Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6178627" data-attributes="member: 8461">I strongly disagree; legality and ethical considerations are very much apart from each other.If someone within your immediate proximity is seriously injured/dying due to a set of circumstances that you were uninvolved with, and you have the ability to save/aid them with no risk of (substantial) harm to yourself or others, I believe that you're ethically obligated to do so. Legally, however, you have no such obligation, and may turn around and leave them to their fate.Likewise, you can be held legally liable for crimes (usually minor crimes) that I feel have no moral dimension. You can be fined for jaywalking, but I believe that crossing against the line has no immorality to it unto itself.Ethics and the law are, at best, a Venn diagram, rather than being near-synonyms.Again, this is your focus on the legality of such a contract. That doesn't unto itself show that it's ethical to require that someone who works for you will give up their right to perform their livelihood for someone else.Likewise, it doesn't speak at all to using the threat of litigation to intimidate someone into silence.It is censorship. Stop focusing on the question of "are they allowed to do this?" and ask "is it (ethically/morally) right for them to do this?" instead. Having the theoretical ability to find another venue for expressing yourself is purely a question of theory, not of practical reality. Yes, someone who is shut out of every major avenue of a given venue can attempt to create a new venue, but this creates a near-insurmountable burden for most individuals and organizations.See above.It is censorship when you're attempting to stop someone else from promoting an expression that you disagree with. That's as true for a corporation as it is for another person (since apparently corporations are people too).Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it as 1) more likely, and 2) attempting to stifle the expressions of otherswith whom you disagree by denying them access to major venues of expression is not your own expression of free speech, as well as 2a) the power of the purse, e.g. money, is not speech.EDIT: This is shaping up to be a great debate, but unfortunately I'm going to have to step away from it until Monday. I'm posting from work, and my home computer has died - until the new one I ordered arrives, I'm offline during the weekends. Hopefully this thread will still be here when I get back. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification