Discussing religions and worldviews at the workplace

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

No we haven’t. The point here involves the right to speak vs the right not to have to listen to it. The content of what’s said is neither here nor there.


...

If you create a right not to listen, then in any public forum where you are, you can shut down the right to free speech.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If you create a right not to listen, then in any public forum where you are, you can shut down the right to free speech.

So does the right to freedom of speech by, say, evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime trump the right of the diners not to have to listen to it or not in your opinion?

Seems to me the the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing. To adapt the famous example, I should have the right to shout "Fire" in an empty field, but probably not in a crowded theatre. Do you agree? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So does the right to freedom of speech by, say, evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime trump the right of the diners not to have to listen to it or not in your opinion?

Seems to me the the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing. To adapt the famous example, I should have the right to shout "Fire" in an empty field, but probably not in a crowded theatre. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. But I wasn't the one touting a blanket right not to listen, or speak. Your 'right not to listen' does not seem to have been qualified by you at all, unless I've missed it?

[Enki]

What types of speech, if any would be, exempt?

That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I  would object strongly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes, I agree. But I wasn't the one touting a blanket right not to listen, or speak. Your 'right not to listen' does not seem to have been qualified by you at all, unless I've missed it?

I didn't claim a "blanket" right not to listen – if I happened to walk past the field in which someone was shouting "Fire!" I'd have no right to object for example, and nor for that matter should I be able to object if it was the Westboro Baptists preaching a sermon. Rather the "right" involved here is that while people should have the right to free speech (subject to some exceptional limitations) they should not have the right to force others to listen to it – by evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime for example. In other words, "I must be free to speak" and "I must be free to force others to listen to me" are not the same thing.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Enki,

That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I  would object strongly.

That's actually a bit more problematic. If, say, I was eating at a restaurant's outside terrace and someone on the opposite side of the street was evangelising whilst I might have the right to ask him to fuck off (that being my right to freedom of speech) I'd have no right to stop him, however annoying I found him to be.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I didn't claim a "blanket" right not to listen – if I happened to walk past the field in which someone was shouting "Fire!" I'd have no right to object for example, and nor for that matter should I be able to object if it was the Westboro Baptists preaching a sermon. Rather the "right" involved here is that while people should have the right to free speech (subject to some exceptional limitations) they should not have the right to force others to listen to it – by evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime for example. In other words, "I must be free to speak" and "I must be free to force others to listen to me" are not the same thing.     

So how do you balance your 'right not to listen' in any circumstance where someone is expressing an opinion? Obviously a person could remove themselves from the forum where someone is speaking but you seem to envisage  something more than that. Could you outline how you see it working?

[Nearly Sane]

Enki,

That's actually a bit more problematic. If, say, I was eating at a restaurant's outside terrace and someone on the opposite side of the street was evangelising whilst I might have the right to ask him to fuck off (that being my right to freedom of speech) I'd have no right to stop him, however annoying I found him to be.

So when does the right to stop someone apply?

[Nearly Sane]

That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I  would object strongly.

So I should be able to stop any political rallies I want?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So how do you balance your 'right not to listen' in any circumstance where someone is expressing an opinion? Obviously a person could remove themselves from the forum where someone is speaking but you seem to envisage  something more than that. Could you outline how you see it working?

I don’t argue for a right not to listen (or at least not to hear) “in any circumstances”. To take my example, I’d argue for that right in the crowded workplace restaurant at lunchtime, but probably not for people who might just overhear things when they walked past a room set aside for the evangelical (or whatever).

The problem with that of course is that there are as many different possible circumstances as anyone can think of so you can’t legislate individually for all of them. Broadly I’d opt for freedom of speech where other people could reasonably avoid listening to it it if they wanted to, but I don’t have a binary, one size fits all answer.       

[Enki]

So I should be able to stop any political rallies I want?

If it was outside the restaurant where I was eating and the rally was disturbing my meal, I would want the rally to move to a more acceptable place or if it was being held outside a hospital where  I was recuperating, ditto.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don’t argue for a right not to listen (or at least not to hear) “in any circumstances”. To take my example, I’d argue for that right in the crowded workplace restaurant at lunchtime, but probably not for people who might just overhear things when they walked past a room set aside for the evangelical (or whatever).

The problem with that of course is that there are as many different possible circumstances as anyone can think of so you can’t legislate individually for all of them. Broadly I’d opt for freedom of speech where other people could reasonably avoid listening to it it if they wanted to, but I don’t have a binary, one size fits all answer.     

I'll be happy if you could provide any sort of guidance about how you think it should work. You seem to have proposed something but have no idea about how it might work.

[Nearly Sane]

If it was outside the restaurant where I was eating and the rally was disturbing my meal, I would want the rally to move to a more acceptable place or if it was being held outside a hospital where  I was recuperating, ditto.

That's not answering the question. Should you be able to have it stopped?

[Enki]

That's not answering the question. Should you be able to have it stopped?

Obviously I didn't make that clear. No, not stopped but moved, as I suggested, to a more suitable location such as a public square.  In London, Trafalgar Square would be an acceptable location, especially if prior notice was given.

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously I didn't make that clear. No, not stopped but moved, as I suggested, to a more suitable location such as a public square.  In London, Trafalgar Square would be an acceptable location, especially if prior notice was given.

Stopping it happening where someone chooses is stopping it. Surely anywhere opposite most restaurants is a public space? It might make sense to move it if it blocked the throroughfare but as you note that shouldn't apply if there was prior notice given.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'll be happy if you could provide any sort of guidance about how you think it should work. You seem to have proposed something but have no idea about how it might work.

As I said, the choice is freedom to speak “anything, anywhere, any time” (including the staff canteen) and denying freedom of speech whenever someone who hears it is offended by what’s said. Neither is acceptable in my view (and nor I suspect in yours by the way) so we’re left with a messy, “impossible to define precisely” compromise between the two. The legal position often relies tests of on reasonableness in many many different arenas, so “you cannot impose your freedom of speech on others who cannot reasonably avoid having to listen to you” is as good a place to start as any.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As I said, the choice is freedom to speak “anything, anywhere, any time” (including the staff canteen) and denying freedom of speech whenever someone who hears it is offended by what’s said. Neither is acceptable in my view (and nor I suspect in yours by the way) so we’re left with a messy, “impossible to define precisely” compromise between the two. The legal position often relies tests of on reasonableness in many many different arenas, so “you cannot impose your freedom of speech on others who cannot reasonably avoid having to listen to you” is as good a place to start as any.     

So if it is in a place of work, and there are 2 people who work together, one who is gay, and one of whom is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, your position does seems to be that the Westboro member could ask for the gay worker to be stopped talking about anything in support of gay rights?

[Enki]

Stopping it happening where someone chooses is stopping it. Surely anywhere opposite most restaurants is a public space? It might make sense to move it if it blocked the throroughfare but as you note that shouldn't apply if there was prior notice given.

No it isn't 'stopping it'. it's accepting that people have the right to hold a political rally in a suitable place, and I don't consider outside a restaurant or a hospital to be a suitable place. You might, I don't.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't 'stopping it'. it's accepting that people have the right to hold a political rally in a suitable place, and I don't consider outside a restaurant or a hospital to be a suitable place. You might, I don't.

Surely though that's not about what is said but about rights of access as already mentioned? I've been in restaurants that are on public squares, and there have been political meetings outside the restaurant in the public square.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So if it is in a place of work, and there are 2 people who work together, one who is gay, and one of whom is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, your position does seems to be that the Westboro member could ask for the gay worker to be stopped talking about anything in support of gay rights?

Applying my own test, as neither employee could reasonably escape his proximity to the other than yes – regardless of whether it was the gay worker advocating for gay rights or the evangelical advocating for persecuting gay people. This is where Vlad fell apart a few posts ago – it’s not the content of the speech that matters here, it’s the competing rights of expressing it vs no being forced to hear it (especially in a workplace setting). 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Applying my own test, as neither employee could reasonably escape his proximity to the other than yes – regardless of whether it was the gay worker advocating for gay rights or the evangelical advocating for persecuting gay people. This is where Vlad fell apart a few posts ago – it’s not the content of the speech that matters here, it’s the competing rights of expressing it vs no being forced to hear it (especially in a workplace setting

So if a fellow employee talks about enjoying Coronation St in my workplace, you think I should be able to have them stopped saying that if I object to hearing it.

[Enki]

Surely though that's not about what is said but about rights of access as already mentioned? I've been in restaurants that are on public squares, and there have been political meetings outside the restaurant in the public square.

But what about a restaurant in a normally quiet area? What about the hospital scenario? For me, it comes down to the suitability of the location and the disruption it causes.

[Nearly Sane]

But what about a restaurant in a normally quiet area? What about the hospital scenario? For me, it comes down to the suitability of the location and the disruption it causes.

And I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that it isn't about what is being said but the impact on other public freedoms. It's not because you are in a restaurant.

For the hospitals, are you suggesting that there can be no picket lines during a strike?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So if a fellow employee talks about enjoying Coronation St in my workplace, you think I should be able to have them stopped saying that if I object to hearing it.

Of course not. If on the other hand though he did it continually, told the other worker he was inferior and would go to hell for not agreeing with him etc then probably yes as it’d be a form of harassment. You’ve already agreed with me that the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing, so how would you decide how do to draw the line between the two?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Of course not. If on the other hand though he did it continually, told the other worker he was inferior and would go to hell for not agreeing with him etc then probably yes as it’d be a form of harassment. You’ve already agreed with me that the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing, so how would you decide how do to draw the line between the two?

But why not, if as you said 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here'?