Freedom of Expression for the week or so preceding Aug 20 2017

[amyvanhym]

Hi, I'm new. I've started collecting freedom of expression links for myself and I thought I should bring 'em over here.



JBP's interview with James Damore, author of the infamous Google Memo. Damore was fired from google for 'perpetuating gender stereotypes.' What he actually did was back up a request for fairer working conditions with valid scientific data.

Goolag #GoogleManifesto sticker

Paul Joseph Watson on sweeping hard and soft censorship by Google/Youtube - some melodrama, but relevant

Theryn Meyer commentary on the Google Manifesto

Why Freedom of Speech is Necessary. "Without free speech there's no true thought."

Majority of Muslim asylum seekers in Austria want jokes about Islam banned

"The Right to Openly Discuss Ideas Must Be Defended" - sign held by man attacked for alleged Nazism. Chants of "Nazi" are now a common response to support of free expression.

Corporations are cracking down on free speech inside the office — and out

Cameraman repeatedly attacked at a protest, seemingly for holding a book without shame.

Damore, Google and the Problem in Tech, from Mister Metokur. The three Ds: Demotivate, Demonetize, Deplatform

Peaceful March on Google Postponed Due to Alt Left Terrorist Threats

Be Aware of Google's G+ Sneak Attack on your YouTube... Google/YouTube blacklisting

YouTube removes Giovanna Laine's interview with James Desborough for violating community guidelines before the interview has taken place.

The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech, NYT op ed against free speech by K-Sue Park. 'K-Sue Park is a housing attorney and the Critical Race Studies fellow at the U.C.L.A. School of Law.'

Yes, Let’s Rethink Free Speech, a satirical response to the above op ed.

Digital Vigilantes, from Sargon of Akkad. Undesirable websites are being digitally exiled. Cloudfare has done it to the Daily Stormer, and Digital Ocean has done it to Hatreon. Sets a dangerous precedent. Once it starts, where does it stop?

California Bill: 1 Year in Jail for Using Wrong Transgender Pronoun. Brietbart is the only site I've found covering this.

Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech: The First Amendment is under threat—and you should be worried. By Greg Lukianoff and Nico Perrino

California legislature unanimously urges colleges to adopt free speech policies consistent with the ‘Chicago Statement’ Ending this list with a bit of good news.

Shout out to /r/KotakuInAction for much of this content.



(x-posted to freedom_of_expression)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Lmao

[pauamma]

In the future, would you mind engaging on the facts? Your comment comes across as dismissive.

[sophie]

Thank you for the links, and welcome to the community!

The article about the proposed bill that could include jail terms of up to a year for wilfully and repeatedly using a resident's preferred name or pronouns (amongst other things) is especially fascinating to me, as a transgender woman myself.

First, a few notes about this part of the proposed bill:

• The person who is not having their preferred name and pronouns used does not have to be transgender; Breitbart added that part itself. This bill would apply equally to people using the wrong name/pronouns to someone who is cisgender.)


• This part of the proposed bill states that it would apply for situations where the person using the incorrect name or pronouns is "long-term care facility or facility staff", which is defined as "all individuals employed by or contracted directly with the facility". The word "facility", according to the bill, "has the same meaning as in Section 9701 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and includes intermediate care facilities".

I think it's fairly clear that anybody who would "[w]illfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns" is being a huge asshole, and nursing care staff should know better.

Of course, being a huge asshole isn't reason enough to get the government involved unless it's clearly hate speech, which isn't necessarily the case here - and if it is hate speech, it seems like other laws should be able to take care of that. (It probably is hate speech, IMO, but I can think of examples that could fall under this definition that are not hate speech; for example, calling someone names, while hurtful, is not necessarily hate speech, but could fall under this definition.)

I am not arguing that there's any good reason for somebody to wilfully misuse the wrong name or pronouns for someone. I don't think there are any good reasons, honestly, and I know how hurt I would be if somebody did that to me. The intent of the proposed bill, which is to protect LGBT seniors in long-term care facilities and to make sure they aren't abused by staff, is good, and even this particular part makes sense. It does seem like that part in particular is something that would be better solved in other ways, though; either by invoking already-existing laws against hate speech if it's hate speech, or by staff training if it isn't.

I would be interested in knowing whether this proposed bill is modelled on existing legislation specifically for long-term care facilities to tackle other kinds of discrimination, such as racist or ableist discrimination.

[edit: To be clear, this is only responding to part 1439.51 (5), the part about wilfully and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns after being informed of the preferred name and pronouns, as this community is regarding free speech and not about LGBT politics. Everything in this comment should only be read as applying to that part.]

[(Anonymous)]

Everything you're saying is correct, of course, but good luck existing this person to engage in good faith.

[sophie]

Understood. Some people just won't see reason.

Of course, these people should probably not be long-term care facility staff in the first place, so in my opinion, letting them go would be an entirely valid response. If you can't show respect for people in a care home then you probably shouldn't have the job.

[edit: It's been pointed out that it's possible you were attacking amyvanhym; I thought you were talking about people who wouldn't listen to the staff training. If you were attacking amyvanhym, please don't; these are relevant links.]

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for clarifying this.

"Deliberate" and "repeatedly" is an important condition. I was in the military and accidently calling someone by the wrong pronoun happened all the time. People are only human and do slip up, and the slip ups were always quickly corrected. I guess people were worried about making a mistake like this because the complete information is never given.

I like that this law apples to anyone. There was a Reserve Officer who held a civilian technical job in my shop who repeatedly and insistently called me by a nickname of my given name, a nickname that I hate. I had explicitly told him to not call me that- he shouldn't have been calling me by my first name anyways. He kept doing so, being willfully disrespectful to me. If they had this ruling in place, I could have brought his ass up on charges.

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP, btw.

[sophie]

So yeah, this is probably obvious in context, but replying to myself to note that "...for wilfully and repeatedly using a resident's preferred name or pronouns" was a typo and was meant to read "...for wilfully and repeatedly using names and pronouns other than a resident's preferred name and pronouns".

[amyvanhym]

I'm not sure why you've written such a long comment. Most of it is irrelevant, and is easily granted for the sake of argument at least, in a discussion about free speech, as free speech is much, much more important than the regulation of staff in care institutions.

The issue is that prison and fines are proposed for perceived violations. Internal bureaucracy in institutions is capable of managing these matters independent of the law, including by firing an offending staff member if necessary.

Edit:

>I would be interested in knowing whether this proposed bill is modelled on existing legislation specifically for long-term care facilities to tackle other kinds of discrimination, such as racist or ableist discrimination.

Though, this too is interesting. Presently I doubt jail time and fines are applied for those biases. Being Canadian, I've paid some attention to the ideologically driven assault on free expression in the name of 'trans rights' here (bill C16), and this very much reminds me of it. Seems like a whole different beast to me.

.

[pauamma]

I for one am thankful to sophie for digging out the details of the bill and discussing them. I must confess to being mildly puzzled why you appear to object to her doing so, especially when she agrees with your apparent position by saying:

It does seem like that part in particular is something that would be better solved in other ways, though; either by invoking already-existing laws against hate speech if it's hate speech, or by staff training if it isn't.

[amyvanhym]

How can you be "puzzled why"? I expressly stated why. That's what my comment was about.