The Classical Chat Thread

[mc ukrneal]

I on the other hand expected no less.

Sigh. Now you are just being nasty...

[Todd]

It doesn't matter. What's important is that she can keep writing her tweets.

In other words, you adhere to an arbitrary and capricious outlook, one devoid of principles, and one that allows an infinite flexibility to label anything at anytime worthy of being censored or suppressed. 

[mc ukrneal]

This form of coercion will likely have a chilling effect.   Is that your idea of freedom of speech?

You didn't answer my question.

Again with the dramatic phrase - chilling effect. There is nothing chilling about it. Her freedom of speech has in no way been stopped as seen by her continued tweeting.

[mc ukrneal]

In other words, you adhere to an arbitrary and capricious outlook, one devoid of principles, and one that allows an infinite flexibility to label anything at anytime worthy of being censored or suppressed. 

I didn't say that.

[Todd]

I didn't say that.

You didn't have to.  Between your inclusion of lies, racism, and "etc", as types of speech that can implicitly be regulated or punished, and your earlier statement that you hadn't really thought about standards, you very obviously fall into the "I know it when I see it" category.

[Ken B]

Of course it has. 

Sure she can keep tweeting, but she can not perform Rachmaninoff with the TSO.  No harm done ...   

Right. Neal has an odd standard for what counts as harmful. Losing your employment, no harm done. Wrong opinion in a tweet, a crime!

Her tweet did no actual harm. It merely exposed her opinion to those who do not share it and therefore seek to punish it. 

[mc ukrneal]

Guys, it's been fun being ganged up on, but I really have better things to do, especially when you start representing my views with statements I don't agree with. Maybe in the morning when I am refreshed, I will make some sort of follow-up.

[Todd]

Guys, it's been fun being ganged up on, but I really have better things to do, especially when you start representing my views with statements I don't agree with. Maybe in the morning when I am refreshed, I will make some sort of follow-up.

Please make sure to include a definition of "etc".  That should prove most enlightening.

[Ken B]

Guys, it's been fun being ganged up on, but I really have better things to do, especially when you start representing my views with statements I don't agree with. Maybe in the morning when I am refreshed, I will make some sort of follow-up.

Wait, wait. What if someone accused of a pro Putin, or lying, or racist, or etc, tweet complained of being misunderstood, or misrepresented, and ganged up on?


Update. I'll just leave this here. http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/08/umich-cancels-american-sniper-screening

[mc ukrneal]

Please make sure to include a definition of "etc".  That should prove most enlightening.

You and Ken are so freaking pedantic. Etc here, and the sentence in general, refers to violations of a Civil Rights Act, Disability Acts and other similar items. It refers to the protection against termination based on sex, race, religion, age, and similar items. This doesn't change anything we have been discussing.

[mc ukrneal]

Wait, wait. What if someone accused of a pro Putin, or lying, or racist, or etc, tweet complained of being misunderstood, or misrepresented, and ganged up on?


Update. I'll just leave this here. http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/08/umich-cancels-american-sniper-screening

You and Todd have both made similar comments about who is to choose the standards. The point I have been making is that I don't choose anything. Private organizations do. They decide what political view they will accept or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with some and disagree with others. It doesn't matter for you either (unless you run those organizations, in which case, you make the decision).

[mc ukrneal]

So much for waiting til tomorrow!

[kishnevi]

The Internet.

Or apparently a good many American universities.

[Todd]

Etc here, and the sentence in general, refers to violations of a Civil Rights Act, Disability Acts and other similar items. It refers to the protection against termination based on sex, race, religion, age, and similar items. This doesn't change anything we have been discussing.

What?  The sentence I quoted read:

"AS long as it is not a lie, racist, etc, she is free to continue saying it."

Are you referring to what Ms Lisitsa may say?  If so, the laws you mention are irrelevant.  Or are you referring to what the TSO or its spokesperson says?  If so, the laws you mention are irrelevant.

Your new approach of claiming that you choose nothing is ducking a variety of issues and questions.  Yes, various organizations establish their own criteria, of varying and potentially dubious value.  No one is disputing that.  Nor is anyone disputing their legal ability to do so.  The discussions have been about whether the action undertaken by the TSO was right, and whether other organizations should be able to do so.  Your statements far more than imply that you support such action.

Let's make it simple: In your opinion, should Ms Lisitsa have been treated the way she was, and if so, why and what standards of free expression do you support? 

[jlaurson]

The latest in this sordid story:

http://www.musicaltoronto.org/2015/04/08/interview-toronto-symphony-ceo-jeff-melanson-breaks-his-silence/

...doesn't make the TSO look any better, I'm afraid. "Here are your tweets that were deposited at our doorstep: Justify Yourself!"

[Karl Henning]

Or apparently a good many American universities.

Well played, sir.

[mc ukrneal]

The latest in this sordid story:

http://www.musicaltoronto.org/2015/04/08/interview-toronto-symphony-ceo-jeff-melanson-breaks-his-silence/

...doesn't make the TSO look any better, I'm afraid. "Here are your tweets that were deposited at our doorstep: Justify Yourself!"

I disagree - it's not all bad (and will get back to Todd's post at some point):
1. They at least looked into it when they didn't have to
2. Most of the posts are rather tame if rude, though some later tweets not included here are pretty insensitive (worse could be said)
3. They gave her a chance to respond

[mc ukrneal]

What?  The sentence I quoted read:

"AS long as it is not a lie, racist, etc, she is free to continue saying it."

Are you referring to what Ms Lisitsa may say?  If so, the laws you mention are irrelevant.  Or are you referring to what the TSO or its spokesperson says?  If so, the laws you mention are irrelevant.

Your new approach of claiming that you choose nothing is ducking a variety of issues and questions.  Yes, various organizations establish their own criteria, of varying and potentially dubious value.  No one is disputing that.  Nor is anyone disputing their legal ability to do so.  The discussions have been about whether the action undertaken by the TSO was right, and whether other organizations should be able to do so.  Your statements far more than imply that you support such action.

Let's make it simple: In your opinion, should Ms Lisitsa have been treated the way she was, and if so, why and what standards of free expression do you support? 

So legally we are all agreed? I see you did say that earlier, which I hadn't focused on (my apologies for the circle). Are Ken and Sanantonio agreed here? If so, we can move on to the next point...

Was the action right? Depends on a number of factors. Is it right to fire someone for their political views (any view)? At first glance, the answer might seem no. What you do is your own business and why should an organization fire you for what is essentially your business? The problem is that those views can reflect on your employer. So does an organization have the right to protect its image/values and fire an employee who crosses some sort of line?  And here I think the answer is yes. Just as the church can fire employees who do not follow church doctrine, an employee can be fired who violates a company's values. How to reconcile the two will depend, I think, on either a case by case look, perhaps who had the more ethically sound position, or perhaps on your weighting of these sides. I think any of these is a reasonable way to go. Judging by the posts, posters here do not seem to think the company has an ethically based right to protect its image/values. This seems to be a position that is being dismissed.

When I look at the ethics of the actions from each side, well there are questions. The 7 page pdf is rather tame compared to her actual feed and does not really support their decision (but her tweets in their entirety do in my opinion). On the other hand, her tweets are 1) factually incorrect (and just a continuing propegation of Russian PR/lies), and 2) Rather hateful in their entirety. In addition, the position she is tweeting is not ethically defensible.

I think the free speech item is a bit of a red herring. She continues to enjoy the freedoms of free speech. That said, you asked for some sort of standard. I would not reinvent the wheel here (and I would reserve the right to change it/let it evolve), but would say something like this: In general, people can say whatever they want as long as it does not incite immediate unlawful behavior, does not include child pornograpy, is not libelous/slanderous, is not an invasion of pivacy, and does not violate the public health. The problem with this standard (and your standard) is who makes the judgment? There is no good answer for this. Any answer would be flawed.

[Florestan]

In general, people can say whatever they want as long as it does not incite immediate unlawful behavior, does not include child pornograpy, is not libelous/slanderous, is not an invasion of pivacy, and does not violate the public health.

Well, Lisitsa's inanities don't qualify for any of the above.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, Lisitsa's inanities don't qualify for any of the above.

ok. And?