It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should your freedom of speech protect you from the consequences?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
For some people, the view seems to be that yes, yes you should be protected from consequences on what you say. There are some who believe that your freedom of speech should be extended to you being protected from the repercussions or consequences of said speech. I've seen people go so far as to argue that those people who may post politically incorrect statements are being silenced by counter arguments or posts. Case in point:


A county school bus driver in Georgia was fired in 2013 for posting about a hungry student passenger who claimed he didn’t have enough money to get lunch at school. “As a tax payer … I would rather feed a child than to give food stamps to a crack head,” the driver wrote. School board officials didn’t take the critique well, and in fact found no proof that the boy went without lunch. County school board policy stipulated that “disciplinary procedures” apply to employees who post on social networking sites and cause disruption to the instructional environment. The bus driver refused to recant and apologize, so he was fired.

www.yahoo.com...

Another case:



Waitress fired for Facebook gripe

A North Carolina waitress is out of a job after griping on her Facebook page about the $5 (€4) tip she got from a couple who sat at a table for three hours. The waitress said the customers kept her at work an hour after she was supposed to clock out.

www.independent.ie...

Now this incident may be more well known to readers here with the Dixie Chicks. We all know what happened to them with their comments about George Bush all those years back:


As you may recall, 10 years ago on March 10, the Dixie Chicks were on tour in London. Under President George W. Bush’s command, the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq under the alleged belief that Saddam Hussein was hiding “weapons of mass destruction.” Like many people in the U.S. and the rest of the world who opposed the war from the start, more than 1 million Brits had marched again the impending invasion. Maines looked out over the audience at Shepherd’s Bush Empire Theater and said, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

Maines’ comments were a country career killer. The reaction was swift, brutal and ongoing. It included stations boycotting the group and fans burning their CDs. Regardless of whether one agreed with her views, the unofficial blacklisting

Read more at www.hitfix.com...

For me, regardless of whether what you said may be well justified or factual, I don't believe this freedom affords any protections from counter arguments or actions. I do believe you should be protected from threatening behaviour. That being said, receiving the bad end of negative counter arguments and even actions from businesses, workplaces, and even people (such as boycotting Dixie chicks CDs) are just part of that very freedom. The way I see it, you can say what you want, but others should not be required to agree or respond in a way that may not offend or affect you. With freedom of speech comes responsibility.




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Nope.

They definitely should not be protected from the consequences.

If you're not grown up enough or smart enough to understand the difference of when to open your mouth and when to shut it, then you are destined to learn that life lesson the hard way.

It's called "the school of hard knocks".



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Here is another recent story that I read early this morning. It's an opinion piece from Fox News:

'He did nothing wrong': Florida principal ousted after defending Texas cop



Alberto Iber lost his job as the principal at North Miami Senior High School after he wrote a comment about the McKinney, Texas incident on the Miami Herald’s website.

“He did nothing wrong,” Iber wrote. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”


It would appear to me that the 1st amendment is definitely under attack. People should be protected for voicing their opinions. The claim that it's disruptive to the instructional environment is nothing but an excuse to silence differing opinion. It's nothing short of retaliatory firing.
edit on 6/12/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The first doesn't protect you from your employer, it protects you from the state.

So no, you should not be protected from the consequences.

The moral of this story, social media is not where you vent.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace




Was Mr. Iber removed from his job because he defended a police officer or was he removed because he defended a white police officer?


Check out the race baiting!
How often do you hear about how bad race baiting is on fox?
edit on thFri, 12 Jun 2015 21:18:13 -0500America/Chicago620151380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80


The moral of this story, social media is not where you vent.


I don't understand why people never learn from this?? We continue seeing cases of people saying silly things on social media and then they act shocked when there are consequences. We're all humans, granted, but really now, at least acknowledge that there are better ways at venting your frustrations.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

That doesn't take away from the fact it happened. He never should have been terminated for his comment. Neither should the school bus driver from the OP.

In addition, I could add NBC as a source since you believe the race baiting is exclusive to Fox. The NBC article quotes a black student that does the same thing.


edit on 6/12/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Is this former principal being silenced from speaking his mind? The answer is no. Him being fired for posting that comment isn't going to stop him from speaking his mind. Sure, he may think twice now because of the consequences, but his 1st amendment rights are not being stripped away.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Sorry. My view is that if you are severely punishing people for views that are not being said in your place of work loudly and vociferously constantly and don't constitute any sort of violence advocation or amount to yelling fire in a crowded theater, then it amounts to intimidation.

At the very least, you should be forced to give the names of those who turned them in and turn over all records of the event and the consequences in a harassment case against those who reported them.

Because, let's be honest, if you're taking the time to look up people's employer and taking the time to contact them just because they say something you don't like, you're pretty well easily described as harassing somebody.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I didn't say it was exclusive to fox, just that they complain about how people need to stop doing it all the time.
So just that they are hypocritical, which I am sure NBC is too.

If you sign a contract that says that you represent the company/school ect.. than you can get fired for misrepresenting them.

Not a breach of your first, not even close.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

No, on the face of it his 1st amendment rights aren't being violated. Any retaliation for exercising that right, in my opinion, is wrong. I believe it's time to extend the 1st's protections to include retaliatory firing.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: EternalSolace


I didn't say it was exclusive to fox, just that they complain about how people need to stop doing it all the time.
So just that they are hypocritical, which I am sure NBC is too.


If you sign a contract that says that you represent the company/school ect.. than you can get fired for misrepresenting them.

Not a breach of your first, not even close.


My mistake and my apologies. I didn't understand your point.

How does one intentionally misrepresent a company or school? That's too broad of a reason to fire someone. If you say something anyone (in power at an organization) doesn't like, regardless of what it is, you could be terminated. I just can't agree with that.
edit on 6/12/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck




At the very least, you should be forced to give the names of those who turned them in and turn over all records of the event and the consequences in a harassment case against those who reported them.


And that isn't intimidation?
Don't call me out on what I said or I will press charges!

What you say on social media is not protected!!
It is not that hard of a concept to get.
You willingly go out of your way to broadcast it at a whole new level outside of you just saying it to someone person to person.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Nothing wrong with this guy defending a police officer... Just know who and what your employer is and what their expectations of you are, before doing so in a highly public manner.

Again, it's a simple matter of knowing when, how, why, and where to open your mouth and when to zip it.

Differing opinions have always had their repercussions in society. Absolutely nothing has changed in that regard.

Popular opinion changes as often as we change our shorts.

And by all means, if you want to voice your differing opinion on your soapbox in a public environment, then you had better have your sword and shield in hand ready and able for battle. You may win, you may lose.

That's all.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Actually, him being disciplined for speaking his mind as the principal of a school does violate his 1st amendment rights for the same reason that teachers aren't allowed to read Bibles directly in their classrooms as a regular part of classroom activity.

Public schools are technically apart of the governmental reach in these cases, and therefore his 1st amendment rights absolutely do apply. What he said wasn't racial or discriminatory in any manner, and him being fired was blatant political harassment and silencing, plain and simple.

If the man was actually a principal at a private school, then my bad, and I misread the situation, so ignore this commentary.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually, no it doesn't. There's a difference between calling somebody out and going out of your way to try to ruin their life for saying something that you don't like.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



How does one intentionally misrepresent a company or school?

Doesn't have to be intentionally.



If you say something anyone doesn't like, regardless of what it is, you could be terminated.


It is more if you say something that your employer is not willing to back you up on.
So it is more about knowing the situation.

I will say that neither statement was all that outrageous, but at the end of the day it is the employers choice and your first doesn't override that.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

That's the issue I find. Your employer might find one comment okay on a charged topic. But on a different topic, similar in nature, might not agree. It's unreasonable to expect someone to always know the whims of their employer.

As long as statements aren't made in an official capacity, there should be no retribution for said statements.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck


Sorry. My view is that if you are severely punishing people for views that are not being said in your place of work loudly and vociferously constantly and don't constitute any sort of violence advocation or amount to yelling fire in a crowded theater, then it amounts to intimidation.

At the very least, you should be forced to give the names of those who turned them in and turn over all records of the event and the consequences in a harassment case against those who reported them.

Because, let's be honest, if you're taking the time to look up people's employer and taking the time to contact them just because they say something you don't like, you're pretty well easily described as harassing somebody.


Two things here.

There's a difference between threatening behaviour against somebody practicing their first amendments rights, and somebody disagreeing. When somebody threatens you with violence for your political views, this is an infringement of those freedoms, it's pretty clear cut and I doubt anybody here disagrees. However you being fired for saying, for example, kids are disgusting and vile, on social media, by your employer who happens to be a school, is not an infringement of your freedoms. It's a consequence of what you've said as you've knowingly put your position of employment in jeopardy. You've lost the trust of your employee. It's pretty clear cut.

Secondly, while it may be of great distaste that your employer is contacted by individuals who disagree with you to take action. In the end, those individuals may be customers or part of the community you work in. They have every right to voice their concerns toward your employee as you have to voice your own concerns. Your employer has the right to make a decision themselves from there on. Now being harassed at work is a different situation, it goes back to threatening behaviour that infringes those freedoms.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

You are creating this scenario where some one is going out of their way to ruin their lives.

Just because you want to create that scenario doesn't make it true.

In the example of a principle, isn't it highly possible parents of kids of that school followed him and saw the tweet?

Would that be an example of going out of their way?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join