Agreed. Moreover, it’s been awhile since Rocker’s comments and I don’t feel like looking them up, but IIRC he made some extremely racist comments about foreigners and unless Atlanta is dramatically different from most MLB teams, I suspect that it has significant number of Latin American ballplayers who wouldn’t have been terribly happy about them and taken them as a personal insult. I’ve lived in the US since I was two and I know that I took it as such.
Well, when you say something that’s going to cause massive dissension on your team there will be consequences.
To give a comparable example, way back in the early 1960s, Alvin Dark, the then manager of the San Francisco Giants was fired after he claimed that blacks and Latinos lacked the leadership qualities necessary to become a manager and twenty years later, Al Campanis and Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder were fired from their respective jobs for making similarly racist comments(though Snyder’s comments weren’t explicitly negative).
Since that is irrelevant to what I’m asking you, and is a tautology, I don’t need one.
It’s your strawman that’s at issue. I take it you are then declining to defend it?
He did a good bit more than that. He insulted foreigners, speakers of languages other than English, people with fashion sense different from his, single parents, and homosexuals, New Yorkers as a whole, and perhaps more than that:
Somewhat unsurprisingly, he’s now a right-wing political commentator.
When people claim to have the “freedom of speech” what the heck are they talking about then?
Lets go back to your post:
Now lets go back a page:
It was related and it is not a straw man.
it is a basic concept Private individuals and organizations are not beholden to the 1st amendment
Is it the right thing to do, to fire people for speaking their beliefs, no not in my opinion but there is NO legal prohibition for anyone taking an action against you for exercising your freedom of speech rights.
The man who was fired after the drive through video had NO involvement with the government, there is no legal reason to invoke any freedom of speech rights.
Get that, freedom of speech is not invoked, involved or relevant to the story. If you claim otherwise as you seem to in this thread you need to provide a cite.
It absolutely is relevant. The basic premise of this thread is to what extent a private employer can quash the political speech of its employees. Thus, it is assumed that we are considering changing the boundaries of the concept of free speech. You don’t need a cite for the proposition of a debate.
Now, in the context of that discussion, you said that “Being an ass to an employee != political speech.”
My comments to you have been restricted to this statement by itself. Why did you say it? Do you actually believe it’s true? Do you think it should be a consideration in determining whether an employer should be restricted from taking action against an employee’s public expression? Or what? Why do you resist explaining yourself?
I tell you what I think: Being an ass to an employee very well might be political speech and in the case of the Chik-Fil-A guy, I believe it was political speech. Now do you have any response to that?
Please explain your logic how the Chik-Fil-A guy’s case invokes any free speech protection at all, I want lawful invocations of protections not speculations.
You may want to go back and read the OP.
Also note this is not IMHO, if you want to make an argument that employers should be forced to accept employee speech go ahead, just don’t infer the right exists at all today.
But as far as my claim of being rude to a cashier is not protected from private party repercussions due to it being “political speech” is still true.
The legislator’s demand is a HUGE issue, as he was acting in the role as a government official demanding the gagging of an employee from a private enterprise.
No, this was not your statement. Your statement was “Being an ass to an employee != political speech.” My point is that “Being an ass to an employee sometimes is political speech.” Do you agree or not? Why? For the purposes of this question, the issue of private or governmental action is irrelevant.
As for the the context of that statement, no I do not agree.
Three was NOTHING at all in the drive through berating that would have invoked the freedom of speech as it relates to his firing.
Had he been a public employee or had a legislator/government official demanded, worse had a legislator demanded it on official letterhead and his employer had acted due to that letter yes.
Otherwise it would require a much longer thread than was offered here.
What’s this strawman you are afraid of? I’m telling you is that I reject your assertion that “Being an ass to an employee != political speech” and in particular I am asking you to support your assertion that the Chik-Fil-A guy was not engaging in political speech, because.
(1) There is nothing in free speech jurisprudence that makes such a distinction between “being an ass to an employee” and “political speech”
(2) He was engaging in political speech.
Disagreeing with you and asking you to support your assertion is not a strawman. Everything else you’re saying is irrelevant to this question.
Only the way they handle broadcasting is under a true exemption, granted by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. The draft and the cap are contractual agreements, more along the lines of “things the NFLPA lets the NFL get away with.” Absent a collective bargaining agreement or a certified union (as happens occasionally), these probably would be violations, and the NFLPA certainly has used anti-trust suits (and threats of anti-trust suits) far more successfully than it has the usual union tactics. MLB’s immunity is based on an old Supreme Court decision; it’s been shot full of holes since then, and has barely managed to stay afloat.
No, you haven’t. Ascenray has proven that a statement you made is false. Being an asshole can indeed equal free speech. You refuse to admit this, so he is continuing on. Why you wouldn’t admit you made a mistake, instead of moving the goalposts, I don’t know.
If you believe what you’ve written actually defends against his claim, it is no wonder that this board doesn’t do formal debates.
I am not moving the goalposts, the speech was political in nature but if you want to claim that other private individuals and organizations are restricted by the 1st amendment it is you who needs to provide a cite vs just hand-waving it away.
Just as you won’t invoke the third amendment because your sister lets your brother-in law sleep on your couch.
Once again “freedom of speech” is a legal concept, one that was NOT involved in the drive-through incident as NONE of the actors were restricted by the law governing the right.
No one is claiming this. The fact that you keep repeating a rebuttal to a claim no one has made indicates that you should go re-read the thread.
As Acsenray said, part of the subject of this debate is whether or not employers should be able to stifle political speech. Again, no one is claiming that the 1st Amendment applies to employers. When someone says that they think employers shouldn’t be able to fire people for political speech, they’re not making a claim about current law that might protect such speech. They’re making a claim about the way they want things to be.
