d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Idea For A Worker's Rights Bill > Protect The Working Man In Digital Age
1237Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 520Replies: 60Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 12,188
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#1
Sep 12 2014 03:18am
The digital society has done much for the exchange of ideas. Whereas people once were closed and secluded in their ideology, the internet has allowed individuals to explore political and social notions to a much greater extent in a much larger forum. This, of course, comes with minor risks, such as a growing sentiment of intolerance, but I think we can all agree that the exchange of ideas is a perfectly health and necessary aspect of democratic society.

With that said, people have suffered monetary hardship for expressing themselves on the internet (or even in private to be leaked to the internet without their consent), and in some nations people have been imprisoned for expressing "hateful" opinions.

I think America has a duty to lead the fight in protection of the working class by passing a law. This law would protect every individual from overreaching government and large corporations. Keep in mind I have no experience in writing laws, this is just a general idea.

Freedom of Opinion Act

1. Government officials may not make a statement about a citizen's opinion. It is inappropriate for government officials to state opinions on these matters when speaking as a representative of the United States. (For instance, the American Government would not be allowed to denounce videos that allegedly incite attacks on US Embassies)
1.a. Government officials may make statement about the opinions of citizens when not speaking as a representative of the United States government. (So, the President can denounce the video on a Talk Show, but cannot at a White House Press Conference)

2. Business institutions may not terminate an employment contract solely based on incidences out of work that involve the expression of opinion. (For instance, employers wouldn't be able to fire you for liking a white nationalist group on Facebook, saying hateful things on the internet or something of that nature)
2.a. A business may terminate an employment contract if it can adequately demonstrate excessive or long lasting monetary damages due to the speech. (So, if a business loses excessive patronage and revenue after the incident, the employee may be fired after the business demonstrates that they suffered damages as a result)

3. Employment contracts may not contain language aimed at restricting an employee's speech outside of the workplace. (Employment conditions that forbid you from expressing your opinion are anti-democratic)
3.a. Employment contracts may contain language aimed at restringing an employee's speech in the workplace. (This is pretty self explanatory, you're not a democratic actor while at work, but an employee)

4. Employers may not terminate an employment contract based on alleged criminal behavior. (If a man is seen beating his wife, he may not be fired until...)
4.a. Employers may terminate an employment contract if an individual is found guilty of aggressive criminal behavior or extended arrest scenarios. (Domestic abuse, dog fighting, rape, murder, DUI resulting in injury or death of another person)

I think such a law would be effective in combating a bullying technique practiced by individuals of all political leanings, targeting advertisers and corporations in order to have speech you disagree with restricted. While this wouldn't remove all consequences from speech, it would afford workers some protection. So teachers wouldn't get fired for posting beach side bikini pictures on their private Facebook pages, team owners wouldn't have pressure to resign/sell placed on them after expressing unpopular opinions in non-business scenarios, and media personalities wouldn't risk losing their jobs for expressing harsh opinions.

In summation, the Market is a dehumanizing institution, and we as Americans have a duty to protect freedom of speech and opinion before corporate interests.

This post was edited by PlasmaSnake101 on Sep 12 2014 03:19am
Member
Posts: 62,204
Joined: Jun 3 2007
Gold: 9,039.20
#2
Sep 12 2014 03:29am
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, bigot.

We as dehumanized actors in a market deserve to be the best products money can buy.

I will read when I'm sober, voted yes pre-emptively though.
Member
Posts: 12,188
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#3
Sep 12 2014 03:33am
Quote (killg0re @ Sep 12 2014 01:29am)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, bigot.

We as dehumanized actors in a market deserve to be the best products money can buy.

I will read when I'm sober, voted yes pre-emptively though.


Truth. Words carry weight.

Firms just have to be able to prove they suffered damages in a court of law if an employee decides to take it that far.
Member
Posts: 20,217
Joined: Mar 20 2007
Gold: 431.00
#4
Sep 12 2014 03:38am
No man needs more than a corned-beef sandwich and the privilege to get half-piped (in the words of Upton Sinclair) every Saturday and occasionally Thursday night.
I will doff my hat to ye should you suggest an extra shovelful of coal on Christmas and New Year's day vacation, those lazy jackals.
Member
Posts: 5,128
Joined: Apr 30 2012
Gold: 10.01
#5
Sep 12 2014 04:21am
should include tl;dr version
Member
Posts: 12,188
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
#6
Sep 12 2014 04:29am
Quote (Vabbit @ Sep 12 2014 02:21am)
should include tl;dr version


The government and your employers should not be in a position to punish you for expressing your opinion in the public forum.
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
#7
Sep 12 2014 07:13am
Quote (general_patton @ Sep 12 2014 05:38am)
No man needs more than a corned-beef sandwich and the privilege to get half-piped (in the words of Upton Sinclair) every Saturday and occasionally Thursday night.
I will doff my hat to ye should you suggest an extra shovelful of coal on Christmas and New Year's day vacation, those lazy jackals.


Thats sounds delicious. afk making one now.

the proposed FOOA is a beyond terrible act tho, with massive moral hazards and horrible economic and social consequences.
Member
Posts: 36,123
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Gold: 2,407.00
#8
Sep 12 2014 07:19am
I don't think it's wrong for an employer to fire someone if they don't like their opinions. Employer-employee is more than just a business transaction, it's a relationship, and it won't work if two parties just don't get a long.

/e although I agree that employee contracts should not be allowed to censor employees, unless it's somehow necessary to the company and that employees shouldn't be fired for alleged crimes.

This post was edited by Mastersam93 on Sep 12 2014 07:26am
Member
Posts: 31,203
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Gold: 0.00
#9
Sep 12 2014 07:38am
Quote (Vabbit @ Sep 12 2014 02:21am)
should include tl;dr version


Or you could learn to fucking read something shorter than a picture book.

Quote (Mastersam93 @ Sep 12 2014 05:19am)
I don't think it's wrong for an employer to fire someone if they don't like their opinions.  Employer-employee is more than just a business transaction, it's a relationship, and it won't work if two parties just don't get a long.

/e although I agree that employee contracts should not be allowed to censor employees, unless it's somehow necessary to the company and that employees shouldn't be fired for alleged crimes.


My sentiments exactly. I think someone spouting off something in private verbally shouldn't be something a company can fire someone over. But the second you go online with your name attached, whether you like it or not, you represent your employer.

For instance, we all probably gripe about customers over drinks after work. Posting those conversations to your Facebook? What if potential customers read what you really think and you lose business? Just look at Jay Wilson's "fuck that loser" comment and the backlash over it.

This doesn't even begin to describe racist, homophobic shit, or things that affect coworkers. Most of us wouldn't feel safe going to work if someone was posting on social media they hate their job and want to kill everyone there and how they just got a handgun and so on and so forth.


Member
Posts: 36,123
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Gold: 2,407.00
#10
Sep 12 2014 07:51am
Quote (sylvannos @ Sep 12 2014 08:38am)
Or you could learn to fucking read something shorter than a picture book.



My sentiments exactly. I think someone spouting off something in private verbally shouldn't be something a company can fire someone over. But the second you go online with your name attached, whether you like it or not, you represent your employer.

For instance, we all probably gripe about customers over drinks after work. Posting those conversations to your Facebook? What if potential customers read what you really think and you lose business? Just look at Jay Wilson's "fuck that loser" comment and the backlash over it.

This doesn't even begin to describe racist, homophobic shit, or things that affect coworkers. Most of us wouldn't feel safe going to work if someone was posting on social media they hate their job and want to kill everyone there and how they just got a handgun and so on and so forth.


Yeah, a company is guilty of it's employee's actions by association, like it or not.

This post was edited by Mastersam93 on Sep 12 2014 07:51am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
1237Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact