Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know she knew of a stupid rule that says you can't express a personal opinion online that is not pc. Show me that rule, and I'll show you something that is unconstititutional.
She is still completely free to say whatever she wants.
Her employer is free to react to what she says as it can reflect upon THEM.
What you guys want is actually unconstitutional as you want to restrict the rights of her employer to protect their own reputation and image.
You guys keep talking about freedoms but sadly what I hear consistently is that YOU want to have freedoms even if it means stepping on the freedoms of others. That's not how it works.
How do you know she knew of a stupid rule that says you can't express a personal opinion online that is not pc. Show me that rule, and I'll show you something that is unconstititutional.
As much as I would like to agree, I can't. An agreement between an employer and an employee has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution only places limits upon government. I would argue that the firing is discriminatory, but discriminating itself isn't against the law. Notice the double standard? One (the employer) can discriminate, the other (the employee) can't?
However... It is the concept that in the name of free speech, regardless of how much we may dislike it, if society must allow the Ku Klux Klan, or that scumbag Fred Phelps and his WestSUX Baptist Church to march down the street, hold a public parade or public demonstration, then an individual ought to have the same right. It is nothing more than political correctness, an act of attempting to censor opinions just because you don't agree with them, to say this firing is justified.
Social media policies are discriminatory as well. It is one thing to have a policy that says in order to keep this job, one must not participate in ILLEGAL activity either during working hours or on one's own time. It is something completely different for an employer to attempt to dictate their will upon what an employee cannot do away from work, while they are not being paid, if the activity performed by the employee is not illegal.
Would everyone be as quick to scream, "Fire that lady!" if she were engaged in defending the rights of lesbians and homosexuals, calling those who oppose gay marriage, "Monkeys, homophobes, or bigots"? What if she were expressing her opposition to gay marriage? Would it be ok to fire her then? - Do you see how the exact same argument could be made to silence ANY opinion, expressed on the employee's own free time, that the employer didn't agree with?
So it really boils down to people are not allowed to think and therefore express ANY opinion which is contradictory to their employer's views? By what right do we silence those we disagree with? If we can demand this of them, what will prevent those who are silencing from being silenced?
I don't know how an employer can justify condemning and firing for one kind of hate speech, yet in the same breath could endorse another kind of hate speech, simply based upon THEIR views. Zero consistency... Again she was fired for voicing an opinion the employer didn't like. I think that is sick.
Just because I was bored I decided to read the Daily Mail comments section (always the best part of any web story) and these comments make the most sense about the situation-
I don't think the girl is particularly racist, just expressing her observations of the people she comes in contact with. Fortunately she sees only the small percentage of crazy people of every race.
- geotexan, Dallas, 6/6/2013 15:16
I was a 911 dispatcher one summer while in college. I can assure you that people calling about stupid crap came from all races. "I locked my keys in my car!!"
- Captain America, Mississippi USA, United States, 6/6/2013 15:13
I am not defending her statements and do not believe that she has held the job long enough for what I am about to say. I have been involved in public safety and have worked in some really bad areas dominated by a certain ethnic group or another. When exposed to nothing but the "negative" as are police officers, emt's, and dispatchers it starts to color your reality a bit. You begin to see "all" in the light that you experience on a daily basis in your little piece of the world. Its unfortunate but true. The difficult part is to try and stay above that over the years.
- DJ, Up and Down the East Coast, United States, 6/6/2013 14:07
Hard not to get jaded when your job involves dealing with all kinds of pathos, drama, and life-threatening situations. She interacts with a lot of the lower elements of society just by the nature of her work. It's a high-stress career, folks, especially for someone who looks relatively young. I recommend she retrain for a position that involves less public interaction. Dealing with idiots of any race is not good for the blood pressure!
- depwavid, Panama City Beach, USA, 6/6/2013 11:44
She was highly unprofessional, having said that, I invite all of her critics to walk a mile in her shoes.
- Edward, Los Angeles, 6/6/2013 15:33
She looks VERY young to hold such a critical job, so I'm guessing that's where her problem begins. I KNOW, from 911 calls played on the radio that some of them are ridiculously ignorant, however I don't think ANY race has the market cornered on ignorance. Younger people (and oldies too) need to realize that social media is being monitored all over the place and sometimes when you try to be funny, you could lose your job if the post is offensive. Grow up little girl!
- jenisoutherngirl, Bham USA, United States, 6/6/2013 13:30
Never let the actions of the few speak for an entire race of people. As humans it is easy to generalize - but we also have the ability to rationalize.
- ProudDem, East Cost, United States, 6/6/2013 13:04
She is still completely free to say whatever she wants.
Her employer is free to react to what she says as it can reflect upon THEM.
What you guys want is actually unconstitutional as you want to restrict the rights of her employer to protect their own reputation and image.
You guys keep talking about freedoms but sadly what I hear consistently is that YOU want to have freedoms even if it means stepping on the freedoms of others. That's not how it works.
With freedom comes responsibility. Yes, she had the freedom to post such an ugly post. However, if her employer told her not to do so, and she does it anyway,then I have no sympathy for her. She got what was coming. It might be her right to say what she said, but with freedom comes responsibility. She was acting irresponsibly, so she suffered the consequences. Would I support her getting imprisoned for what she said? No I wouldn't.
Its asinine that she can't use free speech on FB. Idiotic policy needs changed.
The Constitution says she can use free speech on facebook. That means she can't go to prison for saying what she said on facebook. Her employer, however, says not to post certain things on facebook under penalty of employment termination. If she violates that rule, then she gets fired. If she doesn't like that rule, she should either take it to the courts, or go somewhere else.
The City of Dallas has a social media policy that she agreed to follow when she took the job.
She has nobody but herself to blame.
Yeah that whole social media policy is BS. I honestly don't follow it, but I fix that by not facebooking any coworkers at all. I don't really care for racists, but I am all for people being able to post whatever they want to on their facebook.
I don't know how an employer can justify condemning and firing for one kind of hate speech, yet in the same breath could endorse another kind of hate speech, simply based upon THEIR views. Zero consistency... Again she was fired for voicing an opinion the employer didn't like. I think that is sick.
I don't know if you have ever taken a course in law (business law or otherwise), but this boils down to the law of the agency relationship. This area of law is not addressed by the constitution because it involves parties other than the federal government. The law of agency is well established in commercial law through both statute and common law.
The employee is an agent of the principal and that relationship can be dissolved by either party for any reason. If I were an employer, my goal is to maximize profits, correct? Why would I want to continue a relationship with a person in my employ who is voicing opinions (in personal time or work time) that could negatively impact my ability to maximize profit? Let's face it: some opinions are popular and will not affect profits (and may even enhance them), and some are not. Not only is racism despicable (truth), it is very unpopular, has the potential to alienate a segment of customers, and impact revenues (and thus profits). It's not "PC" that is driving this decision necessarily...more likely it is consumer tastes (as most consumers would choose not to buy a product from a company that hires racists).
The employee is an agent of the City of Dallas, and if the City feels that it would better serve its customers and community-members by not hiring vocal racists, it has every right to terminate the agency relationship - social media agreement notwithstanding. Though consumer tastes may not be driving the 911 service (it is a captive service), how the City reacts in one area can affect its other business dealings. For example, not terminating the racist employee could negatively impact tourism and convention business, and so the City wants to show that it is appealing to its customers (and thus maximizing revenue). Also, TX is a right to work state, so that must be considered as well (employer and/or employee can terminate employment at any time, without notice).
It is not fascism driving these decisions, sir...it is capitalism - the desire to enhance/increase revenue (and profits). Good old fashioned capitalism is what separates stupid opinions from valid ones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Notice the double standard? One (the employer) can discriminate, the other (the employee) can't?