[EL] Paz Harassment

[Scarberry, Mark]

I think everyone on the list (everyone whose posts I've read) has a commitment to freedom of expression and a commitment to a well-functioning political process. There are good faith differences on the implications of those commitments.

With regard to limitations on employers, I would worry a bit about the possible development of claims for hostile political work environment. And I would worry that politically outspoken employees would claim that they had been fired for speaking out, whether or not that's true, which would put a further burden on employers. There probably needs to be some weighing here of benefits and burdens, and clear protection for the rights of employers to take political positions.

One of the problems with mandated disclosure laws is that the government is taking affirmative steps that may lead to harassment, which is a kind of state action. State actions that limit freedom of expression are particularly dangerous.

(By the way, I've eliminated the "possible spam" label from the subject line.)

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310)506-4667

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Samuel Bagenstos
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:55 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu Law
Subject: [EL] Fwd: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment



Begin forwarded message:


From: Samuel Bagenstos <sambagen at umich.edu<mailto:sambagen at umich.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
Date: August 30, 2013 2:54:28 PM EDT
To: Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com<mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>>

Just a couple of quick responses to Brad:

1.  I don't know that I'm a member of any "community" here.  But I do think that if you really care about the ability of ordinary people to speak freely, you should care about limiting the power of their employers to coerce or retaliate against their speech.

2.  I didn't mean to raise the question as if it was any kind of point in favor of compulsory disclosure.  Like Mark in his initial post, I share concerns about privacy in lots of kinds of information, including this sort of information.  And, though my thumbs apparently don't know how to type "either-or," I think it was clear enough in my reply to you that I was not pitting nondisclosure and anti-retaliation laws as mutually exclusive alternatives.

I *do* however think it's "some big point" against your claim to be the defender of freedom in this conversation that you would reject anti-retaliation laws -- laws which would target what I would regard as the most effective means of protecting most people's actual freedom to speak against the folks who are most likely to be in a position to limit that freedom (and will be in a position to limit that freedom even in the presence of a nondisclosure requirement).
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Mark Schmitt wrote:


I guess if we all know how each other will reply, we don't really need this list.
I'll add just one thing: I am a member of "the free-speech community" as well as "the reform community."

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130830/29ab2ee1/attachment.html>