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.
Ballox! Her private sector employer who does business with the government fired her. There had to be a complaint made.
Welcome to the Fascist state indeed.
There was no complaint filed, she self reported her posting her picture on twitter or some such, and got fired after this same employer allowed another male employee who used obscene invective to make a political post, to simply erase his boo-boo.
She did all of this while off hours with it not being criminal in nature AND with it not having been proven to have impacted her employer's business.
Apparently you can sign away your constitutional rights through something as innocuous and irrelevant as an employment contract in the U.S.
If there are "consequences" for the "freedom of speech," then it's not "freedom of speech" any longer.
Thats not true. Freedom of speech stops the GOVERNMENT from limiting you, not others in society..
Lets expand your theory and see if I can show how ridiculous it is.
What if someone runs around on the corner and shouts.. I LIKE RAPING LITTLE CHILDREN....
They've broken no laws, as long as they cant "prove" any rapes occurred, but according to you, society should just ignore him, friends should ignore the act and continue to be friends etc.. No one is to judge or even stop associating with them because they exercised their "freedom of speech"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
What you have to acknowledge then, is that the "freedom" stops where the power of money begins - it's that simple.
Freedom stops where others in society say it stops. Money is immaterial
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
There was nothing "far left" about her gesture - nothing threatening, nothing "radical."
Yet she still lost her job.
Agreed, she didnt threaten or anything "radical", and numerous courts have ruled its not illegal to stick up ones middle finger, because as the courts claim, as long as you dont mean it in a sexual manner, it really is a freedom of speech, but that doesnt mean others have to accept it.
Wrong again. The Employer has Free Speech rights, too, and expresses them by disassociating the business from those whose POV actions run counter to the business. I applaud how quickly it responded. No one has a right to any job past the point either employer or employee decide to opt out.
PS: Flipping the bird is an action. It is not verbal.
There we go again. "Free speech" and ACTIONS are not one and the same thing. If the biker would have "expressed her right of free speech" by throwing a rock at president, that wouldn't be a "speech" any longer. That would be an action.
Likewise, when the employer "disassociates his business" in response - that's not a speech. That's an ACTION.
P.S. In this case "flipping a bird" is a speech. This is an expression of opinion - not more than that.
Thats not true. Freedom of speech stops the GOVERNMENT from limiting you, not others in society..
Lets expand your theory and see if I can show how ridiculous it is.
What if someone runs around on the corner and shouts.. I LIKE RAPING LITTLE CHILDREN....
They've broken no laws, as long as they cant "prove" any rapes occurred, but according to you, society should just ignore him, friends should ignore the act and continue to be friends etc.. No one is to judge or even stop associating with them because they exercised their "freedom of speech"..
Sure, let's look into it. The case you describes involves PUBLIC SAFETY, and therefore can't be ignored. That's why we are not talking just about "freedom of speech," as in political context. But in political context, as long as you have multi-party system, the expression of different opinions shouldn't be illegal, and thus shouldn't be punished either by government, or by any other entity. Now if the country runs the authoritarian system - then yes, any different opinion publicly stated, would be considered as a threat to existing political system, and thus would be punished.
Quote:
Freedom stops where others in society say it stops.
Who are the "others?"
Quote:
Money is immaterial
No, ideology is immaterial. So in authoritarian society driven by ideology, the person is punished directly by the government. In the society run by money ( which are very material) the person is punished by material means ( as we are learning now.)
Quote:
Agreed, she didnt threaten or anything "radical", and numerous courts have ruled its not illegal to stick up ones middle finger, because as the courts claim, as long as you dont mean it in a sexual manner, it really is a freedom of speech, but that doesnt mean others have to accept it.
Again - "acceptance" ( or nonacceptance) has a various degree. Writing an article in newspaper, or verbally stating to a person that you disagree with him/her - that's speech. Firing ( or arresting) someone in retaliation - that'a not speech. That's an action.
Firing ( or arresting) someone in retaliation - that'a not speech. That's an action.
Firing is hardly comparable to arrest.
Firing is simply ending an association. Comparable to me not going to a store to shop anymore. Both parties, employer and employee, remain free to seek new associations of employment.
The biker is 100% free today, just as she was the day she made the gesture.
If she were arrested and convicted of a crime, she might not be free.
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.