Sounds pretty cool to me. I have nothing else to contribute. Cool, though. Cool...

>>28061902
they don't have to fire you and the people who ride the moral high horse of superiority can find other ways to ostracize you, reduce your work hours, deny you pay raises other people might be getting, and they'll get away with it too because all they have to do is threaten others from their moral high horse

you don't understand normies and their ways, or their fucking retardation when it comes to social media

it's really simple just don't let your employer know about what you do online and if they ever persist, give them an account created solely for public use/i.e. one that is never used

I think that's a bad idea.

A person can exercise freedom of expression outside of work any way they choose within the confines of the law
A company can exercise freedom of expression and their right to disagree with others by firing their employees for the things they express

Sort of like if you have two people talking. Person A says something Person B doesn't like. Person B can't make person A shut up, but they can tell them that they disagree with them and or leave the conversation.

>>28061938
>employers cannot punish
>punish
Punish doesn't exclusively mean fire
>>28061941
But a company isn't a person.
This would actually benefit companies because they wouldn't have to save face by hiring a someone less qualified (or no one at all) instead of hiring a qualified person with controversial opinions.

Most of the time people aren't fire because the "company" doesn't like it when they say offensive stuff, but actually because they want to keep their reputation and not get involved in drama. Companies will fire highly qualified people just to, as I said earlier, save face from the drama shitstorm.

But, when you take that power out of the company's hands, they are benefited because people can't say "I'M BOYCOTTING X BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIRE Y" since the fact that they would KNOW the company doesn't have the power to do it in the first place.

Just like you can't stop a person from breathing because they sound weird when they breath, because you know it isn't their fault that they need to breathe.

Information should not be restricted or suppressed no matter what in my opinion. If they can access it, it's theirs to see.

A broad law on privacy and respect should be enforced though, they shouldn't have reason to be looking in the first place. But then we don't live in a world where employees are respected as equal individuals to employers.

Drug testing for non critical jobs is just messed up, so long as they're not fucked up on the clock it's none of their business.

There are too many variables though, taking photos in public shouldn't be a crime, yet unauthorized photos on anothers property should count as trespass and lesser assault.

But when and to whom does that apply?
It doesn't seem like cops like their new cameras very much, and yet they are never prosecuted for destroying evidence or another property.

Variables suck, the less laws the better, but we are stuck in a world of dickheads, what to do, what to do.

>>28061902
So I go around telling people how much I hate niggers and how I want to kill all niggers and such. Word gets out that I'm a nigger hater, and since I live in a liberal college town people start actively avoiding my place of employment. Business is down, my company is losing loads of profit but they can't fire me because I'm only being racist outside of work. Eventually the company goes bankrupt, everyone loses their jobs, and I go to work at the next place, where the cycle repeats. Or I don't, because no place will hire me, because they know I killed the last business I worked at.

Also the simple answer is that nowadays corporations make the laws and no company will support a law that restricts their power.

>then we will know it isn't representative of the company if someone says something offensive because people would know the company can't control that.

Not how it works. The decision to employee someone says something about a company, you can't just make a law and expect people to change their mindsets to fit it

>>28062024
>a company isn't a person
Tell that to the supreme court.

>Companies will fire highly qualified people just to save face
Companies exist for the sole purpose of making money. They don't fire people with controversial opinions because they're worried about their social status, they do it because shitstorms hurt their bottom line. They have every right to protect their assets and disassociate themselves from liabilities.

>when you take that power out of the company's hands, they are benefited
Or people will boycott them anyway and the company won't be able to do anything about it