Good essay on cancel culture and free speech from FIRE

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

At no point have I said he was close to a star. He was a low end starter or very very serviceable backup.

If you don't think these wife-beaters are self-absorbed I am not sure what to say. No team wanted to deal with backlash of Kap. I actually have no problem with that, teams have to make all kinds of decisions. The NFL has marketed itself as God and Country, Kap did not fit that bill. He made his choice, he pays the price.

I am not sure why we say people who speak should never, ever face consequences for what they say. Kap did, that is the way the system works.

If you discovered that a chain was openly supporting Russia's involvement in Ukraine, would you shop there? I wouldn't. Would you tell others what you learned so they would not shop there? How is that not cancel culture.

Because he's not requesting a powerful institution fire an individual for that individual's personal opinion.

The people who thought the 49ers should fire Kap for his kneeling were participating in cancel culture. Those who didn't want to tune into a game involving him were not. I think that's a decent distinction.

Are you using this to point out, like Cosmic, that both conservatives and liberals engage in this? I grant the point (which is obvious).

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Instead of Kap, substitute Dixie Chicks who were reasonably popular before their free speech cost them fans. If we agree that they canceled even though many of the people who decry cancel culture supported stations not playing their music, we are pretty much in line.

As someone who never liked the Dixie Chicks, we can agree they were cancelled by the mob. They are more aligned to the Kaepernick situation than to Chappelle. They took an unpopular stance, and like Kaepernick they were mediocre and their gamble failed.

Chappelle has done nothing wrong - he hasn’t gambled. He’s bringing common sense to the culture war battlefield - and because he’s an apex predator in his industry, he can’t be cancelled.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Because he's not requesting a powerful institution fire an individual for that individual's personal opinion.

The people who thought the 49ers should fire Kap for his kneeling were participating in cancel culture. Those who didn't want to tune into a game involving him were not. I think that's a decent distinction.

Are you using this to point out, like Cosmic, that both conservatives and liberals engage in this? I grant the point (which is obvious).

Your first sentence is the key line of departure on why cancel culture is really bad. That’s what we complain about when we bitch about it.

Entertainers making the wrong calculus is one thing, but someone passing on wearing pronouns on a name tag and being ostracized or fired from a job is something totally different and wholly unacceptable.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The part NO ONE has answered, how is this any different than someone who CHOOSES to make fun of transsexuals? Chappelle chooses what he says just as Kap chose to kneel. Yet we say Kap deserves what he gets and Chappelle is a martyr. Why isn't it consistent to say both are martyrs or both deserve what they get.

That's the question I am trying to get to. Why is the term cancel culture dependent on how much we agree with someone?

An NFL team has the right to choose their QB. I get none of them wanted Kap. A venue has a right to choose who will headline. If they don't want to deal with Chappelle, so be it.

The answer to your question is that it is not.

Chappelle is a very talented and funny comedian. The comedy club cancelled his show, not because he was not good at his job, but because of his ideas (and he has much more offensive ones). His fans surely didn't want his show cancelled. The notion that the venue had to "deal with Chappelle"--I don't even know what that means. Actually, yes I do--it's not that the venue didn't want to deal with Chappelle, it's that they didn't want to deal with the cancel-culture people objecting to Chappelle. They feared that (either socially or financially, I'm guessing the former) more than the profit they would have made from the show.

To make his case analagous to Kap, Kap would have to be Brady/Mahomes level talent, and fans loved him, and he said something and KC said "we are firing Mahomes because of what he said" in spite of his ability. That's not what happened.

That is not to say there were not people calling for Kap to be benched/released just because of his kneeling. I think those people were wrong and yes, participating in cancel culture.

 

[Ohio Guy]

If enough people state they will not see a movie or attend an event, doesn't that make it harder for someone to hire them? I would bet Fonda was passed up for projects because producers were concerned about her marketability.

It is tough, I love free speech but people also are accountable for what they say (or do). Balancing free speech with accountability is not as easy as we think.

I don't know the specifics of what Jane Fonda may have lost out on, but I know Kaepernick's NFL career went to hell and he lost out on millions. He 100% was cancelled.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Because he's not requesting a powerful institution fire an individual for that individual's personal opinion.

The people who thought the 49ers should fire Kap for his kneeling were participating in cancel culture. Those who didn't want to tune into a game involving him were not. I think that's a decent distinction.

Are you using this to point out, like Cosmic, that both conservatives and liberals engage in this? I grant the point (which is obvious).

I am suggesting conservatives never admit to participating in cancel culture thought they do. But they wield it like a weapon.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I don't know the specifics of what Jane Fonda may have lost out on, but I know Kaepernick's NFL career went to hell and he lost out on millions. He 100% was cancelled.

There’s a difference in being cancelled and making yourself unemployable due to a situation you’ve created.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Because he's not requesting a powerful institution fire an individual for that individual's personal opinion.

Kap most certainly was requesting action from a 'powerful institution.'

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I am suggesting conservatives never admit to participating in cancel culture thought they do. But they wield it like a weapon.

I disagree. I don’t know of any instances where conservatives try to get run of the mill citizens fired from their jobs for having an opinion - as long as the opinion isn’t for something illegal or morally obscene.

I can see trying to get administrators or teachers fired for pumping sexually charged literature or thoughts into elementary aged kids. But it’s not the same as what the woke mob does to people who would have such “horrifying” opinions like being pro-life or against giving children puberty blockers.

 

[Ohio Guy]

There’s a difference in being cancelled and making yourself unemployable due to a situation you’ve created.

I'm not sure cancel culture is such a merciless and random thing. I'm not defending the idea of it, but doesn't it usually come about due to someone's perceived action/inaction?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I am suggesting conservatives never admit to participating in cancel culture thought they do. But they wield it like a weapon.

Many conservatives do this. I agree.

And many liberals are in favor of a free speech environment. As are many conservatives. The FIRE article is non-partisan (and they protect speech from both sides of the aisle; I've handled a few cases for them).

 

[Ohio Guy]

I disagree. I don’t know of any instances where conservatives try to get run of the mill citizens fired from their jobs for having an opinion - as long as the opinion isn’t for something illegal or morally obscene.

I can see trying to get administrators or teachers fired for pumping sexually charged literature or thoughts into elementary aged kids. But it’s not the same as what the woke mob does to people who would have such “horrifying” opinions like being pro-life or against giving children puberty blockers.

So basically, 'it's bad when people I disagree with do it, but it's not the same thing when people I agree with do it?'

That's pretty much what you typed out there.

You don't think teachers' jobs are at risk over the pearl-clutching reaction to CRT? What about transsexual athletes? And it's only been fairly recent that being gay hasn't restricted what you could and couldn't do.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I disagree. I don’t know of any instances where conservatives try to get run of the mill citizens fired from their jobs for having an opinion - as long as the opinion isn’t for something illegal or morally obscene.

I can see trying to get administrators or teachers fired for pumping sexually charged literature or thoughts into elementary aged kids. But it’s not the same as what the woke mob does to people who would have such “horrifying” opinions like being pro-life or against giving children puberty blockers.

So never has anyone attempted to fire someone for CRT? I see that people who are not and never have been patients of the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 year old have filed complaints against her. 6 people filed complaints against her, none were ever her patient, and 5 were from out of state. Is that cancel culture?

Indiana doctor who treated 10-year old investigated over fake claims, lawyers say

The Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim is being investigated by the state attorney general for bogus consumer complaints by individuals who were never her patients, the physician's lawyers said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Kap most certainly was requesting action from a 'powerful institution.'

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

So never has anyone attempted to fire someone for CRT? I see that people who are not and never have been patients of the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 year old have filed complaints against her. 6 people filed complaints against her, none were ever her patient, and 5 were from out of state. Is that cancel culture?

Indiana doctor who treated 10-year old investigated over fake claims, lawyers say

The Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim is being investigated by the state attorney general for bogus consumer complaints by individuals who were never her patients, the physician's lawyers said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

You need to make a distinction here between job performance and extracurricular speech for the teachers.

To be an anti-free speech culture, the example would have to be someone calling for a teacher to be fired for something they wrote on Twitter or FB regarding CRT.

I bet there are examples of people doing that. Have any been successful? I don't know. FIRE would represent those people, though.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Many conservatives do this. I agree.

And many liberals are in favor of a free speech environment. As are many conservatives. The FIRE article is non-partisan (and they protect speech from both sides of the aisle; I've handled a few cases for them).

For the record, I agree with free speech. Even going back to the Nazis wanting to march in Skokie, if Skokie allows political marches I feel they have to allow Nazis. We can't decide which parties are popular or not.

That said, any Nazi that appears and marches isn't free from repercussions. If their employer sees them and decides they don't want to have a Nazi worker, it is, in many places, their right to fire them (some states may have laws but in many states you pretty much don't need a reason to fire someone, you just can't give a reason like race/gender/age).

The Dixie Chicks had a right to oppose that war, people have a right to not buy their albums.

Free speech doesn't mean "no repercussions speech". Are we really going to suggest that absolutely nothing one says can ever be held against them? I would like to think if I owned a retail business and an employee routinely made racist remarks, I could fire them. I would like to think customers or other employees hearing such have a right to tell me. Is that canceling someone?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

So never has anyone attempted to fire someone for CRT? I see that people who are not and never have been patients of the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 year old have filed complaints against her. 6 people filed complaints against her, none were ever her patient, and 5 were from out of state. Is that cancel culture?

Indiana doctor who treated 10-year old investigated over fake claims, lawyers say

The Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim is being investigated by the state attorney general for bogus consumer complaints by individuals who were never her patients, the physician's lawyers said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

Is performing an abortion "speech"?

You are defining this overly broadly. I don't think anyone thinks it is cancel culture to call for the firing of anyone based on perceived bad actions.

Can you agree that people shouldn't be fired for their own thoughts on political issues that are within a realm of reasonableness? Let's eliminate for a moment the hard cases--you find out your employee has Hitler paraphenalia and really does think it a great idea to kill every single Jewish person on earth. Or the person just won't shut up about whatever divisive political issue there is of the day at work, that might lead to disruptions or people feeling really uncomfortable.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Is performing an abortion "speech"?

You are defining this overly broadly. I don't think anyone thinks it is cancel culture to call for the firing of anyone based on perceived bad actions.

Can you agree that people shouldn't be fired for their own thoughts on political issues that are within a realm of reasonableness? Let's eliminate for a moment the hard cases--you find out your employee has Hitler paraphenalia and really does think it a great idea to kill every single Jewish person on earth. Or the person just won't shut up about whatever divisive political issue there is of the day at work, that might lead to disruptions or people feeling really uncomfortable.

Performing a abortion is not "speech", but trying to get the doctor fired is 100% cancel culture, especially if A) it was a legal abortion where it was performed and B) the people making complaints weren't even patients of the doctor.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Is performing an abortion "speech"?

You are defining this overly broadly. I don't think anyone thinks it is cancel culture to call for the firing of anyone based on perceived bad actions.

Can you agree that people shouldn't be fired for their own thoughts on political issues that are within a realm of reasonableness? Let's eliminate for a moment the hard cases--you find out your employee has Hitler paraphenalia and really does think it a great idea to kill every single Jewish person on earth. Or the person just won't shut up about whatever divisive political issue there is of the day at work, that might lead to disruptions or people feeling really uncomfortable.

A lot of the people that got "cancelled" got warnings first (sometimes multiple warnings). Do you have an example of someone that got canned with no warning for a first time offense on reasonable political views?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Is performing an abortion "speech"?

You are defining this overly broadly. I don't think anyone thinks it is cancel culture to call for the firing of anyone based on perceived bad actions.

Can you agree that people shouldn't be fired for their own thoughts on political issues that are within a realm of reasonableness? Let's eliminate for a moment the hard cases--you find out your employee has Hitler paraphenalia and really does think it a great idea to kill every single Jewish person on earth. Or the person just won't shut up about whatever divisive political issue there is of the day at work, that might lead to disruptions or people feeling really uncomfortable.

Abortion is legal, it is an action, she is free to choose to perform one or not. I am not sure how it isn't speech. As an example, the people who put on vests and go out and clean highways are speaking as to the importance of a clean environment.

Reasonableness is tricky. I am not sure a guidance counselor at a high school should be fired for being gay (not for promoting some "gay agenda" but for being gay). But a Catholic school in Indy has done just that. And the courts have, and will, uphold it.

So yes, in the general, I agree. But the specifics become a problem. Most of the cancel I hear about pertain to race, gender, gender-orientation. If someone is very homophobic on Facebook, does an employer who has homosexual customers have a right to fire that person? I don't think it is cut and dried. Part of me wants to say that no, if the person behaves at work that is what they should be graded on. But at the same point, if that employee decides they are tired of hiding their true feelings at work, the employer will suffer a backlash against them. So why should the employer take the risk? If it were your livelihood at risk, would you accept the risk of keeping that person hired?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Performing a abortion is not "speech", but trying to get the doctor fired is 100% cancel culture, especially if A) it was a legal abortion where it was performed and B) the people making complaints weren't even patients of the doctor.

I can probably agree with that.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Abortion is legal, it is an action, she is free to choose to perform one or not. I am not sure how it isn't speech. As an example, the people who put on vests and go out and clean highways are speaking as to the importance of a clean environment.

Reasonableness is tricky. I am not sure a guidance counselor at a high school should be fired for being gay (not for promoting some "gay agenda" but for being gay). But a Catholic school in Indy has done just that. And the courts have, and will, uphold it.

So yes, in the general, I agree. But the specifics become a problem. Most of the cancel I hear about pertain to race, gender, gender-orientation. If someone is very homophobic on Facebook, does an employer who has homosexual customers have a right to fire that person? I don't think it is cut and dried. Part of me wants to say that no, if the person behaves at work that is what they should be graded on. But at the same point, if that employee decides they are tired of hiding their true feelings at work, the employer will suffer a backlash against them. So why should the employer take the risk? If it were your livelihood at risk, would you accept the risk of keeping that person hired?

if people are posting homophobic or other insulting stuff on facebook and have also posted about where they work or have it in their profile, then it could still negatively effect that company.

People have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean freedom from repercussions. Just means that they won't be charged (unless it was slander/libel or yelling fire in a building etc)

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

So basically, 'it's bad when people I disagree with do it, but it's not the same thing when people I agree with do it?'

That's pretty much what you typed out there.

You don't think teachers' jobs are at risk over the pearl-clutching reaction to CRT? What about transsexual athletes? And it's only been fairly recent that being gay hasn't restricted what you could and couldn't do.

Unsubscribe. Do better.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Abortion is legal, it is an action, she is free to choose to perform one or not. I am not sure how it isn't speech. As an example, the people who put on vests and go out and clean highways are speaking as to the importance of a clean environment.

Reasonableness is tricky. I am not sure a guidance counselor at a high school should be fired for being gay (not for promoting some "gay agenda" but for being gay). But a Catholic school in Indy has done just that. And the courts have, and will, uphold it.

So yes, in the general, I agree. But the specifics become a problem. Most of the cancel I hear about pertain to race, gender, gender-orientation. If someone is very homophobic on Facebook, does an employer who has homosexual customers have a right to fire that person? I don't think it is cut and dried. Part of me wants to say that no, if the person behaves at work that is what they should be graded on. But at the same point, if that employee decides they are tired of hiding their true feelings at work, the employer will suffer a backlash against them. So why should the employer take the risk? If it were your livelihood at risk, would you accept the risk of keeping that person hired?

Here's a good article I found on the Catholic school issue there. It's more complicated there because you are talking about religion and govt interference with it. I think the lesbian guidance counselor who worked at Roncalli for 40 years has a good case that the firing based on her sexual orientation is a pretext:

Trump admin backs Catholic school that fired gay teacher

At least three gay employees have been terminated by Catholic schools affiliated with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis since 2018.

www.nbcnews.com

The more analogous case, though, is the person fired for simply supporting the lesbians or speaking out saying they should not be fired.

Re actions v. speech, the line can be blurry and it becomes very complicated in legal arguments. But the purpose has to be related to a "conversation" of ideas. Performing an abortion is not that (I don't think any medical procedure can be, since you can't, by law as a doctor, even talk about it w/o consent so it's not like you are performing the abortion for the public to know about).

Talking about abortions or why we should have them, publishing a photo of it is, or a painting of a mother facing carrying an unwanted pregnancy., etc.--that's speech.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

So never has anyone attempted to fire someone for CRT? I see that people who are not and never have been patients of the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 year old have filed complaints against her. 6 people filed complaints against her, none were ever her patient, and 5 were from out of state. Is that cancel culture?

Indiana doctor who treated 10-year old investigated over fake claims, lawyers say

The Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim is being investigated by the state attorney general for bogus consumer complaints by individuals who were never her patients, the physician's lawyers said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

That’s called fraud or libel and should be litigated.

If someone has been told repeatedly to not teach a certain subject and they do - they should be fired. That’s insubordination - not cancel culture.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

if people are posting homophobic or other insulting stuff on facebook and have also posted about where they work or have it in their profile, then it could still negatively effect that company.

People have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean freedom from repercussions. Just means that they won't be charged (unless it was slander/libel or yelling fire in a building etc)

That is all true - except there is no wiggle room on what is homophobic Vs what is reasoned criticism of things like children’s drag shows or kink in pride parades. And your mob gets to decide if criticizing that is homophobic. That’s the Chappelle situation.

It’s like when dumb conservatives complain about teaching slavery and falsely label it as CRT. They’re wrong.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Performing a abortion is not "speech", but trying to get the doctor fired is 100% cancel culture, especially if A) it was a legal abortion where it was performed and B) the people making complaints weren't even patients of the doctor.

We can agree. That doctor won’t get fired.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Unsubscribe. Do better.

Good one.

 

[bawlmer]

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

You need to make a distinction here between job performance and extracurricular speech for the teachers.

To be an anti-free speech culture, the example would have to be someone calling for a teacher to be fired for something they wrote on Twitter or FB regarding CRT.

I bet there are examples of people doing that. Have any been successful? I don't know. FIRE would represent those people, though.

There is an example linked below of a black school superintendent cancelled for calling for more focus on race relations. The real dilemma is there are probably people in her community who feel they did the right thing forcing her out, but would decry "woke cancelling." And vice versa.

I don't think it's possible to separate the reason from the action. Cancelling isn't new, it's just more effective combined with social media. But people should be able to express their views.

Institutions need to think more carefully about whether to respond, and we're starting to see more reluctance to give in to loud mobs. In the recent petition against Justice Thomas, I thought it was significant that the university said they would not pull him from his post.

Black Lives Matter, She Wrote. Then ‘Everything Just Imploded.’ (Published 2021)

A Black superintendent’s email to parents after the killing of George Floyd engulfed a small, predominantly white Maryland community in a yearlong firestorm.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Here's a good article I found on the Catholic school issue there. It's more complicated there because you are talking about religion and govt interference with it. I think the lesbian guidance counselor who worked at Roncalli for 40 years has a good case that the firing based on her sexual orientation is a pretext:

Trump admin backs Catholic school that fired gay teacher

At least three gay employees have been terminated by Catholic schools affiliated with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis since 2018.

www.nbcnews.com

The more analogous case, though, is the person fired for simply supporting the lesbians or speaking out saying they should not be fired.

Re actions v. speech, the line can be blurry and it becomes very complicated in legal arguments. But the purpose has to be related to a "conversation" of ideas. Performing an abortion is not that (I don't think any medical procedure can be, since you can't, by law as a doctor, even talk about it w/o consent so it's not like you are performing the abortion for the public to know about).

Talking about abortions or why we should have them, publishing a photo of it is, or a painting of a mother facing carrying an unwanted pregnancy., etc.--that's speech.

I think the doctor wanted this case specifically to call attention to rape and abortion before the Indiana General Assembly convened. I seriously doubt the 10 year old called The Star. Just like Jack Kevorkian wanted his cases publicized to start the conversation.

 

[ButHerEmails]

Kind of like how the rest of view liberals? There is no point taking you seriously because you never are. All you have to do is log on with your name and that becomes obvious.

If some one logged in as '' BidenHasDementia'' would you take anything they had to say seriously?

I’ve been meaning to ask, how do you feel about the current mod situation?

 

[hoot1]

We have all heard the warning about not bringing religion or politics into polite conversation. I first heard this warning at least seven decades ago. Given this, can we really say cancel culture is something new ? Also bringing religion, or politics, or personal problems into the workplace is frowned upon in many businesses environments

Is the above about free speech or simply setting rules about there being a time and place for everything ?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We have all heard the warning about not bringing religion or politics into polite conversation. I first heard this warning at least seven decades ago. Given this, can we really say cancel culture is something new. Also bringing religion, or politics, or personal problems into the workplace is frowned upon in many businesses environments

Is the above about free speech or simply setting rules about there being a time and place for everything ?

I do think social media has made politics ubiquitous, which is bad. I alluded to your point earlier, I seldom talk politics to people. Not the bartender, not my barber, not my church. It seems that was once the custom, and social media has made such conversation more likely.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think the doctor wanted this case specifically to call attention to rape and abortion before the Indiana General Assembly convened. I seriously doubt the 10 year old called The Star. Just like Jack Kevorkian wanted his cases publicized to start the conversation.

I just read that the doctor actually is the one to have told the reporters. That surprises me.

I also read the summary of why she didn't violate HIPAA. I think that could go either way. The Ohio reporters who tracked down who this girl was pretty much confirmed she gave enough info that the girl could be identified. It's a reasonableness test, though, so a lot of wiggle room there.

I guess the process they had to go through helps inform how many rape cases there are of people under 15, but I'm not sure it confirms the rarity or commonness of the need for abortions after a certain time frame for girls that age (which the Dr. said was her motive for revealing the information).

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

There is an example linked below of a black school superintendent cancelled for calling for more focus on race relations. The real dilemma is there are probably people in her community who feel they did the right thing forcing her out, but would decry "woke cancelling." And vice versa.

I don't think it's possible to separate the reason from the action. Cancelling isn't new, it's just more effective combined with social media. But people should be able to express their views.

Institutions need to think more carefully about whether to respond, and we're starting to see more reluctance to give in to loud mobs. In the recent petition against Justice Thomas, I thought it was significant that the university said they would not pull him from his post.

Black Lives Matter, She Wrote. Then ‘Everything Just Imploded.’ (Published 2021)

A Black superintendent’s email to parents after the killing of George Floyd engulfed a small, predominantly white Maryland community in a yearlong firestorm.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry, can't read the article (paywall). But it looks like she was fired not for something she said outside her job, but direct communications with parents as part of her job. That's a big difference.

Without reading the article, though, I can't really comment on it.

I hope you are right that more institutions are more reluctant to give in. But even colleges and universities are susceptible to this, and it's a very bad trend.

Maybe this tactic is not new, but it seems to be getting worse. As the essay suggests, rather than just shutting down opinions we don't like, we should engage in conversations (like we are doing here) to understand each other and maybe educate one another. That doesn't mean people won't or shouldn't form opinions about a person from the topics he or she focuses on, attitudes, etc. But we all need a little leeway in thinking things through, don't we?

 

[UncleMark]

Performing a abortion is not "speech", but trying to get the doctor fired is 100% cancel culture, especially if A) it was a legal abortion where it was performed and B) the people making complaints weren't even patients of the doctor.

We can agree. That doctor won’t get fired.

But she is being targeted (and slandered) by the Attorney General.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

But she is being targeted (and slandered) by the Attorney General.

If she's being slandered, she can and should sue. Give her my number.

 

[UncleMark]

If she's being slandered, she can and should sue. Give her my number.

Too late:

Indiana doctor takes step towards defamation lawsuit against Rokita

An Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim is preparing to sue Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for defamation.

www.wfyi.org

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Too late:

Indiana doctor takes step towards defamation lawsuit against Rokita

An Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim is preparing to sue Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for defamation.

www.wfyi.org

Good for her.

 

[bawlmer]

Sorry, can't read the article (paywall). But it looks like she was fired not for something she said outside her job, but direct communications with parents as part of her job. That's a big difference.

Without reading the article, though, I can't really comment on it.

I hope you are right that more institutions are more reluctant to give in. But even colleges and universities are susceptible to this, and it's a very bad trend.

Maybe this tactic is not new, but it seems to be getting worse. As the essay suggests, rather than just shutting down opinions we don't like, we should engage in conversations (like we are doing here) to understand each other and maybe educate one another. That doesn't mean people won't or shouldn't form opinions about a person from the topics he or she focuses on, attitudes, etc. But we all need a little leeway in thinking things through, don't we?

You got the gist of the situation. Black school superintendent in predominately white county sent an email to parents expressing concerns about racism after George Floyd murder.

And given the situation, I don't see the big difference between a school superintendent (as a public official) posting her views on Twitter compared to sending an email. Maybe if she was employed by a private company, but a public official isn't generally afforded such a distinction between their personal views and public communications. In fact, on this topic I would argue it is far more appropriate for her to communicate her views through official channels.

So was she 'cancelled' or 'terminated for performance?' If you were able to read the story you would learn she left prior to the end of her contract, although it had been communicated her contract would not be renewed. An aggressive minority created a hostile work environment, convincing her to leave. Call it what you want, the problem is the organization that hired her not having the courage of its convictions.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

You got the gist of the situation. Black school superintendent in predominately white county sent an email to parents expressing concerns about racism after George Floyd murder.

And given the situation, I don't see the big difference between a school superintendent (as a public official) posting her views on Twitter compared to sending an email. Maybe if she was employed by a private company, but a public official isn't generally afforded such a distinction between their personal views and public communications. In fact, on this topic I would argue it is far more appropriate for her to communicate her views through official channels.

So was she 'cancelled' or 'terminated for performance?' If you were able to read the story you would learn she left prior to the end of her contract, although it had been communicated her contract would not be renewed. An aggressive minority created a hostile work environment, convincing her to leave. Call it what you want, the problem is the organization that hired her not having the courage of its convictions.

I dont' know without reading it. Generally, re free speech law, a public employee can talk about anything political on twitter and not be fired. Private employees have fewer protections--at-will employees can be fired for social media comments. In a free speech culture, the second would be frowned upon and people would not be organizing groups of people to demand someone be fired for most of what is called for today.

My inclination, though, for that superintendent would be that she not be fired for her emails.