What is your point? I’m not a part of the debate and I don’t understand what you’re arguing at all.
So lets recap.
There is nothing to give, they are free to act as jerks as in the drive through case or awesome as the NFL teams demonstrated. The charge of “giving” them legitimacy infers that they don’t have that full right now.
Sure does sound like DrCube was saying they didn’t have a right
Acsenray knew was saying it didn’t meet the legal standard, that response shows so right there, the goalpost shifting was on their side by tying to move my statement as being “any political speech”
Maybe it is you should go back and read the thread.
But you are right…No one has offered up even a single concrete idea on how we would amend the constitution to allow the government to mediate which speech is “more equal than others”
And Bickler should have put this in IMHO if it was going to be completely based on intangibles.
You will post simple nag posts when you don’t even understand the subject?
No. I don’t understand your posts. I understand the subject quite well, thanks.
Depends on what you mean by “right”. Of course they have the legal right. Some people feel that rights exist whether the government recognizes them or not. In that sense, I feel like free speech should be protected in cases like these, whether the Supreme Court thinks so or not.
I don’t think employers should be able to fire people over speech unless they are representing their employer in an unapproved way. On their own time, with their own resources, and making it clear what they say is not necessarily something their employer agrees with or condones, people should not be fired or otherwise punished at work for it. I’m not a lawyer or legislator, so I don’t know how to codify that into law. Perhaps it could be subject to oversight like “protected classes” in descrimination cases.
However when you say the law currently doesn’t protect employees from being fired over their speech, you won’t get an argument from me.
A surprising number of states and subdivisionsdo protect employees against discharge for engaging in political speech, though Maryland doesn’t seem to. A few protect employees from being discharged for engaging in any legal conduct outside work hours except where the conduct relates to a bona fide work requirement.
I think all of you have kind of overlooked statutory protections because you’re all focused on whether this falls under First Amendment protection.
He’s making a claim about moral rights. Not a legal claim about what the 1st Amendment protects.
He’s responding directly to your claim that certain speech wasn’t “political” because the guy was being a jerk. And he correctly pointed out that whether or not one is a jerk isn’t relevant to whether the speech is political. That is a separate question from whether employers ought to be able to censure employees for their political speech (which, I will again state, is a discussion about what we want, not about the protections granted by the 1st amendment).
No, I’m still pretty sure I’m correctly interpreting people’s posts. Note that there are like four people who all disagree with your interpretation. They don’t disagree with your point, which is that businesses are not bound the 1st Amendment. Everyone agrees that businesses are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They disagree that that point is relevant to the current discussion, which I will paraphrase as “what limits should there be on how employers can react to political speech by their employees”.
I see nothing in those statues that say companies can’t fire someone for being a jerk which once again is what he was fired for, not his political stance.
As Ascenray noted, free speech protection is not contingent on whether you were “being a jerk” while engaging in it.
You didn’t read your own cite.
Even in the handful of states that have protections the protection is typically from the association, they don’t offer broader protections that would be afforded “political speech” as protected by the 1st.
This is my point.
Nice try. I’ve read every word of it at least 10 times, because it’s the basis for a law review comment I am in the process of writing.
ETA: What “association”?
The employee’s association with a belief or cause. Not a fictional entity.
Your appeal to authority fallacy does not deflect the fact that your cite does not protection for every manor of speech.
If you are so well versed in the document it would seem you could disprove that claim with a cite vs. casual hand waving.
The article explains that the employee’s association with a belief or cause is one basis on which states may protect their expression.
And no, my cite does not protection for every manor of speech. Whatever that means.
I think I’ll let your curious private definition of appeal to authority slide.
Wait…you are doing a law review on freedom of speech laws and you are claiming ignorance of “manner of speech” or are you just getting persnickety about spelling errors?
The “manner of speech” in the drive through firing case was the element that caused his firing, the political stance had nothing to do with it.
[
](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
You are A
I am not getting persnickety about spelling errors. I am wondering how to parse gibberish.
[QUOTE=you]
…your cite does not protection for every manor of speech.
[/QUOTE]
You are making a circular argument. Ascenray explained, and I agree, that speech protection does not dissipate simply because you are being a jerk. They may be limited if you are such a jerk that your speech becomes legally actionable - harassing, threatening, obscene, etc. - but that didn’t happen here.
I am not appealing to authority. I am contradicting a claim you made. I could have read the article numerous times because I am OCD, or because I am secretly crushing on Eugene Volokh, or because there is a copy glued to my forehead, but I suspect you would not have believe me if I claimed any of those things. So I told you the truth.
If you think telling you I read something is an appeal to authority, you may wish to retake whatever debate class you learned about fallacies in. Or re-read the Wikipedia page, perhaps.
Or, to simplify for you: I am Person A, claiming to be an authority on fact S, not subject S. I feel it is beyond dispute that I am the premier expert in the field of whether or not I read something.
I think that a football player is in a pretty good position to make an impact by taking a position on gay marriage. Some holywood idiot supporting gay marriage isnt’ going to change any minds.
It would be like a retired congressional medal of honor recipient coming out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
OK…that really doesn’t explain why you claim it is gibberish, if it is not due to the use of a homophone I guess you really are missing the point of what happened.
The guy was NOT fired because he was engaging in speech that happened to be political in nature. He was fired due to the “manner of speech” in that he was a jerk to a low level employee.
NO there was NO SPEECH PROTECTION in this case. Point to any law that even applies here, this is what I keep saying.
You are implying that there was a right that was violated but you cannot cite what that right was.
But lets say that it is legally protected speech, yes the time place and manner do matter in some cases.
Not all speech is protected at the same level of scrutiny.
No you provided a 100s of paged document that didn’t support your claim and then claimed that it did because you read it multiple times.
That was a summary of state laws that mostly prevented employers from making threats against employees who were engaged in political speech or in an attempt to prevent those employees from voting in elections.
As you conceded above these laws did not outlaw the termination of an employee who took action due to the time, place and manner of that communication.
So really it was a red herring and didn’t apply at all.
I asked for examples, you said that you had read it multiple times and didn’t provide any cites because you had “expert” knowledge of your provided cite (which as it turns out is irrelevant)