avoid these sorts)!
In the case of our comic book author, calling Kirk a Nazi is an example that crosses a line. I Killing a nazi (remember the "Punch a Nazi" meme?), could be considered a public service. Who wouldn't want to kill HItler?. So throwing around "Fascist" and "Nazi" casually at least sounds like a call for murder. Although we may want to protect that speech, this sort of dehumanizing name calling doesn't do anyone any good. Except, for me it identifies the truly vile people who I need to make sure to stay far away from. So, State Department, yes please keep them in a different country.
It's ironic both for these people and for you, FIRE, that, in essence, they are supporting both political violence that you oppose and the suppression of speech they oppose - until they're targeted for speech others oppose. Could you try to be a little more honest in how this creates a paradox where supporting violence creates a feedback loop where speech just ends for everybody and we still end up with a culture where everyone is for restraining their opponents? Perhaps amend your free speech absolution by acknowledging how support for violence hurts all parties and cannot lead to any progress.
While I largely agree, I would argue that the firing of the MSNBC contributor was fundamentally different than the other firings. He was speaking on the job in his professional capacity as an employee of MSNBC. This is a business directly exercising control over its own speech.
Not to mention these were all firings and no arrests. Regarding the posts that explicitly support the shooting and future violence (as opposed to "he had it coming" messages), does FIRE think every business should look the other way when an employee espouses violent rhetoric, including when it is directed towards potential clients (i.e. closeted/implied conservatives)? Why should "cancel culture" apply to objectively problematic employees?
That's true. I know I'd feel uncomfortable at a business, either as a customer or a fellow employee, if I knew that someone there would plausibly wish to see me violently beaten or killed. It'd need to be pretty explicit though, not like the stuff that causes people on the far-left to say "they oppose policies I believe are necessary for my wellbeing, therefore they literally want me dead".
There is also an argument where teachers are concerned that one of their most important roles is to model proper civic behavior to their students and that comments supporting political violence call their ability to do so into question. However, I also recognize the vagueness of the term "proper civic behavior" and that not all would agree that teaching it is a teacher's job at all. I'm uncomfortable fully embracing this argument, personally.
This is the first post by FIRE that I disagree with. I absolutely and completely support the legal right to say anything you want, short of direct incitement to commit a specific crime. But free speech goes along with freedom of association. A company, like DC, has a right to choose who they wish to associate with and who not to associate with. Legalities aside, it is at least plausible that they have a moral duty to reign in expressions that support illegal and horrible violence.
The FIRE position here seems to be that it is always wrong to refuse to work with someone who has expressed support for illegal and monstrous actions. I don't buy it. Would the FIRE writer also criticize me for refusing to buy comics written by this man (who thinks he is a woman)? The story had a link to another DC writer, Mark Waid, whose work I have enjoyed in the past but who also wrote some horrible things about the assassination attempt on Trump. Am I wrong to not want to buy comics that he's written in future? Am I also obligated to let into my house someone who insists that we should murder people?
I prefer freedom of speech because it tells me who I should avoid.
However, although I am sympathetic with your thesis, as an employer I would have a hard time trusting someone capable of statements applauding murder to make any public statements on my behalf (as an employer, avoid this person) There is a reason many in sports and entertainment have morals clauses in their contracts. For those in entertainment, marketing, or public relations I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for them exposing their unsuitability for the position. More pointedly, as a US citizen, I rather prefer that those expressing a willingness to tolerate political violence be kept out of my country, please (as a citizen in a civilized nation, avoid these sorts)!
In the case of our comic book author, calling Kirk a Nazi is an example that crosses a line. I Killing a nazi (remember the "Punch a Nazi" meme?), could be considered a public service. Who wouldn't want to kill HItler?. So throwing around "Fascist" and "Nazi" casually at least sounds like a call for murder. Although we may want to protect that speech, this sort of dehumanizing name calling doesn't do anyone any good. Except, for me it identifies the truly vile people who I need to make sure to stay far away from. So, State Department, yes please keep them in a different country.
Quite right. Enabling lunatics to put their whole lunacy on display is, to my mind, THE most important feature (bug?) of free speech.
It's ironic both for these people and for you, FIRE, that, in essence, they are supporting both political violence that you oppose and the suppression of speech they oppose - until they're targeted for speech others oppose. Could you try to be a little more honest in how this creates a paradox where supporting violence creates a feedback loop where speech just ends for everybody and we still end up with a culture where everyone is for restraining their opponents? Perhaps amend your free speech absolution by acknowledging how support for violence hurts all parties and cannot lead to any progress.
While I largely agree, I would argue that the firing of the MSNBC contributor was fundamentally different than the other firings. He was speaking on the job in his professional capacity as an employee of MSNBC. This is a business directly exercising control over its own speech.
Not to mention these were all firings and no arrests. Regarding the posts that explicitly support the shooting and future violence (as opposed to "he had it coming" messages), does FIRE think every business should look the other way when an employee espouses violent rhetoric, including when it is directed towards potential clients (i.e. closeted/implied conservatives)? Why should "cancel culture" apply to objectively problematic employees?
That's true. I know I'd feel uncomfortable at a business, either as a customer or a fellow employee, if I knew that someone there would plausibly wish to see me violently beaten or killed. It'd need to be pretty explicit though, not like the stuff that causes people on the far-left to say "they oppose policies I believe are necessary for my wellbeing, therefore they literally want me dead".
There is also an argument where teachers are concerned that one of their most important roles is to model proper civic behavior to their students and that comments supporting political violence call their ability to do so into question. However, I also recognize the vagueness of the term "proper civic behavior" and that not all would agree that teaching it is a teacher's job at all. I'm uncomfortable fully embracing this argument, personally.
so i see fire's argument & outline of the law, which is all useful. Many good comments below.
Perhaps interesting to put FIRE to the "other foot" test - what if it was YOUR employee who made such a post? How do you think you would respond?
This is the first post by FIRE that I disagree with. I absolutely and completely support the legal right to say anything you want, short of direct incitement to commit a specific crime. But free speech goes along with freedom of association. A company, like DC, has a right to choose who they wish to associate with and who not to associate with. Legalities aside, it is at least plausible that they have a moral duty to reign in expressions that support illegal and horrible violence.
The FIRE position here seems to be that it is always wrong to refuse to work with someone who has expressed support for illegal and monstrous actions. I don't buy it. Would the FIRE writer also criticize me for refusing to buy comics written by this man (who thinks he is a woman)? The story had a link to another DC writer, Mark Waid, whose work I have enjoyed in the past but who also wrote some horrible things about the assassination attempt on Trump. Am I wrong to not want to buy comics that he's written in future? Am I also obligated to let into my house someone who insists that we should murder people?