tronanews.com

OKAY! Therefore I resolve to use the okay hand gesture as often as I can. Not that I care about racism one way or the other. That horse has been dead for decades. Just because people have been obsessed with beating a horse that is dead doesn't make it any less dead! But I digress.... What matters to me is suppression of free speech and defying the censors is the best way to tell them to F-OFF!

mrfish: You're right about beating a dead horse. The problem is that many are intent upon riviving the dead horse so they can keep beating on it, but it is way beyond resuscitation and the horse has been dead so long that no one can remember what real racism was like. What we have now is construed racism and everyone pretends that it's the real thing.... I guess for old-times sake!

OPERATION BASH THE HASH # | Hacker 4chan Trolls Twitter
There's always plenty of idiots who will fall for even the most obvious hoax. For instance, the MOMO hoax and the OKAY symbol hoax. Plenty of idiots who just can't help themselves!

defcon: Very true. The world is full of stupid people and when stupid people started using the internet all sorts of weird stuff started happening. The best years for the internet, btw, were back when newsgroups were the main feature. That was before we had the world wide web or graphic browsers and the effect of those two things was massive commercialization and a huge influx of stupid people.

NEWS GROUPS: Those were the days! There was a lot of fun stuff in newsgroups. Some people took it a little far, but the average IQ of users at that time was substantially higher than what we see on the internet nowadays. But that was before there was a computer in every home and a phone capable of browsing the internet in every hand. Only people with a high level of tech expertise were using the internet back then.

Defending your online reputation
Scare tactics to keep you from expressing yourself online? Employers snooping inappropriately? What we need is a set of laws to protect your right to express your ideas (even if they offend some delicate snowflakes) and which make it illegal to discriminate based on anything you post online.

What in your law you are asking for is discriminate? How do you write a law doing that? If someone says they like clowns for example. If I address that coment saying I don't like clowns, I think you are nuts if you like clowns, I will not shop at your bakery because you like clowns. Is that under your proposed law legal?

Sparky of SoCal wrote:What in your law you are asking for is discriminate? How do you write a law doing that? If someone says they like clowns for example. If I address that coment saying I don't like clowns, I think you are nuts if you like clowns, I will not shop at your bakery because you like clowns. Is that under your proposed law legal?

Okay.... so, say I publicly post that I think clowns are disgusting, but my employer is a very pro-clown kind of person and when he learns about my post he fires me because I said something mean about clowns. With the law I envision, it would be illegal for my employer to fire me since he would be discriminating against me based on my statement. Just like it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on political affiliation, sex, race, religion, etc., it should also be illegal to discriminate based on opinion since opinion is just a subset of political beliefs which in turn is a subset of political affiliation. Current law should be interpreted this way, but since it is not we need a law which explicitly makes this clear. This is actually something employers should welcome since it would make it pointless to boycott a company because they have a clown-hating employee on staff. Obviously it would be illegal for an employer to check out internet postings when deciding whether or not to hire someone and any indication that such info was used in a hiring decision would be both a criminal and a civil issue. Ultimately this type of law would give all people freedom to express their opinions.

Feel free to give me another scenario in order to "test" this proposed law with!

I own the company; my name is on the front of the building. When I go to hire someone, they are expected to represent me, the owner, the one with the high risk of loss. I need to trust my employee to build on the trust of my customers that I worked on and nurtured. Before I hire the person to represent my company, myself and my principals. I will check the applicants financial background where public, I will check their criminal background where public. I will also dive into their social media because that is also public. If I don’t feel good about it after weighing in on those and a person to person interview, I would tell the person that I want to continue my search and wish them much luck on their quest for employment. I would not, because I am not obligated to share my reasons for wanting to continue my search. My business is a janitorial cleaning company specializing in late night housekeeping. Some of my customers are convents, phone stores and children’s orphanages. The new employee will be expected to clean floors and wash toilets unsupervised. So, am I still cool because I'm looking out for Number 1, supporting my opinion? Or do I put someone else opinions ahead of the one who's name is on the front of the building? Who may by the way loves clowns.

Sparky of SoCal - Just because you own a business doesn't give you the right to control the private lives of your employees! You aren't the king and they aren't your loyal servants. It's reasonable for you to check their criminal background, but beyond that we're talking invasion of privacy and anyone who helps you invade someone's privacy should be thrown in jail along with you if you're really that nosy about people's private lives and using that info to make employment decisions. You don't own someone just because they work for you!