So where's the line in speech?

Great Debates
1

A few years ago a politician, George Allen, used the term macaca without realizing it was a racial slur on blacks (at least, he claims he didn’t know). He went on to lose the election and the use of macaca is commonly credited for causing that. Since then, these sorts of incidents are usually called macaca moments. Some other macaca moments I remember offhand:

Just now Juan Williams was fired from NPR for making a comment about people in ‘Mulsim garb’ on airplanes.

Recently Rick Sanchez was fired for commenting Jews controlled the media.

A few years ago Don Imus got suspended for his infamous ‘nappy-headed hos’ comment.

A long time ago Jessie Jackson got a lot of flack for calling New York ‘hymietown’.

Rush Limbaugh had to resign as a commenter on ESPN because of a comment that some view as racist, and others viewed as pointing out reverse racism. Either way, it was rather controversial.

These are just a few examples of this sort of thing, there are many others to pick from.

Some of these clearly were racist, it’s hard to defend ‘nappy-header hos’ for example. Some were not so clear, there’s currently a thread about if Juan Williams should have been fired.

So my question, where does free speech cross the line? When should someone be fired for what they said? I’m not really looking at these specific cases, but I’m more interested in a discussion of general guidelines if you will. If you had to write some rules for a reasonable person to follow when in the media, what would the rules be? For example, could someone say they were concerned about crime when going past housing projects, or is that a racist comment?

Also what factors go into this, does it matter if the persons job is to express opinions as Williams was? If they’re politicians who theoretically should treat all citizens equally? Does truth matter, if CNN really was run by Jews, would Sanchez comments have been acceptable? Where, exactly, is the line between controversial or stupid and racism that should be punished?

2

When your boss feels like what you said detracts from your job. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

3

Similarly, the voters who didn’t vote for George Allen because he said “macaca” were not infringing his freedom of speech. They didn’t stop him saying it: they just didn’t think he was the best choice as Governor of Virginia because he said it.

4

This. When you’re dealing with a private organization you’re in trouble whenever the owners or the powers that be have a problem with what you say, even if it’s just telling someone “Have a nice day.”

5

Note: I didn’t mean free speech as in the 1st Amendment. I realize none of these are first amendment issues since that only covers government actions. Nor was I asking if companies have a right to fire, in most cases they do. I know a boss can do it, but I’m asking about when SHOULD a boss do it. What are the conditions you’d nod your head and go ‘yeah, he deserved firing’? My OP was about the generic idea of being free to speak without fear of unreasonable retaliation and where is the line between unreasonable and perfectly reasonable retaliation.

6

If you’re asking about what should be considered offensive or intolerable, as opposed to what your employer is allowed to fire you for or something like that, I’d say it’s very hard to find a clear line. Intent is an important criterion - I think it’s more reasonable to be offended when someone is speaking out of malice as opposed to ignorance - but it’s not always easy to figure out someone’s intent.

7

It’s a bit of an impossible question, but I’d offer a few general guidelines that should keep your average public official or talking head out of trouble:

  1. Don’t attribute characteristics, opinions, or actions to another person simply for the way they look or the group they belong to. (Williams’ comments would fall here)
  2. Don’t use slang when referring to a person of a different group than yourself, unless you are 100% sure the slang is acceptable. (Allen, Imus, and Jackson fell into this one)
  3. Don’t ascribe motivations or qualities to entire groups of people when you mean to address specific sub-groups or individuals. (Sanchez conflating his Jewish bosses with “the Jews” would be a violation of this rule, everyone conflating Al Qaeda with Islam as a whole)

The truthfulness of the claim is of course relevant, but not always enough. Often the claim is too broad (“All terrorists are Muslims”). Sometimes a true claim is marred with an unfortunate epithet (“Most illegal immigrants in the United States are wetbacks”).

There are many ways to run afoul, and the general rule should be to avoid any blanket claims about racial (or other) groups, and to avoid any slang that might be perceived as derogatory.

8

Allen was running for re-election to the US Senate when he made macaca in his big boy pants. It would have been a close race regardless so I don’t believe a tidal wave of outraged Virginians swept Webb into office.

I had never heard the term before and Allen claimed he didn’t know it’s meaning. However, his Wikipedia entry claims his mother grew up in Tunisia where the epithet is a common slur against the native population.

9

I think the line is not content-based, but effect-based.

I’m not sure bosses should ever fire workers based on the content of the worker’s speech if there’s no connection to the employee’s work product or effect on the company. It doesn’t violate the First Amendment to do so, of course, but it does chill free expression.

The flipside of that is that if the employer reasonably believes the speech is harming their company, of course they should fire the employee. If ESPN or MSNBC or whoever stands to lose money, or tarnish its brand by keeping these people on the air, they should not be blamed for giving 'em the boot. The public’s reaction to the speech isn’t always fair or reasonable, but the public is to blame for that, not the company. And, in most cases, even where the public reaction is unreasonable, the employee was exercising bad judgment.

10

I’ve honestly never heard of Macaca.

Thought it might be a town near Lisbon tbh.

11

I seem to remember he was actually fairly ahead in the polls at the time of the Macaca incident (though I could be mistaken) and that, up to that point, there was even talk that he might have been a strong VP or even Presidential candidate in 2008. In fact, I’ve heard people say that, had that not happened, the 2008 Presidential campaign could very well have gone to the Republicans. For example, had McCain still won the nomination, Allen would have been a reasonable VP candidate, energizing the base (he’s quite conservative), carrying Virginia (an important swing state in 2008), bringing a lot of experience and credibility to the ticket (that Sarah Palin utterly lacked), and of course no Sarah Palin and quite likely no Tea Party. Now, I’m not so sure how much truth there is to that sort of scanario, but if there’s any truth to it, it could be viewed as one of the greatest political blunders since at least Howard Dean’s “HOO-AH!”
Anyway, I don’t see that, or any of the other examples as free speech issues. The first amendment only really restricts the government. None of those examples are really a whole lot different than, say, how I have the right to call my boss an asshole; they can’t charge me with anything, but I can’t say something like that and then be surprised when I get fired for it. I do think there’s perhaps a little bit too much sensitivity sometimes (like the infamous niggardly incident). The bottom line is, if a company thinks, rightfully or not, that you did or said something that affects your ability to do your job or reflects poorly on the company, then they’re well within their rights to terminate you. Obviously, if you think their reasoning is stupid, you can object, but good luck.

For decent guidelines, you just need to think about how what you’re going to say may be perceived. For instance, niggardly is a fine word, and there’s nothing wrong with using it appropriately, but it’s still probably not a good idea to use it in those sorts of situations or, giving someone a nickname like macaca where the justification for such a nickname isn’t utterly obvious as non-racist (giving GA the benefit of the doubt for the sake of this point). To give a personal example, I very much like to talk about all kinds of controversial subjects, like politics, religion, race relations, etc., but I also know well enough to not talk about them at work, or similar places, unless I’m completely sure who is in earshot and how they’ll react to any opinions I might have that are potentially controversial.

12

The problem is, not all of these examples are related to the persons work. Juan Williams was speaking in a public forum, but it wasn’t at work or in any way associated with his work. His situation would be similar to if you got fired for something that you posted here.

13

Fair enough. But I have heard of that sort of situation, where people have gotten fired for making controversial status updates on Facebook. I don’t necessarily agree with the Juan Williams situation, I think their reaction was a bit extreme, but his ability to do his job depends upon people being able to perceive him as objective and someone who’s opinion they respect and doesn’t reflect poorly on NPR. That situation is different from mine, because my job doesn’t depend on my public reputation, or how much I may or may not fear Muslims on a plane. If I go on TV and say something that makes it look like I may be racist, unless it happened to seriously offend someone I work closely with, there really wouldn’t be a good reason to fire me because my ability to perform my job is independent of how bigotted I may be.

14

A company always must present the BEST possible image. There should be training and such.

Nothing riles me more than when I go into Target, Jewel or Walgreens and I hear employees complaining about how awful it is to work there. I’m sure they aren’t lying but as a customer I don’t want to hear about their issues.

So if any employee presents a public image that is inconsistent or against the company policy they should be let go.

Now I will say, I also feel they first should receive PROPER instruction on what is and what is NOT acceptable behaviours.

Before they get the sack they must be given a fair go