Free Speech Union in a spot of bother

[butchstewie]

Well well who'd have thought.

Free Speech Union hit by internal allegations of racism and sexually inappropriate remarks

[John145]

Guardian attacking free speech union because of things said by people in free speech union. Lol.

Its like attacking a guardian journalist for criticising Elon musk.

[captain_cynic]

butchstewie said:

Well well who'd have thought.

Free Speech Union hit by internal allegations of racism and sexually inappropriate remarks

Shock horror... obviously dodgy organisation is found to be dodgy.

If you're in favour of something, you shouldn't have to tell people you're in favour of it... you really shouldn't have to put it in your name. It's a bit like countries with a name that starts with the word "Democratic"... You instantly know that they're anything but a democracy.

You know the FSU only supports their idea of speech, not everyones.

[butchstewie]

I think this goes slightly beyond freedom of speech to be honest.

The Guardian said:

A key figure in the campaign group, the chief operating officer, Sigrun Olafsdottir, departed late last week after employees alleged that she told a junior member of staff she would “never hire a black person” as a part of a one-on-one meeting late last year.

[Jasandjules]

butchstewie said:

I think this goes slightly beyond freedom of speech to be honest.

Then you do not understand what Freedom of Speech means.

It is absolutely racist, but that is another point entirely.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Jasandjules said:

Then you do not understand what Freedom of Speech means.

It is absolutely racist, but that is another point entirely.

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

[FredericRobinson]

Jasandjules said:

Then you do not understand what Freedom of Speech means.

It is absolutely racist, but that is another point entirely.

Not much freedom of speech there if you can't get a job because of your skin colour

[wc98]

butchstewie said:

I think this goes slightly beyond freedom of speech to be honest.

The Guardian said:

A key figure in the campaign group, the chief operating officer, Sigrun Olafsdottir, departed late last week after employees alleged that she told a junior member of staff she would never hire a black person as a part of a one-on-one meeting late last year.

Ah well, she will be a shoo-in for a senior post with Reform going by their recent form.

[butchstewie]

Quite.

If the allegations are true good on her colleagues for reporting her for them.

I just find it funny how many of these "free speech" types don't actually seem to be people with deeply held principles so much as just wanting to be able to say the most vile things with zero consequences.

[Glitzy Mitzy]

butchstewie said:

Quite.

If the allegations are true good on her colleagues for reporting her for them.

I just find it funny how many of these "free speech" types don't actually seem to be people with deeply held principles so much as just wanting to be able to say the most vile things with zero consequences.

Having taken a butcher's at the Free Speech Union website, which is an AI-generated-cartoon bespattered mess, I was forced to draw the conclusion that their aim isn't to say the 'vilest things', it is merely to say the same things the right have been saying since 'woke' was invented. The whole thing is just other-side-of-the-coin snowflakeism, drawn from the usual bits of the mundane, inane and sometimes insane discourse known as the culture war that passes for debate in these febrile times.

Oh look, someone's got hurty feelings because somebody else said they had hurty feelings about what the first one said about immigration or the transgender issue or religion. Who the hell cares? It's so bleeding boring I could cry.

[ukwill]

It’s very real for those who have been fired or even arrested thanks to what later transpire to be grievous oversteps from employers and/or authorities.

It pains me that entities like the FSU even exists. But I’m entirely fine that they are there to assist those who, it turns out, have been treated shockingly badly and entirely unlawfully.

I can entirely understand the Graun not liking them much.

[Mr Penguin]

butchstewie said:

Quite.

If the allegations are true good on her colleagues for reporting her for them.

I just find it funny how many of these "free speech" types don't actually seem to be people with deeply held principles so much as just wanting to be able to say the most vile things with zero consequences.

It's always going to be an attractive idea for people to hide behind as a motte and bailey fallacy, the real test is always how they respond when someone they don't agree with says something controversial because everyone wants free speech for themselves.

[paulrockliffe]

Mr Penguin said:

It's always going to be an attractive idea for people to hide behind as a motte and bailey fallacy, the real test is always how they respond when someone they don't agree with says something controversial because everyone wants free speech for themselves.

You can see the FSU defending people right across the political spectrum, so I don't think this is a fair criticism. Most of the people they end up in court defending seem to be there because of their right wing views, but that tells you quite a lot about left wing politics and the state in general doesn't it.

[Mr Penguin]

paulrockliffe said:

You can see the FSU defending people right across the political spectrum, so I don't think this is a fair criticism. Most of the people they end up in court defending seem to be there because of their right wing views, but that tells you quite a lot about left wing politics and the state in general doesn't it.

I don't mean any specific organisation, just that there will always be the Voltaire type defenders of free speech and those just pretending to be one because they want to say things that are frowned upon but don't really care beyond that.

[JagLover]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

If it is an action, discriminatory hiring practice against the equalities act, then it is not mere speech.

[Randy Winkman]

JagLover said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

If it is an action, discriminatory hiring practice against the equalities act, then it is not mere speech.

Good point. I'm all for free speech but I'm also all for employers being able to chose who they employ based on suitability for the role in question. And if they turn out to be unsuitable they should be able to let them go.

[BikeBikeBIke]

JagLover said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

If it is an action, discriminatory hiring practice against the equalities act, then it is not mere speech.

Agree, but the report is talking about words not actions.

[wc98]

Randy Winkman said:

JagLover said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

If it is an action, discriminatory hiring practice against the equalities act, then it is not mere speech.

Good point. I'm all for free speech but I'm also all for employers being able to chose who they employ based on suitability for the role in question. And if they turn out to be unsuitable they should be able to let them go.

It goes back to the basic premise that you can say whatever you like but don't be surprised if you get sacked or a punch in the face if what you are saying goes against the law or what most people would regard as common decency.

[John145]

wc98 said:

Randy Winkman said:

JagLover said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. Something amusing about the Free Speech Union making someone resign for saying something wrong.

If it is an action, discriminatory hiring practice against the equalities act, then it is not mere speech.

Good point. I'm all for free speech but I'm also all for employers being able to chose who they employ based on suitability for the role in question. And if they turn out to be unsuitable they should be able to let them go.

It goes back to the basic premise that you can say whatever you like but don't be surprised if you get sacked or a punch in the face if what you are saying goes against the law or what most people would regard as common decency.

Punching someone in the face for breaking the law is illegal in case anyone reads this and thinks they can punch people they see dropping litter.

[Mr Penguin]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Agree, but the report is talking about words not actions.

There may well be legal repercussions for the FSU and if this is actually done in practice it affects the FSU's ability to reach their goals. I would also sack someone who didn't want to hire someone good because of the colour of their skin simply because they are making poor decisions.