
James Damore is (almost certainly) not a victim of a free-speech violation - empressplay
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-google-anti-diversity-manifesto-free-speech-2017-8
======
scarmig
There's something grotesque about the Left suddenly embracing at-will
employment as the best thing in the world that's key to a just society.

The First Amendment clearly doesn't protect Damore. But there's more to free
speech than the First Amendment. If employees try to start a union but the
employer fires without consequence everyone who talks about it or likes it on
Facebook, is that a society where free speech is valued?

~~~
eesmith
The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned
are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by
sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and followup legislation grant
additional protections to employees for matters regarding discrimination
against a protected class of people, including speech rights which are not
otherwise protected in the workplace by the First Amendment.

There is more to the First Amendment than free speech. It also includes the
freedom to assemble, which is closely or even interchangeable with the freedom
of association. This is what allows a group to expel someone from the group as
a consequence of speaking in a way which the group disagrees with.

~~~
scarmig
> The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned
> are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by
> sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Yes, which is exactly the point. Lazy justifications of any non-governmental
punishment of speech with "well the First Amendment doesn't protect against
it, so it's fine!" is just that: lazy.

> There is more to the First Amendment than free speech.

Yes. And there is more to free speech than the First Amendment.

~~~
eesmith
Which is why "the Left" didn't make that lazy argument. They added laws which
protected that sort of speech, which took years of political effort.

The Left's arguments were also much more concrete than an appeal to "free
speech". Suppress the right to unionize and there will be wildcat strikes and
a return to the violent actions of the 1800s. Allow workplace discrimination
on the basis of skin color and there will be a return to the horrors of the
Jim Crow era. Don't discriminate against women in the workplace because the
experience of WWII shows that women are much more capable than was previously
thought. [0]

You'll also notice that "the Left" deliberately made it harder for people to
make some sorts of speech at work, if it results in a hostile workplace. Why,
it's almost as if they consistently believe that "free speech" at the
workplace has a lesser standing than free speech in a public arena.

Sure, there's more to free speech than the First Amendment. There's also more
to freedom of assembly than the First Amendment. There is a necessary tension
between the two no matter how it is embodied. If freedom of speech trumps the
freedom of assembly then there is no liberty.

[0] Also, don't discriminated against men, eg, "men aren't allowed to be
nurses." Really the argument is that there are very few jobs with a bona fide
reason for discrimination on the basis of gender.

------
sanxiyn
This article repeats "The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google
Memo", namely calling it "anti-diversity manifesto". The issue was discussed
here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14959601)

~~~
AstralStorm
How to spin news for power and profit 101. Control the wording and you bias
the people.

------
leifaffles
Nobody is arguing that he is a victim of his "free speech rights" being
violated.

People _are_ arguing that Google is acting like a thug.

~~~
msie
If he had only posted it anonymously he wouldn't have put Google in such an
awkward position. What do you do with someone that many will not want to work
with?

~~~
scarmig
Should Hobby Lobby be able to fire a transman employee who publicly
transitions, just because many of his coworkers would not want to work with
him?

~~~
michaelchisari
You're comparing simply being to publicly soapboxing. That's an absurd
comparison.

A more apt comparison is if that trans person disseminated a controversial
manifesto about gender theory on company time with company services.

~~~
scarmig
The person I was responding to stated that a company should fire an employee
if other employees don't want to work with him. If we accept offense as the
metric by which we decide whether someone should be fired or not, then you
bite the bullet and accept the consequences of applying that principle
uniformly.

You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired, and
other people shouldn't. Which may be defensible, but off-topic to this
particular thread.

~~~
michaelchisari
> You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired

Spare me the extrapolation. My position is clear: Stupid people should be
fired.

~~~
kazagistar
I'm pretty sure that was the position of the "manifesto" as well.

~~~
michaelchisari
Only one person involved showed demonstrable stupidity, though.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
The last two paragraphs are quite telling:

> In sum, Damore may have enough of a complaint to file a case, but that case
> — ultimately — won't get very far unless the US Supreme Court is willing to
> adopt California law, widen it, and give all Americans a new right to use
> their bosses' computers for political activity. That, given the court's 5-4
> conservative majority, seems unlikely.

On the other hand, the conservative judges might sympathize with Damore,
but...

> It is rare that conservatives argue for the rights of employers to be
> restricted when it comes to firing workers. They ought to tread very
> carefully with that insistence. Such a right could give every communist,
> every member of the KKK, and every Hillary Clinton voter an equal right to
> fill up their internal workplace bulletin boards with propaganda of their
> pleasing.

...but Business Insider warns the judges that if they choose to back up
Damore, workplaces might become filled with communist propaganda.

------
nextweek2
Ironically Google appear to want to create a yes men/women culture. Anybody
with a descenting view knows they have to tow the company line to keep their
job.

Those trying to make the workplace more equal are going to find it harder to
meet the people they need to reach. Education would have been a better choice.

------
thedz
The ol' freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences bit

~~~
sssilver
"Sure, you are free to say what you want, but you won't be free from the
consequence of getting shot" \--A certain Joseph Stalin.

------
michaelchisari
It's an open and shut situation: He used company time and company services to
disseminate a controversial position to a captive audience of coworkers. Had
he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and
most likely, still have a job.

It showed terrible judgement on his part, and that's not even getting into the
content of the manifesto.

~~~
DanAndersen
>Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case,
and most likely, still have a job.

Doubtful. Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own
time. In the current climate, there'd still be the same outrage ("Googler has
evil thoughts, why isn't Google firing him?!"). If anything, he'd have even
less of a case in the court of public sympathy, as the entire point of this
guy's post was not just diversity issues in general but how they applied to
Google's internal operations. Taking the initiative to air that publicly would
have been an intentional hit against Google PR. In this case, though, the
author of this memo had posted it to internal Google groups, and then
presumably an ideological opponent leaked it to the public for the purposes of
stirring public opinion against the author.

~~~
michaelchisari
> Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time.

That's a completely different situation, and can't really be compared. A CEO
position for a non-profit and Sr. Engineer at Google are not comparable.

A CEO position is the public face of a company. There is so much more that
goes into it on multiple levels than being an engineer with only 4 years under
their belt who nobody has ever heard of.

Had he posted this to a personal blog, it would have barely been a footnote.
And more importantly, California law would have protected him.

~~~
chrisco255
Not in this day and age. One of my high school teachers posted political
commentary to his Facebook profile that was controversial to some. It went
viral and he got fired...effectively for his religious beliefs. We live in a
day and age of viral outrage. So some might say he's a teacher and therefore
he can't make his students uncomfortable. So his free speech is effectively
cut off. Meanwhile as a student in college I'm forced to suffer through the
opinions of heavily biased professors who literally assign term papers which
only act as exercises in progressive liberal confirmation bias.

~~~
michaelchisari
K-12 teachers have always had an ethical behavior imperative outside of
school, by virtue of their position. That's nothing new. The difference now is
that so much of what we do is found so easily.

I can't really evaluate anything else you've said without examples of that
person's "religious beliefs" or your professors "heavily biased progressive
liberal confirmation bias".

~~~
chrisco255
There's nothing unethical about posting an opinion on Facebook. I was
literally unfriended by a progressive classmate of mine because I ate Chik-
Fil-A nuggets in the wake of that company's CEO's stance on gay marriage. I
support gay marriage...but I just wanted some sweet tea and fried chicken. I
suppose I was not sufficiently outraged for this progressive. That's how bad
some people have gotten.

~~~
michaelchisari
I don't understand. Are you a K-12 teacher? Ethical behavior imperatives apply
to K-12 teachers.

I'm sorry you got unfriended though. I hope you're doing ok.

~~~
chrisco255
I'm just indicating how strongly people feel about their views these days. I
wouldn't even unfriend someone for saying offensive things about
conservatives, even though my whole family is that. People have gotten very
tribal and very righteous about very trivial things (like chicken nuggets).

K-12 teachers still deserve first amendment rights. They have a right to say
controversial things (outside of work hours)...that's precisely what the
Constitution protects. This isn't ethics...this is speech. If folks haven't
learned to accept that some people will sometimes offend you with their
opinions and that it's okay...then I question their ability to function as
adults. The teacher did end up getting reinstated but not before some lengthy
dragged out debacle.

We can't say the first amendment applies to everyone except teachers or CEOs
or (insert arbitrary profession here). We can't say progressive views are
inherently less offensive than conservative views and proceed to shut down
conservative speech through intimidation or termination. That's ridiculous. It
doesn't matter which class of people were offended.

If all that matters is who is offended the strongest, then all you're doing is
setting up an arms race for which side can get the most riled up. You're not
encouraging constructive dialog and nobody is growing. Offensive speech
happens.

~~~
eesmith
"These days"? This is nothing new. People did the same with Coors back in the
1960s and 1970s. Quoting from [http://www.cpr.org/news/story/coors-boycott-
when-beer-can-si...](http://www.cpr.org/news/story/coors-boycott-when-beer-
can-signaled-your-politics)

"For some Americans in the 1960s and 1970s, Coors—the iconic Rocky Mountain
brew—signified views about labor, race, and gender equality. The Coors
boycotts, beginning in 1966 and lasting, for some people, right up to the
present, connected a wide spectrum of activists and organizations, much like
the successful grape boycott organized by Cesar Chavez and the United Farm
Workers in the 1960s. ... In 1969, 43 Chicano students at Southern Colorado
State College (SCSC) - now Colorado State University-Pueblo- joined hands
around the campus pub to keep people from ordering any Coors beer. ... The
boycotts had a clear financial impact. In California, where anti-Coors
sentiment was high, the company’s share of the state beer market slid from 40
percent in 1977 to 14 percent in 1984."

Here's a quote from "The Milagro Beanfield War", written in 1974.: "Okay,
gimme a pack of Camels and a Coors tallboy. No, wait a sec, make that a Hamms,
there's a boycott on Coors."

Here's an article from the Lakeland Ledger Dec 28, 1975,
[https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19751228&id=...](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19751228&id=qEdNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4foDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4777,7408732)
. Among other things, numerous gay bars in SF stopped serving Coors already by
that time.

Regarding K-12 teachers, see [https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/free-speech-rights-
public-schoo...](https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/free-speech-rights-public-
school-teachers-washington-state) . They have First Amendment rights.
"However, if you use social media to comment about students, school or other
work-related matters, or you use it to engage in what might be considered
conduct impairing your functioning as a teacher, the First Amendment may not
protect you."

It then lists some examples:

• a court upheld a demotion of a teacher who posted derogatory comments about
a school administrator on her blog.

• a court upheld the firing of a teacher who communicated with students
through MySpace inappropriately, “as if he were their peer.”

• A court upheld the firing of a teacher who posted sexually explicit
Craigslist ads (“immoral conduct” made him unfit to teach).

The relevant Supreme Court case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, which applies to all
public employees.

As the last point shows, K-12 teachers are often subject to morality clauses,
with a gray area in what that means. Olivia Sprauer in FL was fired for
working in off-hours as a glamour model, wearing bikinis.

