People really need to learn that “freedom of expression” is not the same as free from consequences. Otherwise, defamation wouldn’t be a crime, for instance.
This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech. She was suing a private theater on the grounds of religious discrimination which is a law, not a right. She was denied because she wasn’t discriminated against based on her religion, but rather was fired because her specific expression impacted her job. She would have been fired no matter what religion she was a part of which is why it wasn’t religious discrimination
You absolutely do, you just don’t have freedom from consequences. Go stand in front of the White House and shout about how being gay is a sin – this is not a crime. However, don’t be surprised if you gather nasty looks or people arguing with you.
We seemingly don’t, and that is bad thing. People should be allowed to say whatever they like, or democracy doesn’t work. What does it matter if you can vote for whoever you want, if you can’t even vocalise an opinion that the majority disagree with? I disagree fundamentally with this woman’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean she should be banned from saying it - if we disagree with it, we should disincentivise others from believing it by arguing against it, not hiding the opinion.
She wasn’t banned from saying it, she was fired for refusing to do the job she was hired to do.
If you hire a butcher and they refuse to work on / around / in the vicinity of pork because of their religious beliefs, you are not firing them because of their religion. You’re firing them because they’re not a fit for the job they were hired for.
Demanding the script change because she has a problem with LGBT+ and being let go isn’t being “cancelled”, it’s demanding the entire production bend to your personal beliefs and being told “no”.
You’re right, she shouldn’t have signed up for that job. I wasn’t talking about her case in particular, but rather the larger phenomenon of people being banned for having opposing beliefs, particularly in online places where you can talk (forums, social media, etc)
“Opposing beliefs” is often just coded language for extremely offensive, factually inaccurate, demonstrably dangerous, and often indefensible speech. Social media companies aren’t obligated to keep posts about Jewish space lasers, Holocaust denialism, and pro-fascist ideologies on their servers.
Social media advertisers don’t want their product advertisements appearing adjacent to batshit, nonsensical, conspiratorial, alt-right bullshit.
Having a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram account isn’t a right and having it taken away doesn’t make you a victim. Nobody owes anyone else a platform to spew toxicity to the masses.
I’m using the royal “you” btw. I’m not saying you, specifically, are a Trump supporting crybaby.
If the government owned a version of Twitter, sure. Until then, good luck lol.
For the same reason I can tell you to get the fuck off my property. Doesn’t mean you can murder, but it’s mine. You don’t get to plant flaming crosses on it unless it’s upside down with a statue of Baphoment. Because then you’d have my permission.
There’s a difference between a small web forum with 3 users though, and something like Twitter, which is a gatekeeper and thus must be held to higher standards.
But you are missing the point here. She wasn’t told she couldn’t comment or make those statements. She made those statements when her role was a gay character for a musical that she never read the script for, any of the literature or looked at any other productions of. She also had stated that she didn’t want any gay roles. She would have completely ruined the production as well as caused a massive backlash against the theater when her views were discovered by the target audience. This isn’t a freedom of speech situation, she wanted to say whatever she wanted without consequences and that doesn’t exist unless you are extremely wealthy.
Right, but a court ruling she can’t make those comments seems like violating that whole first amendment thing.
I’d get losing her job, public outcry, the social consequences but it’s strange to me to see legal consequences in the form of a court ruling. Thought that was a pretty clear line.
Did you read the article at all? Because the court did no such thing and that wasn’t even the question at hand. The only thing she lost was her attempt to sue the theater for firing her because she made homophobic comments after accepting a role to play a gay character for a script she didn’t read.
People really need to learn that “freedom of expression” is not the same as free from consequences. Otherwise, defamation wouldn’t be a crime, for instance.
This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech. She was suing a private theater on the grounds of religious discrimination which is a law, not a right. She was denied because she wasn’t discriminated against based on her religion, but rather was fired because her specific expression impacted her job. She would have been fired no matter what religion she was a part of which is why it wasn’t religious discrimination
Thanks for the explanation. The title makes it sound like she was going to jail for anti lgbt comments.
People need to stop being told they have free speech. They do not.
You absolutely do, you just don’t have freedom from consequences. Go stand in front of the White House and shout about how being gay is a sin – this is not a crime. However, don’t be surprised if you gather nasty looks or people arguing with you.
We seemingly don’t, and that is bad thing. People should be allowed to say whatever they like, or democracy doesn’t work. What does it matter if you can vote for whoever you want, if you can’t even vocalise an opinion that the majority disagree with? I disagree fundamentally with this woman’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean she should be banned from saying it - if we disagree with it, we should disincentivise others from believing it by arguing against it, not hiding the opinion.
She wasn’t banned from saying it, she was fired for refusing to do the job she was hired to do.
If you hire a butcher and they refuse to work on / around / in the vicinity of pork because of their religious beliefs, you are not firing them because of their religion. You’re firing them because they’re not a fit for the job they were hired for.
Demanding the script change because she has a problem with LGBT+ and being let go isn’t being “cancelled”, it’s demanding the entire production bend to your personal beliefs and being told “no”.
You’re right, she shouldn’t have signed up for that job. I wasn’t talking about her case in particular, but rather the larger phenomenon of people being banned for having opposing beliefs, particularly in online places where you can talk (forums, social media, etc)
“Opposing beliefs” is often just coded language for extremely offensive, factually inaccurate, demonstrably dangerous, and often indefensible speech. Social media companies aren’t obligated to keep posts about Jewish space lasers, Holocaust denialism, and pro-fascist ideologies on their servers.
Social media advertisers don’t want their product advertisements appearing adjacent to batshit, nonsensical, conspiratorial, alt-right bullshit.
Having a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram account isn’t a right and having it taken away doesn’t make you a victim. Nobody owes anyone else a platform to spew toxicity to the masses.
I’m using the royal “you” btw. I’m not saying you, specifically, are a Trump supporting crybaby.
Private entities are not the government.
If the government owned a version of Twitter, sure. Until then, good luck lol.
For the same reason I can tell you to get the fuck off my property. Doesn’t mean you can murder, but it’s mine. You don’t get to plant flaming crosses on it unless it’s upside down with a statue of Baphoment. Because then you’d have my permission.
There’s a difference between a small web forum with 3 users though, and something like Twitter, which is a gatekeeper and thus must be held to higher standards.
Legally? No, there isn’t.
ISPs aren’t even nationalized. Let alone private websites.
Also there should literally be no such term as higher standards. Standards should be equal.
Facebook should have the same freedoms to exercise discrimination than the redneck screaming in his backyard? Fuck that noise.
But you are missing the point here. She wasn’t told she couldn’t comment or make those statements. She made those statements when her role was a gay character for a musical that she never read the script for, any of the literature or looked at any other productions of. She also had stated that she didn’t want any gay roles. She would have completely ruined the production as well as caused a massive backlash against the theater when her views were discovered by the target audience. This isn’t a freedom of speech situation, she wanted to say whatever she wanted without consequences and that doesn’t exist unless you are extremely wealthy.
Right, but a court ruling she can’t make those comments seems like violating that whole first amendment thing.
I’d get losing her job, public outcry, the social consequences but it’s strange to me to see legal consequences in the form of a court ruling. Thought that was a pretty clear line.
Did you read the article at all? Because the court did no such thing and that wasn’t even the question at hand. The only thing she lost was her attempt to sue the theater for firing her because she made homophobic comments after accepting a role to play a gay character for a script she didn’t read.
The headline and the snippets I read failed to mention that, I mostly got caught up in her fucking biography apparently.
Then yes, the court ruling is in the right.