# The 1st amendment should offer some protection from private retaliation
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 30, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093 "2017-08-30T13:31:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/1 "2017-08-30T13:31:23Z")
> **[Professor fired for blaming Harvey on Texas voting GOP](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/professor-fired-blaming-harvey-texas-voting-gop-n797181)**
>
> The University of Tampa fired a professor who suggested in a tweet that Hurricane Harvey's destruction is "instant karma" for Texas because it voted GOP.
Professor fired for blaming Harvey on Texas voting for Trump.
This insanity has got to stop. People should be allowed to express political opinions when off work without risk of losing their jobs. There can be some exceptions, such as if their views call into question their ability to do their job, but simply stating an offensive view should not result in loss of livelihood.
We already protect 1st amendment rights, as well as other rights, from being squelched by entities other than government. Abortion protesters have to be a certain distance from clinics. But why? If it’s okay for “society” to punish the exercise of 1st amendment rights, how come it can’t infringe on your reproductive rights? The answer, obviously, is that while the Bill of Rights only protects us from government infringement, if private individuals make the exercise of a right actively dangerous through threats or intimidation, then the right really has no actual value.
So here is what I propose:
It shall be illegal for companies to fire employees for off duty speech, unless the company can show that the off duty speech calls into question the employee’s ability to do his or her job. And even then, if the person has a long history with the company and has never had anyone complain in relation to the person’s views, then that means the person can set his views aside and behave professionally. Obviously, if the speech is not protected, such as threats or libel, that could also be a firing offense.
I’m sure some will say that this is hard to enforce, but it’s no more of a problem than any other wrongful termination issue. Companies fire as retaliation for whistleblowing, protesting discrimination or other unfair treatment, etc. This law would simply give employees the same access to the courts that other laws of this type do.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/2 "2017-08-30T13:37:34Z")
Can’t really agree. I mean, I agree that people in general overreact to dumb stuff other people say on social media, but if you are being an asshole in public, and your employer doesn’t like being publicly associated with an asshole, you can get canned. “Asshole” is not a protected category.
Should employers sometimes (not necessarily in this case) make different choices about an employee who’s stirred up some negative public sentiment? Definitely. Should we define basic civil-liberties concepts to require that? Hell no.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/3 "2017-08-30T13:39:49Z")
What a bad idea, IMO. But even were it instituted, it would be almost entirely toothless – almost every job has some level of interfacing with customers, even indirectly. A salesman, for example, very obviously deals with customers – a company would stand to lose tons of business if their customers knew that one of their salesmen advocated for white supremacism.
But even take a few steps back – suppose it’s a design engineer for that company. If it’s publicly revealed that one of their design engineers advocates for white supremacism, that company still stands to potentially lose tons of business, even though that engineer doesn’t directly interface with customers. Many customers just simply won’t choose to do business with a company that knowingly employs advocates of white supremacism.
Thus it would be almost trivially easy to say regarding nearly any employee at all that advocating for hate “calls into question their ability to do their job”, and clearly harms their employer. At the very least every single new employment contract would be written such that this would be explicitly clear.
Further, it’s more government regulation of business, which used to be anathema to conservatives.
Really, really bad idea all around.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/4 "2017-08-30T13:50:02Z")
To address the first point, “being an asshole” is in the eye of the beholder. Anti-abortion folks would certainly consider someone who performs abortion to be an asshole. I’m sure they consider those who support abortion to be assholes. Should advocating for pro-choice causes be a firing offense if your boss thinks that’s morally reprehensible?
Now of course that rarely happens. 99% of managers are smart enough to know that normal people do not let their political views interfere with their job. Those that do have that problem generally can’t help expressing those views angrily at work, and they get fired for that reasons, but an off duty statement generally won’t get you fired.
Unless… unless you stir up a lynch mob, which is what happened with Professor Storey. And THAT’s what should not be allowed to happen, because that’s really the only thing that gets people fired. He wasn’t fired for being an asshole, he was fired because an online mob descended on the University of Tampa, demanding his head.
Now obviously we can’t stop people from doing that, that is also free speech. But if such speech is protected and it’s out of the employer’s hands, then that takes all the steam out of the lynch mob. If we lived in the kind of country where people could be arrested for being assholes, the mob would demand arrests. They don’t, usually, because they know the person can’t be arrested. If he can’t be fired, they won’t demand that either. Instead, they’ll do what they are supposed to do: criticize his speech.
As for white supremacism, that would fall under “inability to do their job properly”. But it would protect people who said clueless or cringeworthy things that were not hateful.
You’re saying this is a bad idea, then why isn’t letting people sue for other kinds of job loss as retaliation a bad idea? If we can protect many types of workplace bitching, we can certainly protect 1st amendment rights while off duty.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/5 "2017-08-30T13:57:10Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Unless… unless you stir up a lynch mob, which is what happened with Professor Storey. And THAT’s what should not be allowed to happen, because that’s really the only thing that gets people fired. He wasn’t fired for being an asshole, he was fired because an online mob descended on the University of Tampa, demanding his head.
But that’s just a boycott threat, essentially. Or for a public university, a serious PR threat (almost the same thing). That’s what boycotts and PR campaigns are supposed to do – influence decision makers in ways like this. And like any tactic, they can be used for good or for evil.
> [@](#):
>
> Now obviously we can’t stop people from doing that, that is also free speech. But if such speech is protected and it’s out of the employer’s hands, then that takes all the steam out of the lynch mob. If we lived in the kind of country where people could be arrested for being assholes, the mob would demand arrests. They don’t, usually, because they know the person can’t be arrested. If he can’t be fired, they won’t demand that either. Instead, they’ll do what they are supposed to do: criticize his speech.
>
> As for white supremacism, that would fall under “inability to do their job properly”. But it would protect people who said clueless or cringeworthy things that were not hateful.
>
> You’re saying this is a bad idea, then why isn’t letting people sue for other kinds of job loss as retaliation a bad idea? If we can protect many types of workplace bitching, we can certainly protect 1st amendment rights while off duty.
People already can sue. They probably won’t win, but there’s no law I’m aware of that says people can’t sue for wrongful termination in such circumstances.
Your position sounds like a recipe for thousands of court cases, since it’s such an incredibly nebulous distinction. And every employee contract rewritten.
Once every employment contract in the country makes it clear what sorts of “off-duty” language is considered job-related, then the law becomes pointless. In the meantime, we have tons of court cases that IMO cause far more strife and confusion than the act of firing someone because they said something dumb.
I still think it’s a really bad idea. There’s no problem to fix here. Sometimes people get fired for doing or saying something dumb.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/6 "2017-08-30T14:04:53Z")
Excepting discrimination on a handful of grounds (sex, race, religion, etc.), an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason at all.
Now maybe that shouldn’t be the way it works - maybe employers should be required to show job-related cause for firing an employee.
I’m not advocating that, fwiw - it would be a pretty huge change with surely tons of unintended consequences. But I’d rather see something like that, than see a particular exception carved out such as the OP proposes.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/7 "2017-08-30T14:09:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> But that’s just a boycott threat, essentially. Or for a public university, a serious PR threat (almost the same thing). That’s what boycotts and PR campaigns are supposed to do – influence decision makers in ways like this. And like any tactic, they can be used for good or for evil.
And if the desired action is legally off the table, then it takes all the steam out of the boycott. Our laws rightfully prevent boycotts from being a tool to do unlawful things to people. For example, you can try to boycott a company for having gay friendly policies(and some have tried), but no company is going to choose legal problems as an alternative. If firing people for expressing off duty views carries with it potential lawsuits, then boycotts will be ineffective and will tend to lose steam in a hurry.
> [@](#):
>
> People already can sue. They probably won’t win, but there’s no law I’m aware of that says people can’t sue for wrongful termination in such circumstances.
That’s the point. You can sue for anything, but you can’t win if the law isn’t backing you. I’m saying the law should back people. As a general principle, you should not be fired for off duty activities, with the exception of criminal offenses. and even there, the Obama administration seemed awfully keen on making it harder to refuse to hire(or retain) felons unless an employer could show that the crime had something to do with their job duties. If we can protect felons, we can protect speech.
> **[U.S. Push on Illegal Bias Against Hiring Those With Criminal Records...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/business/smallbusiness/us-presses-on-illegal-bias-against-hiring-those-with-criminal-records.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)**
>
> Many small businesses do not know that there is anything wrong with practices like a blanket ban on hiring anyone with a criminal record.
> [@](#):
>
> Under the guidelines, an employer can exclude applicants with criminal convictions provided it can demonstrate that the exclusion is “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity” — a phrase that appears in the law itself and is not defined in the guidance. The easiest way for employers to do that, according to the E.E.O.C., is to develop a “targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed and the nature of the job.”
>
> Ideally, Mr. Stuart said, employers would prefer hard-and-fast criteria and a simple yes-or-no answer to a hiring decision. But instead, he said, the E.E.O.C. wants employers to first determine what criminal convictions might rule applicants out for each job and then judge each candidate against the job in question, which could be a painstaking process. Mr. Stuart recommended that employers start by thinking about broad categories of criminality: theft, violent crimes involving felonies, sex crimes, drug crimes.
Sounds a lot harder than what I’m proposing. And for people who have actually DONE bad things, as opposed to just said bad things.
> [@](#):
>
> Your position sounds like a recipe for thousands of court cases, since it’s such an incredibly nebulous distinction. And every employee contract rewritten.
Sounds to me like your typical business regulation. What’s the problem?
> [@](#):
>
> I still think it’s a really bad idea. There’s no problem to fix here. Sometimes people get fired for doing or saying something dumb.
The problem is that in the social media age, the idea that someone writing a tweet in a moment of pique, exhaustion, or inebriation, can ruin their lives is a problem that has to be dealt with. That guy who said a bunch of stuff on Reddit who CNN agreed not to out, he’s just one of millions who say stupid things online. But some are unlucky enough to go viral, and then you’re in trouble. That’s not how things should work, and if we do let employers make such decisions it should not depend on tweets going viral.
Or Straight Dope posts for that matter.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/8 "2017-08-30T14:11:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Excepting discrimination on a handful of grounds (sex, race, religion, etc.), an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason at all.
>
> Now maybe that shouldn’t be the way it works - maybe employers should be required to show job-related cause for firing an employee.
>
> I’m not advocating that, fwiw - it would be a pretty huge change with surely tons of unintended consequences. But I’d rather see something like that, than see a particular exception carved out such as the OP proposes.
It’s not really an exception. The law would be written such that no one could be fired for exercising a basic civil right. This is already enshrined in law in many situations, I’m just suggesting we broaden it. Heck, some states want to make it illegal to fire you for taking off work to vote. Voting is a right, and yet shouldn’t employers be allowed to fire you for doing it? If not, then why wouldn’t the 1st amendment be protected as well?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/9 "2017-08-30T14:20:43Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> And if the desired action is legally off the table, then it takes all the steam out of the boycott. Our laws rightfully prevent boycotts from being a tool to do unlawful things to people. For example, you can try to boycott a company for having gay friendly policies(and some have tried), but no company is going to choose legal problems as an alternative. If firing people for expressing off duty views carries with it potential lawsuits, then boycotts will be ineffective and will tend to lose steam in a hurry.
This sounds like a bad thing. Boycotts can be a very useful tool.
> [@](#):
>
> That’s the point. You can sue for anything, but you can’t win if the law isn’t backing you. I’m saying the law should back people. As a general principle, you should not be fired for off duty activities, with the exception of criminal offenses. and even there, the Obama administration seemed awfully keen on making it harder to refuse to hire(or retain) felons unless an employer could show that the crime had something to do with their job duties. If we can protect felons, we can protect speech.
Speech is protected – you can’t go to jail or face other legal consequences.
Getting fired is different. Now, I believe certain groups should be protected – groups that have historically been highly discriminated against and disadvantaged to the point that they did not have anything close to an equal opportunity to succeed.
You haven’t shown that same need here. If there’s a group that’s becoming highly disadvantaged due to actions of society, then make that kind of argument, and I’ll listen. But this isn’t that argument.
> [@](#):
>
> Sounds to me like your typical business regulation. What’s the problem?
Firstly that it would be trivially easy to sidestep – just write every employee contract such that these kinds of expressions are explicitly tied to job duties. Secondly, that the problems it causes far outweigh any good it does – like any bad regulation. Companies and organizations should be able to fire people for expressing opinions that the company deems incompatible with their mission or goals.
> [@](#):
>
> The problem is that in the social media age, the idea that someone writing a tweet in a moment of pique, exhaustion, or inebriation, can ruin their lives is a problem that has to be dealt with. That guy who said a bunch of stuff on Reddit who CNN agreed not to out, he’s just one of millions who say stupid things online. But some are unlucky enough to go viral, and then you’re in trouble. That’s not how things should work, and if we do let employers make such decisions it should not depend on tweets going viral.
>
> Or Straight Dope posts for that matter.
Getting fired isn’t ruining their lives. It’s a social consequence. Now, if you show me that there are thousands of these folks, and their suicide rates have skyrocketed, and they’re turning to crime because they can’t get a job, and they’re having to live in shelters or tenements, etc., then I might start to agree that this is a real problem that government should consider addressing.
But you haven’t done that. That a handful of people have been fired for saying something dumb is not a national problem, and does not warrant a massive change in the freedom businesses have to hire and fire.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/10 "2017-08-30T14:24:07Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> You’re saying this is a bad idea, then why isn’t letting people sue for other kinds of job loss as retaliation a bad idea? If we can protect many types of workplace bitching, we can certainly protect 1st amendment rights while off duty.
Our First Amendment rights are not being infringed by these firings. Nobody is being legally prevented from saying whatever they want to say. Constitutional freedoms are not guarantees of freedom from consequences, and if we try to make them so we’ll be opening up an impossible can of worms.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I’m objecting to your choice of target, when what I’m criticizing is your choice of weapon. Sure, go ahead and enact policies and legislation giving unfairly terminated workers more recourse for opposing their termination. I’m all for it.
But the First Amendment has no place in such efforts.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/11 "2017-08-30T14:27:17Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> It’s not really an exception. The law would be written such that no one could be fired for exercising a basic civil right. This is already enshrined in law in many situations, I’m just suggesting we broaden it. Heck, some states want to make it illegal to fire you for taking off work to vote. Voting is a right, and yet shouldn’t employers be allowed to fire you for doing it? If not, then why wouldn’t the 1st amendment be protected as well?
So, do you think that [Bart Asbrook’s off-duty hobbies](https://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/busted-oklahoma-police-chief-outed-as-owner-of-racist-website-and-white-supremacist-record-label/) shouldn’t effect his job status?
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/12 "2017-08-30T14:56:46Z")
The first amendment should say that I am free not only to say what I want to say, but I should also be free from all consequences of that speech.
Is that what you are going for?
ETA: You may fire someone without cause, for any reason you choose that is not part of a protected class.
But, if you fire someone without cause, they get to collect unemployment. So, firing a Nazi because they are a Nazi pretty much just gives them more free time to be a Nazi.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/13 "2017-08-30T15:01:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> The first amendment should say that I am free not only to say what I want to say, but I should also be free from all consequences of that speech.
>
> Is that what you are going for?
This seems to be the Right-wing position.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/14 "2017-08-30T15:23:43Z")
I’m with Kimstu and iiandyiiii on this. I’m an advocate for free speech, but if your employer wants to fire you for the dumb shit you say on Twitter or Facebook, or the “I’m with her” bumper sticker you put on your car, or for wearing that MAGA hat on the weekend, that may be lamentable in some cases, but I wouldn’t support giving the government power to undo that.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/15 "2017-08-30T15:27:44Z")
Unless you can find some mechanism for customer not to boycott a given business because it employs, for example, KKK members, then what you have here is a recipe for causing someone to lose his livelihood because an employee is a jerk.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/16 "2017-08-30T15:45:32Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> So here is what I propose:
>
> It shall be illegal for companies to fire employees for off duty speech, unless the company can show that the off duty speech calls into question the employee’s ability to do his or her job. And even then, if the person has a long history with the company and has never had anyone complain in relation to the person’s views, then that means the person can set his views aside and behave professionally. Obviously, if the speech is not protected, such as threats or libel, that could also be a firing offense.
While the 1st amendment doesn’t offer this kind of protection, several states and localities do so by statute. Here is a [Volokh article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/can-private-employers-fire-employees-for-going-to-a-white-supremacist-rally/?utm_term=.a1a760acd809)on it:
> [@](#):
>
> 1. A substantial minority of states, though, do ban discrimination based on political activity, especially off-the-job political activity; some cities and counties do as well. I cataloged them in 2012 in my article “Private Employees’ Speech and Political Activity: Statutory Protection Against Employer Retaliation“; since then, Utah has enacted a similar statute as well.
>
> a. Some statutes ban employers from firing employees for “political activity,” including ideological advocacy generally and not just election-related politics. California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia seem to fall in this category; there are similar ordinances in Seattle and Madison, and a New Mexico statute may also fit here, though it’s a bit more ambiguous.
>
> b. Connecticut protects employees from retaliation for their speech more broadly.
>
> c. Colorado and North Dakota ban employers from firing employees for any off-duty lawful activity; that would cover speech as well.
>
> d. New York bans employers from firing employees for off-duty “recreational activities”; it’s not clear to what extent going to rallies would qualify.
There is more at the link. Seems like a mix on the political spectrum to me. The “at-will” aspect of employment is addressed as well. Basically, at will means you can fire for any reason or no reason, but statute can be enacted to prohibit certain reasons and in a substantial minority of states and many localities that has been done. I’m not aware of the negative consequences like thousands of court cases, etc. as a result.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/17 "2017-08-30T15:47:32Z")
The Bill of Rights put limitations on government actions, not on the actions of private citizens. To extend it in this way, regardless of reasoning, is pretty odd.
Otherwise, I agree with most everyone else in this thread that this is a bad solution in search of a non-problem. Speech should have consequences; that’s why we speak.
---
### Author:  [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/18 "2017-08-30T15:48:58Z")
Sounds like you’re speaking out against at will employment and the free market.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/19 "2017-08-30T15:56:22Z")
[Public employees](https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees) have some level of this type of protection. That makes sense to me.
As for private employers, (like me) I default to “freedom.” If I decide out of extreme good will, to allow a Trump supporter to work for me, fine. If not, that’s fine too. As others have noted, good help is a wonderful thing, and we actually do have one Trump supporter on our payroll. She’s an otherwise decent person and a fine employee.
---
### Author:  [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)
#### Post date: [August 30, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093/20 "2017-08-30T15:57:33Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> [Professor Fired for Blaming Harvey on Texas Voting GOP](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/professor-fired-blaming-harvey-texas-voting-gop-n797181)
>
> Professor fired for blaming Harvey on Texas voting for Trump.
>
> This insanity has got to stop. People should be allowed to express political opinions when off work without risk of losing their jobs. There can be some exceptions, such as if their views call into question their ability to do their job, but simply stating an offensive view should not result in loss of livelihood.
>
> We already protect 1st amendment rights, as well as other rights, from being squelched by entities other than government. Abortion protesters have to be a certain distance from clinics. But why? If it’s okay for “society” to punish the exercise of 1st amendment rights, how come it can’t infringe on your reproductive rights? The answer, obviously, is that while the Bill of Rights only protects us from government infringement, if private individuals make the exercise of a right actively dangerous through threats or intimidation, then the right really has no actual value.
>
> So here is what I propose:
>
> It shall be illegal for companies to fire employees for off duty speech, unless the company can show that the off duty speech calls into question the employee’s ability to do his or her job. And even then, if the person has a long history with the company and has never had anyone complain in relation to the person’s views, then that means the person can set his views aside and behave professionally. Obviously, if the speech is not protected, such as threats or libel, that could also be a firing offense.
>
> I’m sure some will say that this is hard to enforce, but it’s no more of a problem than any other wrongful termination issue. Companies fire as retaliation for whistleblowing, protesting discrimination or other unfair treatment, etc. This law would simply give employees the same access to the courts that other laws of this type do.
For better or for worse, this is a cultural issue, not a legal issue. If we want such firings to stop, then we will need to work to shift the prevailing cultural perception to something like Japan’s where bosses don’t care as much what you do in your off-hours as long as it is not directly related to the company. It’s also not that widespread of a problem, but is certainly more widespread than other country’s.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-offer-some-protection-from-private-retaliation/795093.md?page=2)