“Plenty of left-wing voices online have fueled the divisions.” Disagree. While some did revel in Kirk’s death, most liberals condemned the violence but expressed the truth about his racism, homophobia and xenophobia. When a noted person is cut down, their aspirational thoughts and beliefs are often quoted in remembrance. Not so much with Kirk." - NY Times comment
It's not surprising to hear the angry and inappropriate words from our toddler-in-chief in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death. Governor Cox's approach is a mature and reasonable approach. What is most disappointing is that almost no GOP member in Congress is willing to counter Trump's divisive messaging. They truly are cowards at a time when our country desperately needs to go in a different direction.- NY Times comment
According to a Washington Post story last Friday ('Workers Are Getting Fired Over Charlie Kirk Posts'):
"Within 24 hours of Charlie Kirk’s killing, an assistant dean at a Tennessee college, a communications staffer for an NFL team, a Next Door employee in Milwaukee, and the co-owner of a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant were fired after posting about it. "
Subsequent casualties of the Rightists' outing of negative comments included: HS teachers, flight attendants, corporate workers, and even Matthew Dowd - an MSNBC commentator. Dowd' offense? Basing his criticism of Kirk on a theological premise I learned at a Catholic High School. Dowd, in a segment on Katy Tur had said:
“Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to
hateful actions. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and
then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place.”
The common denominator in all these dismissals or suspensions? They'd all employed memes or language their employers deemed offensive or insensitive. For example the Facebook post from Tennessee professor Laura Sosh-Lightsy:
“Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.”
Before the day was done, Sosh-Lightsy had been terminated over her "inappropriate and callous" comments which were "inconsistent with our values."
Before too many get bent out of shape it is well to bear in mind that no one operating in a private work domain has an inherent right to "free speech". Read the Constitution! In particular the clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
Now what does that say? It says CONGRESS shall make no law, i.e. to take away your right to free speech. It does not say a private corporation, hospital or university cannot prevent you from using its websites, devices, or other access from exercising speech, or refusing to follow their speech rules. Including posting critiques on Facebook.
The limits on free speech by private corporations were already pointed out over a half century ago by Charles Reich in his book 'Opposing the System.' Citing the case of 'Waters v. Churchill' (p. 146), Reich noted:
"the Supreme court made clear that an employee's speech is not protected if the employer believes the speech might interfere with the efficiency of the employer's operations."
In a general matter one can indeed aver that an employee - including flight attendants, nurses, professors, high school teachers - even Secret Service agents- signs away any "free speech" rights once they walk through that employment door. Indeed, in the corporation I once worked for as a technical writer (Nucletron) I was told flat out I could not be emailing any of my atheist materials to fellow employees. Or indeed discussing with them atheist principles. (I had to stuff it, despite coworkers expressing a keen interest after seeing articles published in The Baltimore Sun)
The same law applies to Google's 2017 termination of software engineer James Damore for a 3,000 word effort blasting Google's "left bias" for "creating a politically correct monoculture" . Then Google CEO Sundar Pichai noted in justifying Damore's dismissal:
"to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."
So Damore was let go.
The WSJ - foremost bastion for the rights of the reactionary Right - lambasted the company in an editorial ('Google's Diversity Problems', Aug. 8, 2017, p. A14) :
"In other words its OK to express views as long as they are not antithetical to Google's political culture."
President Trump does not subscribe to the traditional notion
of being president for all Americans. The first few minutes of President
Trump’s Oval Office address after the assassination of Charlie
Kirk last week followed the conventional presidential playbook. He praised the
victim, asked God to watch over his family and talked mournfully of “a dark
moment for America.”
Then he tossed the playbook aside, angrily blaming the
murder on the American left and vowing revenge.
That was stark even for some viewers who might normally be
sympathetic. When Mr. Trump appeared
later on Fox News, a host noted that there were “radicals on the right,”
just as there were “radicals on the left,” and asked, “How do we come back
together?” The president rejected the premise. Radicals on the right were
justified by anger over crime, he said. “The radicals on the left are the
problem,” he added. “And they’re vicious. And they’re horrible.”
Mr. Trump has long made clear that coming together is not
the mission of his presidency. In an era of deep polarization in American
society, he rarely talks about healing
A campaign by public officials and others on the right has led just days after the conservative activist’s death to the firing or punishment of teachers, an Office Depot employee, government workers, a TV pundit and the expectation of more dismissals coming.
This past weekend, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted that American Airlines had grounded pilots who he said were celebrating Kirk’s assassination.
“This behavior is disgusting and they should be fired,” Duffy said on the social media site X.
As elected officials and conservative influencers lionize Kirk as a warrior for free expression who championed provocative opinions, they’re also weaponizing the tactics they saw being used to malign their movement — the calls for firings, the ostracism, the pressure to watch what you say.
And:
St. Vrain Valley teacher no longer in classroom after social media posts
Excerpt:
Shortly after Kirk’s death, teacher Christine Engelen
reposted a Facebook post by a different person that described Kirk as a
fascist. The post urged people to “mourn the children he tried to erase, not
the propagandist who put them in the crosshairs. Mourn the communities he
sought to criminalize, not the grifter who made millions stoking hate against
them. He can rest in piss.”
A conservative social media influencer shared
Engelen’s re-post and urged people to contact the school and demand she be
fired. Mead High parents also
advocated for her firing through emails and at a community meeting with the
superintendent.
And:
Conservative are targeting speech. More teachers may lose their jobs. - The Washington Post
And:
MAGA mayhem – breakneck ways to cut off noses and spite everyone’s faces
How better to assess rightwing cults
Than measure the real, Main street results?
Witless tariffs, bloated prices, lost jobs,
Juiced by dark motifs from Thomas Hobbes.
MAGA IS "nasty, brutish, and short" –
Hoard guns, strip rights, hire thugs to deport;
Are chumps that dumb? Due process shields all,
With profiling a cliff-edge pratfall.
Corrosive actions reap what they sow,
Ugly vengeance the lowest of the low.
And Vance's sneering, jungle law drums
Don’t “give a shit” to heinous outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment