r2i forum

https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-against-politician-who-banned-access-to-her-facebook-page-1501176625

Admins (past and present) here can take note that now we spend our tax dollars on Judges playing admin role in social media. :)
[quote]Earlier this year, Judge Cacheris dismissed another lawsuit by Mr. Davison against a state prosecutor who deleted Mr. Davison?s comments from the prosecutor?s official Facebook page.

The judge ruled that the deletion was constitutional because the plaintiff had attempted to ?hijack the discussion? in violation of a government social-media policy that permitted the removal of ?clearly off-topic? comments. The case is on appeal.[/quote]
I think we should suggest to the state prosecutor to create a "hijack & banter" FB page. :)

Many of you would have seen the news of a Google employee questioning womans place in technology industry!
Today a news came that he was fired because of public uproar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html

--
Me thinks that is a shame! Regardless of his opinion and the rights of an employer to fire him, I think a better way to handle this is to debate the points. Firing a person shows lack of courage to debate a point similar to Germany and many other countries outlawing raising doubts on holocaust.

VS007;660545Many of you would have seen the news of a Google employee questioning womans place in technology industry!
Today a news came that he was fired because of public uproar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html

--
Me thinks that is a shame! Regardless of his opinion and the rights of an employer to fire him, I think a better way to handle this is to debate the points. Firing a person shows lack of courage to debate a point similar to Germany and many other countries outlawing raising doubts on holocaust.

Further debate on this can only get ugly for Google. It cannot attract or retain top female talent in a company where stereo types are encouraged. Theres lot to lose in brand value to make a case for freedom of speech.

realgoogler;660546Further debate on this can only get ugly for Google. It cannot attract or retain top female talent in a company where stereo types are encouraged. Theres lot to lose in brand value to make a case for freedom of speech.

There is nothing to debate. The fired employee wants a honest debate with the left-leaning biased company on how wrong it is about diversity. He should have joined Koch brothers if that was his concern. They might have entertained such nonsense. This is my assumption, they probably don't entertain work place discrimination either.

realgoogler;660546Further debate on this can only get ugly for Google. It cannot attract or retain top female talent in a company where stereo types are encouraged. Theres lot to lose in brand value to make a case for freedom of speech.

I also wanted this to be debated so that we accept what maybe more closer to reality. But in practice humans are awful at holding on to nuanced data points, most of the sexist will simply use this as an evidence of how women are not at par to men in technology and it would have led to more descrimination and bullying of women in technology.

Its like we debating that most crimes are committed by blacks, by ratio of their population, hence maybe blacks have natural tendencies to become rowdy.

This whole debate is a bull shit unless society get rids of all historical descrimination and keeps a level playing field for hundreds of years.

In case of blacks they need more help from society to get out of the ditch they have been put into by centuries of slavery and segregation.

VS007;660545

--
Me thinks that is a shame! Regardless of his opinion and the rights of an employer to fire him, I think a better way to handle this is to debate the points. Firing a person shows lack of courage to debate a point similar to Germany and many other countries outlawing raising doubts on holocaust.

Google is not a country, it is a company and has its own rules and policies that abide by national laws. Its purpose is to make money for shareholders not a gathering place for employees to get together and try to gain momentum on their personal social, political views by sending memos. They can go and do that outside the company.

This employee was hired to do a certain job for Google. Why should Google discuss with him social issues about why there would be less women in technical fields etc. Why should Google even discuss to do away with diversity in tech? If Google wants to promote diversity regardless of less women being in tech, that is their prerogative.

If I own a company and an employee of mine sends a memo wanting to discuss why there should be less women in technical fields, I would send him out. I hired him to do some job and not to rile my employees up on company time into policies that this my company is against.

This is not freedom of expression. People often confuse up what freedom of expression is. I do not expect my employees to rile my other employees up against my company policies, including my policy of diversity.

For a seemingly intelligent kid (based upon his academic achievements), he seems to ramble a bit. His exposition is all over the place, unstructured at best. Don't know why the intelligentsia even debate over such rambling. Probably due to the prevailing political climate, I guess.

If you have an issue with your employer, just leave. Corporations are not democracies and don't need to provide platform for everyone's ideas, good or bad. When the company's code of conduct expects the employee to not have biases with respect to lawful protected classes, if the company finds an employee to be biased (with respect to gender, one of the protected classes), they have the right to terminate employment. He is free to go out and profess and debate his viewpoint outside. In that, his free speech is protected.

Desi;660552

This is not freedom of expression. People often confuse up what freedom of expression is. I do not expect my employees to rile my other employees up against my company policies, including my policy of diversity.

Agree with you and others who espoused similar opinions that it's Googles prerogative as it's on employers dime and time!

Even if he had expressed it on Facebook from home, and had it been a front page news, I bet the reaction would be the same! The question is if we start punishing people for their opinions, not actions ( opinions not their actions), then we are looking at banning people who have different opinions than the popular ones like who think earth is flat, climate change deniers, iconoclasts.. etc then there can be no debate!

VS007;660573Agree with you and others who espoused similar opinions that it's Googles prerogative as it's on employers dime and time!

Even if he had expressed it on Facebook from home, and had it been a front page news, I bet the reaction would be the same!

While I hold a different opinion than yours, but why speculate, let us focus on facts. There is no point beating google up on your guessing what google might have done. if this was on facebook. BTW, most companies will not allow an employee to short the company stock - is that curbing their freedom? Absolutely, some freedoms are curbed. For example if the dude wants to share the confidential information of the company with a competitor, will he be fired? Absolutely. The employees if they work against corporation rules will generally be fired.

VS007;660573 The question is if we start punishing people for their opinions, not actions ( opinions not their actions), then we are looking at banning people who have different opinions than the popular ones like who think earth is flat, climate change deniers, iconoclasts.. etc then there can be no debate!

Why dont you try sending a memo at your workplace telling your coworkers that in your opinion smoking marijuana at work is great and that the company policy of no drugs at work is just overdone and see what happens. Don't assume that you have the freedom to voice your opinions on social issues at your workplace by sending memos. Your workplace freedoms are curbed by company policies.

I am sorry, I could spend lot more time explaining this but the better thing might be to search for some podcast that explains freedom of expression. I think you got FOE fairly wrong.

If someone comes to my house and tells my kids, have drugs, have sex at age 10, I would kick him out and that does not mean that I am against freedom of expression.

That said, here is a podcast which I enjoyed listening a few months back re Free speech and consequences. People often misconstrue that one can say anything anywhere. Nope. You cannot should fire in a crowded theater. First Amendment focuses on free speech, public and govt not rules in a private houses, organizations etc. I sometimes listen to these podcasts and I listen while driving. This one I had listened about 4 or 5 months back.

[URL="http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/free-speech.htm"]http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/free-speech.htm
[/URL]

VS007;660573The question is if we start punishing people for their opinions, not actions ( opinions not their actions), then...

Other than Google terminating his employment for breaking their code of conduct, which is probably part of their employment contract, are you referring to someone else punishing him?