hate speech and employment

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Wow, my first post! Must be the lack of caffeine.

So, Christian Dior has fired its chief designer for saying some pretty nasty anti-Semitic things. Now, as reprehensible as this high-class idiot's actions may have been, does it merit his firing? Is hate speech in itself reason enough? They're not saying that the guy discriminated against Jews or, as Americans might say, created a hostile working environment; he got drunk and made his fateful utterances at a cafe.

Now, I despise anti-Semites and racists of all stripe, but I believe that, so long as they're not illegally discriminating against people, they're entitled to their views, however repugnant. I think it's as wrong to fire them solely for saying "I love Hitler...your %$#$!&# ancestors would have burned" as it would be to fire them because they follow a religion the employer doesn't like. I find things like being prosecuted for saying things about Islam that Muslims don't like, or being haled into a "civil rights" court for the same reason, or making blasphemy against any religion a civil crime to be dangerous and frightening indications of a decline of free speech.

Yeah, people say stupid things, and hurtful things, and they spew forth the vilest kind of racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/anti-Christian/anti-Muslim/homophobic rhetoric...but it's their right to do it. When we [EDIT: MEANING GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS!] start censoring people merely because they say things we don't agree with, we set the stage for some pretty scary 1984-style thought-crime scenarios.

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

For a second, I thought you were going to rant about how you hate both speech and employment. :P

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

lol

Ask me on Saturday, after I find out if I got the job. :P

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Why this topic is under lock?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

My bad, it's my default setting; I've changed it.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

I think it's totally ok to fire for hate speech.

In fact it is directly affecting work environment and relations between colleagues and sometime company and clients. Also company might be sued for not taking actions against such guys.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

It would be one thing if Galliano was just some guy sewing the clothes in the back room, but he's the public face of the company. They can't afford the bad publicity that would come from keeping him on. I agree with your point overall, that free speech, however repugnant, in your free time shouldn't merit firing, but in this case I think Dior had no other option.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What does this have to do with us? It's their company, they get to decide. Right to work, and all. They can fire you for whatever reason, and you can quit for whatever reason. There is no issue here at all.

When we start censoring people merely because they say things we don't agree with, we set the stage for some pretty scary 1984-style thought-crime scenarios.
Lolwut, the government had nothing to do with it.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I meant employers too.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Yea..

good point - government can't take any actions just because of it (still can fire public worker for the same reason), but all other can do their actions, which are legal.

F.e. they can absolutely legally do ignore such person and not to talk with such person.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

I think it really depends.

Joe the assembly line mechanic should be able to get up and say pretty much anything he wants without fear for his job, however certain positions are high enough profile positions that anything you say, even if it is on your own time, is construed as speaking on behalf of the company and as such the company has no choice but to protect itself by firing you.

Ultimately however this should be handled by your contract with the corporation. If you're important or high profile enough then the corporation should have speech and morals clauses, if you're not it's not worth their while to include them in the contract and then whether you can be fired for saying stupid things depends on what kind of contract you signed.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Joe the assembly line mechanic should be able to get up and say pretty much anything he wants without fear for his job, however certain positions are high enough profile positions that anything you say, even if it is on your own time, is construed as speaking on behalf of the company and as such the company has no choice but to protect itself by firing you.

Yeah, but isn't that a double standard? Afterall, Joe the assembly line mechanic still works for the same company as one of the higher-ups and therefore is still a face of the company even if he's not on the front lines.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it's not right to fire the guy merely for *saying* those things.

[speciesofspaces.livejournal.com]

Your 1984 analogy implies its arbitrary and initiated by a government. This was neither. That kind of speech is always harmful and never appropriate. I applaud Dior for taking this stance and firing a man who is no doubt extremely talented, on the strength of placing principles ahead of profits.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't see why that's necessarily the case. In the Soviet Union and present-day North Korea censorship is never arbitrary, there's always a pattern and a method to the madness.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I meant neither (have added a line to OP reflecting this). And it may not be arbitrary, but that doesn't make it right, either.

[speciesofspaces.livejournal.com]

Rather than expecting us to argue that it is right, why don't you explain why it was not?

[jennem.livejournal.com]

No one censored Galliano. If he wants to get slammed and make racist and anti-semetic statements tomorrow, he is free to do so.

Doir chose to end it's association with Galliano. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, people say stupid things, and hurtful things, and they spew forth the vilest kind of racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/anti-Christian/anti-Muslim/homophobic rhetoric...but it's their right to do it.

So, what's the alternative? Are you going to force people to continue to associate with a racist?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

We all have to associate with people we don't like. We don't have the luxury of living in little bubbles where everyone thinks the same. And, yes, he was censored; being fired for speech amounts to censorship.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Well can use the free market and find another job that will appreciate his anti-Semitic wise cracks. Seriously, for a company like Dior, corporate image and your reputation is everything. I'm sure the designer signed a moral turpitude clause and other goodies requiring him not to say anything silly that would put the company in a bad light. IF he didn't know that anti-Semitic remarks were included in such a clause, then he should have been fired for being incredibly stupid. This isn't a case of some silly political correctness gone crazy.

[jennem.livejournal.com]

No, actually, we do not have to associate with people we dont like. Many times we choose to associate with people we don't like, because the reasons for doing so outweigh the reasons not to associate with them, but the law does not require or force the association. Quite the opposite. Freedom of association is in the freaking bill of rights.

Furthermore, being fired for your speech is not tantamount to censorship. No one prevented Galliano from making anti-semetic statements, and should he choose to make such statements again in the future, he is free to do so. He's not being censored in any way. You're essentially arguing that people have the right to free speech, but others shouldn't have the right to react to it. Galliano has the right to make anti-semetic statements. I have a right to think he's an asshole for saying them, and Dior has a right to choose to disassociate itself with him.

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

He was fired because he is causing poor publicity for Dior.

And in France antisemitic statements are against the law. He ranted at someone that he loved hitler and their family for generations wouldve been killed, for crying out loud.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Employers can pretty much fire people at will, and things like speech that creates a negative impression of the employer/company is pretty much a slam-dunk as far as justification goes.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

While I agree with your post in general, it's not quite censorship, it's merely the company saying that they don't agree with what he said. They haven't done anything to restrict his speech. A job is not a speech platform.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

No, we don't. Not on our own private property we don't. You are not obliged to let a bigot live in your house, and Dior is not obliged to keep one on the payrolls. This is NOT censorship. Censorship can only be done by the government, and nobody is infringing on this creep's right to spew filth.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

In the US you do not have the right to free speech when it comes to employment. We have never had these rights. Free speech only applies to government.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

But he wasn't fired for speech he made during employment; he was fired for speech he made in his time, outside of work.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Should freedom of association only apply to some groups?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ask Governor Walker that question and you'll find out that yes, there are some groups allowed more freedom of association than others.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Walker;s not trying to abolish unions, so that's patently false.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That doesn't matter, especially if one is an officer of the company.

BTW in most states you can be fired for any reason at all except for certain specified classes.

[singlethink.livejournal.com]

No, you can't be fired for "any reason," but you can be fired for no reason. Theres a difference. Otherwise, I agree. The officer of the company is the face of the company and is is never not "during employment" if it is in the public. What if Obama went on a golfing trip and said "you know what, I really hate Jews. All of them. Maybe Hitler had it right after all." Do you think that shouldn't be counted against him simply because it wasn't made "during employment?" The last thing that shareholders want to read in the newspaper is "CEO of [the company you have shares in] is an all around douche. Massive boycott called."

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

For many multi-national corporations, there is no "outside of work".

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I think we can rightly distinguish between civil law and corporate policy. I thnk we can also rightly distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable corporate policy.

See the "morals clause" that is in many showbiz contracts.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

They aren't firing him for his opinions or for expressing his opinions. They are firing him because his expression of those opinions is going to hurt their bottom line.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

Anti-semitic remarks are illegal in France.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

If so, I think that's a terrible law, even if I can understand the reasoning behind it.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

I think this is a hard power, soft power situation.

The law is hard power. Social reprobation and criticism and voluntary action without legal import is soft power.

Firing someone for expressing an opinion is ultimately soft power, and if we disagree with the action we should retaliate with soft power.

If a prominent company figure was fired for expressing ideas I happen to agree with, and got fired, I'd be pissed... but my anger would express itself with calls to use soft power... holding the company up to ridicule, boycotting its products and advertisers, etc.

So, in this case, maybe Mel Gibson will stop wearing Christian Dior.

Racists are bad for business.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

I see this as a purely market driven move on Dior's part.

[princesssisi87.livejournal.com]

As much as I think political correctness is defying our right to freedom of speech, nowadays when one's working environment comprises people from all races and backgrounds, ages and social status, one should be aware of what, when, where, how and why one is saying (it).

Undoubtedly, such statements can cause frictions and uneasiness. Of course, people are allowed to have their own beliefs, but in reality, we should have cool judgement and know when to bite our tongues. If one of your colleagues is Jewish and you get along perfectly well, why make such comments? What good will it achieve? None. If you're in the companion of "like-minded" others, you can claim whatever you like. However, working for Dior puts you in the limelight and that in itself has a few adverse effects. The media are watching you in the hope that you'll say or do the wrong thing, and place you on the first pages of their newspapers / magazines to sell them! Friends can turn to foes easily, for money these days can buy nearly everyone. So, careful what you say in front of them, too, because they might as well reveal what you've so privately disclosed for a certain price.

Lastly, I completely agree with those of you who have said Dior have an image to uphold. Dior aren't just an obscure employer in the middle of nowhere. They're universally recognised. They can't afford this incident blackening their reputation. For all we know, the people who have fired this chief designer might share his / her views, but in front of the world, they *have to* appear politically correct. For all the wrong reasons (i.e. money), but that's irrelevant..

P.S The use of "you" in Paragraph two doesn't refer to any of .. you. Just clarifying before anyone thinks I'm calling them racist! :)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Now, as reprehensible as this high-class idiot's actions may have been, does it merit his firing? Is hate speech in itself reason enough? They're not saying that the guy discriminated against Jews or, as Americans might say, created a hostile working environment; he got drunk and made his fateful utterances at a cafe.

Yes, it's a perfectly good reason. Christian Dior probably goes by the policy most multinats do: you represent the Corporation at all times, 24/7. At all times, you are the Corporation. It's not you getting and drunk and spouting off; it's the Corporation getting drunk and spouting off. You are the Corporation. The Corporation is you.

Thus, fired.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Speech is an act. Employers have every right to discipline employees for acts that affect the company negatively.

Also, as a couple of people here have already noted, anti-Semitic utterances are illegal in France, so the question you pose in practicality is moot.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Dior has no choice other than firing John Galliano. Dior belongs to LVMH, there is too much money at stake (http://www.4-traders.com/CHRISTIAN-DIOR-4629/news/CHRISTIAN-DIOR-2010-An-Excellent-Year-for-the-Christian-Dior-Group-13553538/).

On a side note, Dior wanted to get rid of John Galliano a long time ago, apparently because of his problems with alcohol. This scandal is almost a bargain for them if it were not for the "nazi label" which reminds of an old story about the Dior family, more precisely Christian Dior's niece (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15877). If you understand French, you'll see that what John Galliano said is nothing compared to her "engagement" (http://www.ina.fr/video/CAF96034711/mademoiselle-dior-va-epouser-un-nazi-anglais.fr.html).

Besides I can share your uneasiness except it's not because of Dior's reaction but because of the general ban on Internet. It seems very disproportionate to the real fact : a drunkard spitting out anti-semite provocative insults in the Marais, a Jewish quarter of Paris. It's a little like using the word "chink" in a Chinatown, one could wonder what is the part of provocation here. Moreover, the urge to condemn him is huge to the point that it's weird, it sounds more like many were proclaiming "No, I'm not an antisemite."

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

This isn't just any guy.

He's very much a prominent public face of Dior. He gets on the catwalk at his own shows.

Dior is perfectly in its rights to sever themselves from him.

The free speech issue is the French law that makes what he said a potentially criminal offense.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If the USA were an EU country, the Pink Swastika and those who push it would likely all be in jail right now.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

I didn't read previous posts, but the short answer is, they have a right to fire him if he harms the company's reputation. Who wants to buy designer clothes from an asshat like that?