Should your freedom of speech protect you from the consequences?

I think the "consequences" should be no more severe than the speech. If someone says something you don't like, you can say something back, but you don't have the right to punch them in the face for it. If an employee says something the company doesn't like, the company can say whatever they like, but they shouldn't be able to fire somebody for something that has nothing to do with job performance.

Did what the bus driver post on social media affect his ability to drive the bus? No, he just stated a preference. If a company can fire someone because they prefer that tax dollars go to hungry children rather than crackheads, then they can fire someone for any opinion. Want to get rid of someone? Just look on social media. They made a post saying they like red better than green, fire them for that.

You got a gay person you want to get rid of? Well, you can't fire them for being gay, but you can fire them for saying, "I'm gay." Because, you know, consequences of free speech and all that.

a reply to: seeker1963

What did all of that have to do with you saying people are making it a crime to speak?

Speaking ones mind has NEVER been considered a crime until "Political Correctness" raised it's ugly head!

That is what I addressed.
Who is making it a crime?

The talking point of being able to say what ever you want and not be punished when it comes to private enterprise in the name of free speech bores me too.

Well, I think that private people can take action in reaction, or talk back themselves. BUT, I don't think that simply stating a political opinion or being against a war should be grounds for action such as firing, government consequences, etc. That should be illegal.

a reply to: CranialSponge

The dixie chicks though were 100% right.

Were they just meant to keep quiet and go along like drones in a amoral war?

Kudos to them for being brave.

Its a shame there US fans were too dumb to know that,

I feel like buying there album just out of support.

a reply to: crazyewok

Galileo was right, too. Look what it cost him.

Humans have punished truth for as long as it has been spoken. Maybe someday we will mature as a species and change that, but the way things are going, it may be a few more centuries yet. If ever.

Still not buying a Dixie Chicks album, though. Maybe if they do, "The Songs of the Chordettes"

a reply to: CranialSponge

Our employers are not our lords. They do not get to dictate what we can and can't say, it's effectively no different from the government doing so.

The first, as written offers no protection against this but that doesn't make it right. Every single article in the constitution should apply equally to interactions between the individual and a corporation just as much as the individual and the state.

Unfortunately in the US, corporations have the same rights as citizens, and as such if you have the right to be offended by someone's "free speech", so do US businesses.

Putting your dirty laundry on social media today would have been akin to someone pre Internet days going in the middle of their street and telling everyone in a loud voice all their dirty laundry and how they hate their jobs, and what they are bloody eating for dinner.

Society has changed massively with social media, it is someone's right to put what they like on Social Media, and it's others right to be offended by said comments.

Your Dirty Laundry Belongs in the Basket, Not Facebook

I guess according to many of you the guy in the wheelchair shouldn't dare say anything, after all he would be the easiest to shut up in many ways. Didn't like what he said? Tip that chair over. Yeah - consequences baby! Is that freedom? Freedom only exists so long as you have no fear of repercussions.

I've been paying for my "freedom" all my life, been fired from jobs for saying politically incorrect things and roughed up in a parking lot over my politics. I have more respect for the Dixie Chicks than the rest of the country music scene put together. Sometimes it's the most unpopular things that need to be heard the most. Should the Dixie Chicks be forced to pay for upsetting war fever back home? They were right and yet were punished for it.

It's no longer a freedom if one need live in fear for exercising it.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes but how long until your free speech is seen as offensive not just by your employer but your government ?

And what if they want to jail you for free speech ?

Slippery slope.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I guess according to many of you the guy in the wheelchair shouldn't dare say anything, after all he would be the easiest to shut up in many ways. Didn't like what he said? Tip that chair over.

That's assault, it's not legal. But thanks for twisting the point of the OP.

If you plan to make big statements on social media, don't expect your sensitivities to be protected. The same can be said for your job. Nobody is stopping you from making a statement, but you can't stop others from doing the same.

I've been paying for my "freedom" all my life, been fired from jobs for saying politically incorrect things and roughed up in a parking lot over my politics.

You were roughed up for practicing your 1st amendment rights? Nobody here said this is acceptable. It's rather clear in the OP, threats are counter to first amendment rights. Getting fired from your job for saying something negative on social media is not counter to those first amendment rights. You not being silenced for speaking your mind. You are however reaping the consequences of broadcasting those beliefs.

It's no longer a freedom if one need live in fear for exercising it.

I disagree here. Your first amendment rights do not extend to protecting you from 'fear' of negative feedback or unpopularity.

a reply to: RubberSky

Yes but how long until your free speech is seen as offensive not just by your employer but your government ?

Are you being silenced by the government right now?

At what point have were you silenced by the government?

You're here aren't you?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

According to what you say here it sounds as though you agree the bus driver should have been fired over their comment about kids without lunch money or food stamps for crack heads:

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.

Why should he be fired? Why is his freedom of speech not protected?

Economic security is equivalent to job security these days. If you can be fired for any offhand comment then no, freedom of speech doesn't exist, it becomes conditional upon the approval of others.

Most people I know would rather be slapped than fired.
A rosy cheek goes away in minutes, loss of a job can put people in a downward spiral they never recover from.

a reply to: seeker1963

Not true. People have always been held accountable for the things they say in the public domain. Jobs lost, public scorn, driven out of town even lives lost. People used to be dragged into town squares and made to answer to mobs... yes even here in America.

Political correctness has always been around too, just not labeled as such and each group has their own. Like it used to not be politically correct to state that black people should be considered equal, doing so as white person resulted in bricks through your windows, your boss firing you or your business being boycotted or burnt down and scorn at church and town meetings.

Especially if you live in a right to work state, an employer can fire you for whatever reason they deem fit.

I've heard it said no one deserves anything. This applies more so in a job than anywhere else. If you've got opinions that are unpopular then share them with your friends in a private format. (hopefully no one is recording!)

a reply to: Aazadan

Correct they're not our lords and while I agree and firmly believe that corporations are not people, that should be limited to the political process considering that they are buying politicians and laws... but I also believe that businesses have the right to protect their business from negative publicity which could result in the disruption of their business.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

There is nothing in the constitution (or in any law) that says your job is protected no matter what you say. What makes you think otherwise?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Asktheanimals

There is nothing in the constitution (or in any law) that says your job is protected no matter what you say. What makes you think otherwise?

Well, there are laws that protect people from being fired because of their race, sexual orientation, etc., etc.

All of those laws are meaningless if you can simply say you fired them because you didn't like the way they said, "Good Morning."

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Not if you can make a good case that the firing was because of race. People try to use excuses all the time in order to get away with firing someone because of race. They'll use performance, attitude, even clothing as their official reasons. But there are ways to prove the real reason why someone was fired.

originally posted by: CranialSponge


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".

So anything other than the government jailing you is ok?

Way back, the elites were directly in positions of control - the government/royalty ect. Now the elites use puppets in government positions but stay away from direct positions of power.

This allows them control without the responsibility or checks on their power.

If you start allowing people to seek revenge for comments, your society will be no different than ones that jail people.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Saying something disagreeable is not to be confused with doing something disagreeable. These people should'nt have to be protected; rather, the people who take offence should be taught about the real world.