# Tv reporter's blog gets her fired. Right or Wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 30, 2013, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892 "2013-07-30T09:37:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/161 "2013-07-31T17:42:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > And I do not think employers should have the right to fire people, even for saying stupid and offensive things about them. I understand your position, but IMO it’s an indefensible one. You completely discount employer’s rights, and it’s just not workable in a free and open society. > [@](#): > > A free and open discourse is worth promoting and preserving. It is, I think everyone here agrees on that. But free and open discourse without consequences is not worth preserving. It effectively strips free speech rights from one side of the employment equation. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/162 "2013-07-31T17:53:34Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I understand your position, but IMO it’s an indefensible one. You completely discount employer’s rights, and it’s just not workable in a free and open society. > > It is, I think everyone here agrees on that. But free and open discourse without consequences is not worth preserving. It effectively strips free speech rights from one side of the employment equation. and again - this isnt a ‘free speech’ issue - even if she were ‘joking’ about committing a federal crime (tampering with the mail) - that is not the kind of behaviour (the tampering with mail) that any company would want to seemingly ‘allow’ or encourage their employees to do. So - if they didn’t fire her - its tacit approval of her actions as well as opening up themselves for suits and prosecution. By firing her - they let it be known that her actions (which ever one suits you) are not agreeable to company policy. She’s still ‘free’ to talk about her shennanigans all she wants. ---
**Author:** ![Delayed\_Reflex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/delayed_reflex/32/3172_2.png) [@Delayed\_Reflex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Delayed_Reflex)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/163 "2013-07-31T18:49:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s not the important part of that story, though. Do you think that, if he’d given away trade secrets on his own time, and made it clear that he wasn’t speaking as a representative of the company, that would have made it all right? Remember that the secrets he gave away led indirectly to a lot of people losing their jobs. > > I agree with you that there are circumstances under which employees ought to be immune from firing for their private speech. Here are some examples: > > -A bartender tweets that she really likes a new cafe. The cafe is owned by the bar owner’s ex-husband, so the bar owner fires the bartender. Not cool. > -A nurse blogs about the advantages of using generic prescriptions. The hospital where he works makes a greater profit off of branded drugs, and fires him for cutting into profits. Not cool. > -A teacher believes that high-stakes testing is unethical and posts to that effect on Facebook. Her school district thinks that cuts into the team-building effort around testing and fires her. Not cool. > > But here are some examples in which discipline or firing for speech is all right: > > -A bartender posts about how she waters down drinks in order to encourage people to drink more and gets fired. That’s fine: her speech is going to discourage people from going to the bar, hurting her employer. > -A nurse blogs about patients by name and gets fired. That’s fine: she’s violating confidentiality, even if she’s doing it on her own time, and that reflects poorly on her employer. > -A teacher posts about how she doesn’t bother to grade papers any more, just gives kids the grades she thinks they deserve. She gets fired. Fine: she’s revealed that she’s a crappy teacher, and her principal has new information to that effect. > > In other words, if an employee is speaking in a way that hurts the employer’s bottom line, or violates codes of ethics, or reveals unwillingness or inability to do the job, that’s actionable. Other things, not so much. > > The reporter’s list contains a lot of revelations about unethical and incompetent behavior on the job, in my opinion, so firing her was ducky. Excellent post. **Evil Captor** , do you get this distinction? Others have noted that the firing was justified based on her work conduct, not just because she posted about her conduct publicly. For example, if she hadn’t posted anything on her blog but her boss had directly observed her stealing mail, complaining about old people, sleeping on the job, stopping the recording of interviewees, and admitting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, do you think she wouldn’t have faced any consequences? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/164 "2013-07-31T19:04:13Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I understand your position, but IMO it’s an indefensible one. You completely discount employer’s rights, and it’s just not workable in a free and open society. > > It is, I think everyone here agrees on that. But free and open discourse without consequences is not worth preserving. It effectively strips free speech rights from one side of the employment equation. My mind truly boggles in this thread. We have one poster saying employers should continue employing someone even if they talk shit, sorry, “[say] stupid and offensive things about them,” and another saying that it should be okay for someone to work in a daycare and be a member of NAMBLA in his personal time (!?) I mean, you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. That sort of behavior would cost my business money. In the latter case, probably putting me out of business forever and possibly make me a community pariah if I knew that info and didn’t act on firing the employee. That not only ruins the business person’s business, it hurts the other employees of that business, as well. I only run a small business, but why on God’s green earth would I continue hiring someone who is saying offensive things about my business? What possible sense can that make? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/165 "2013-07-31T19:12:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I do not think employers should have the right to fire people This is a joke, right? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/166 "2013-07-31T19:31:00Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Well, as soon as the the parents found out that YogKidKare was hiring NAMBLA members, you would soon have no more customers and the NAMBLA guy would lose his job when you shut down. Or would you keep paying him out of your own pocket even after you went out of business just as a matter of principle? Of course I wouldn’t keep paying him. But if his membership in NAMBLA does not affect his job, then I would feel that I have no reason to punish him. If that hurts me, so be it, but sometimes, matters of principle should win out > [@madsircool](#): > > Exhibit A in understanding why you dont own a business. Although Im betting you are posting in the manner that cant be mentioned here. > [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > LOL. Let me guess… you’ve never been in a hiring and firing position, have you? I find both your snarky tones to be unhelpful in this discussion where a very real issue could be debated rather than shut down by excessive, I dunno, meaness is the only thing I can call it. I’m glad I didn’t reply yesterday because I would have contributed to that. Full disclosure, despite what you may believe, I AM in a position to hire and fire. My voice is not the only one, nor the last, nor the most powerful, but I have conducted dozens of interviews and made hiring decisions that were later supported solely by my recommendation. Both of you have a point, underneath your attacks, however wrong. Most people should look out for themselves or their business. But there is a line where principle and business meet and I feel this crosses that. I would compare it to people taking a stand on a social issue such as the CEO of Chick-Fil-A coming out to say he’s against gays even though it would have been easier to remain silent. I use him precisely because he’s wrong, an idiot, and I disagree with him. However, as a personal opinion, I wouldn’t fire a guy who came out with that even if it would hurt my business because I believe in his right to say it and DON’T believe in my right to punish him for it despite that. If he were flipping burgers and I was the CEO, his burger flipping is not impacted by his views and so he can say whatever he wants. FYI, Dangerosa’s story deals with a guy who make unofficial remarks as a representative of the company, which I do think is a fire-able offense, and therefore different from what I’m talking about. I do understand it can hurt my business and why some people would call me an idiot but I believe in the principle behind it. Sometimes, principle should win out, and to me, this is one of those times. I wouldn’t mind you two calling me an idiot business owner if you can least show that you understand why I’m taking the stance that I do. And my beliefs on this isn’t just some random thought bouncing around in my head. I think that allowing companies to take employees’ personal lives into account for work discipline is harmful. It leads to stupid ass shit like those “at will” work states, or that moron dentist who was rightly excoriated by most people on this board who fired his hot dental assistant. It harms real people, that’s why I’m against it. Of course, what about the people who own and work in the business that is harmed? Yes, they are a concern too, however, their problems are micro while the employer/employee relationship problem is macro. Better for a company to take some hit to their bottom line than to allow all companies the right to injure employees. One is a company-specific problem, the other is a larger social issue. Just like how it is no justification for the Boy Scouts to be allowed to be homophobic and bigoted even though it might be better for their bottom line in the immediate future by staying the status quo, businesses should not be allowed to broadly injure employees just because its better for them. It is better, I think, for society to protect workers rather than some company, even many companies, to be able to remove such social safety nets I think there should be a line between work and private lives that has been crossed. By no means am I completely against something such as a background check, nor am I naive enough to think that being an FBI agent should require the same degree of scrutiny as a Burger King cashier. If you can show that your personal life does not affect work, nor do you act against your work as its representative, then your personal life should be your own. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/167 "2013-07-31T19:35:05Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I find both your snarky tones to be unhelpful in this discussion where a very real issue could be debated rather than shut down by excessive, I dunno, meaness is the only thing I can call it. I’m glad I didn’t reply yesterday because I would have contributed to that. Full disclosure, despite what you may believe, I AM in a position to hire and fire. My voice is not the only one, nor the last, nor the most powerful, but I have conducted dozens of interviews and made hiring decisions that were later supported solely by my recommendation. > > Both of you have a point, underneath your attacks, however wrong. Most people should look out for themselves or their business. But there is a line where principle and business meet and I feel this crosses that. > > I would compare it to people taking a stand on a social issue such as the CEO of Chick-Fil-A coming out to say he’s against gays even though it would have been easier to remain silent. I use him precisely because he’s wrong, an idiot, and I disagree with him. However, as a personal opinion, I wouldn’t fire a guy who came out with that even if it would hurt my business because I believe in his right to say it and DON’T believe in my right to punish him for it despite that. If he were flipping burgers and I was the CEO, his burger flipping is not impacted by his views and so he can say whatever he wants. FYI, Dangerosa’s story deals with a guy who make unofficial remarks as a representative of the company, which I do think is a fire-able offense, and therefore different from what I’m talking about. > > I do understand it can hurt my business and why some people would call me an idiot but I believe in the principle behind it. Sometimes, principle should win out, and to me, this is one of those times. I wouldn’t mind you two calling me an idiot business owner if you can least show that you understand why I’m taking the stance that I do. > > And my beliefs on this isn’t just some random thought bouncing around in my head. I think that allowing companies to take employees’ personal lives into account for work discipline is harmful. It leads to stupid ass shit like those “at will” work states, or that moron dentist who was rightly excoriated by most people on this board who fired his hot dental assistant. It harms real people, that’s why I’m against it. > > Of course, what about the people who own and work in the business that is harmed? Yes, they are a concern too, however, their problems are micro while the employer/employee relationship problem is macro. Better for a company to take some hit to their bottom line than to allow all companies the right to injure employees. One is a company-specific problem, the other is a larger social issue. Just like how it is no justification for the Boy Scouts to be allowed to be homophobic and bigoted even though it might be better for their bottom line in the immediate future by staying the status quo, businesses should not be allowed to broadly injure employees just because its better for them. It is better, I think, for society to protect workers rather than some company, even many companies, to be able to remove such social safety nets > > I think there should be a line between work and private lives that has been crossed. By no means am I completely against something such as a background check, nor am I naive enough to think that being an FBI agent should require the same degree of scrutiny as a Burger King cashier. If you can show that your personal life does not affect work, nor do you act against your work as its representative, then your personal life should be your own. Personal life - absoloutely - in this case, the blog post was about her conduct during her professional time - or directly related to it. Its not that her ‘opinions’ were being acted upon - but her self reported pattern of behaviour while ‘on the job’. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/168 "2013-07-31T19:35:09Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > She said “I’ve stolen mail and then put it back. (maybe)” Is that an admission? Really? Or is she just being really snarky? I don’t think she “admitted” to a “felony”. Anyway you choose to read it she is either a thief or a liar. I won’t employ either as I have to be able to trust my employees. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/169 "2013-07-31T19:40:54Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Of course I wouldn’t keep paying him. But if his membership in NAMBLA does not affect his job, then I would feel that I have no reason to punish him. If that hurts me, so be it, but sometimes, matters of principle should win out In my opinion, this is not one of those cases, especially as it affects the rest of your employees if it ever gets out. Basically, they’ll all be without jobs, because no parent (I would think) is going to send their kids to a daycare where the owner knowingly employed a member of NAMBLA. Call me crazy. Plus the owner’s reputation in the community is likely to be trashed. ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/170 "2013-07-31T19:43:04Z")
Look at the [blog](http://sheaallensays.blogspot.com/) that started it all. On the right is the “funny” list. On the left is this: \*\*\*Shea Allen is a special investigations reporter currently employed by the ABC affiliate in Huntsville, AL. \*\*\* So, it’s not like she made any effort to keep it strictly personal. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/171 "2013-07-31T19:49:30Z")
New blog. I hope she does stay above the fray. no Jerry Springer for her. [http://sheaallensays.blogspot.com/2013/07/15-minutes.html?m=1](http://sheaallensays.blogspot.com/2013/07/15-minutes.html?m=1) > [@](#): > > Finally, in regards to said media circus, I’m done. I spent 48 hours in the fray, got my points across, but now it’s time to focus on my future and rebuilding my life. No Dr. Phil. No Geraldo. No Piers Morgan. > > Meanwhile, thanks for the support. To the haters, I respect your right to hate. I will continue to not filter the comments, good or bad. > > What’s next you ask? Well, that’s the million dollar question isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/172 "2013-07-31T19:52:51Z")
Calling people who disagree with you “haters” is something stupid teenagers do. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/173 "2013-07-31T19:57:16Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > And I do not think employers should have the right to fire people,… Of course, that’s logical, also: Employees shouldn’t be able to quit Employers must hire everyone they interview Employees must work for whichever company they interview with etc. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/174 "2013-07-31T20:02:59Z")
Video interview. > **[Videos](https://www.huffpost.com/section/video)** > > The latest breaking news video and visual storytelling from HuffPost. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/175 "2013-07-31T20:04:05Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > It leads to stupid ass shit like those “at will” work states 49 of 50 states are “at will” states (Montana is the exception). Although most have public policy exception that prevents firing because, for example, the employee was warning that the employer was shipping defective parts that could injure people. > **[At-will employment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)** > > In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability status). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified At... ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/176 "2013-07-31T20:16:08Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Personal life - absoloutely - in this case, the blog post was about her conduct during her professional time - or directly related to it. > > Its not that her ‘opinions’ were being acted upon - but her self reported pattern of behaviour while ‘on the job’. I can understand that then, though I disagree. I think that just because one talks about work in their personal endeavors doesn’t mean it actually should be subject to employer vetting, nor does it suddenly become, by proxy, work related. I think in a personal setting, whether social media or to your friends, one should be able to talk whatever shit they want about their job with few exceptions. > [@pulykamell](#): > > In my opinion, this is not one of those cases, especially as it affects the rest of your employees if it ever gets out. Basically, they’ll all be without jobs, because no parent (I would think) is going to send their kids to a daycare where the owner knowingly employed a member of NAMBLA. Call me crazy. Plus the owner’s reputation in the community is likely to be trashed. I don’t disagree that it may hurt the owner or the other employees, but as I stated, I think that the larger issue of employee protection, it is better to have specific businesses hurt in their immediate bottom lines than to blanketly allow employer intrusion into employees’ personal lives. One’s a social matter, one’s a simply an employer/employee matter. It would be no different if the employer himself does something to hurt the business that affects the rest of the employees. The difference is, a law preventing harassment of an emplyees’ personal lives would protect those other employees too if they ever did anything boneheaded in private > [@leftfield6](#): > > Look at the [blog](http://sheaallensays.blogspot.com/) that started it all. On the right is the “funny” list. On the left is this: > > \*\*\*Shea Allen is a special investigations reporter currently employed by the ABC affiliate in Huntsville, AL. \*\*\* > > So, it’s not like she made any effort to keep it strictly personal. Just saying you work somewhere doesn’t mean you should be subjected to that employer’s rules outside of your job. People should be free to say they work for Coke but drink Pepsi. As long as they are not doing it as a representative of Coke, it is their own personal lives and should be protected > [@Telemark](#): > > 49 of 50 states are “at will” states (Montana is the exception). Although most have public policy exception that prevents firing because, for example, the employee was warning that the employer was shipping defective parts that could injure people. > > [At-will employment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment) Well then I disagree with 49 states. I’m not sure what your point was, to convince me I’m wrong because most people that way? Hell, I know the law, and I know that most people seem to support it, albeit for wildly different reasons. I just know that I feel it should not be the norm ---
**Author:** ![Rollo\_Tomasi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/58956e/32.png) [@Rollo\_Tomasi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rollo_Tomasi)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/177 "2013-07-31T20:36:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > -A nurse blogs about patients by name and gets fired. That’s fine: she’s violating confidentiality, even if she’s doing it on her own time, and that reflects poorly on her employer. I don’t think anyone commented on this scenario. To the posters defending the reporter: do you think the above situation would be grounds for termination? After all, **LHoD** specifies that it’s all being done on the nurse’s own time. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/178 "2013-07-31T20:39:34Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > Uh, this is not a right-left issue. This is a “living in reality” versus “living in fairyland” issue. We are leaning reality. Please point to the place where I said I thought employees DO NOT have the right to fire people at will. I believe I have stated just the OPPOSITE in one of my posts. Just because I have a differing opinion about what SHOULD BE in this instance, does not mean I do not recognize what IS. For example, I bet a lot of southern racists would have greeted the notion of getting rid of Jim Crow laws with similar incredulity. The people who objected to Jim Crow laws understood what reality was very clearly. They just thought it was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/179 "2013-07-31T20:48:47Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Please point to the place where I said I thought employees DO NOT have the right to fire people at will. I believe I have stated just the OPPOSITE in one of my posts. Just because I have a differing opinion about what SHOULD BE in this instance, does not mean I do not recognize what IS. For example, I bet a lot of southern racists would have greeted the notion of getting rid of Jim Crow laws with similar incredulity. The people who objected to Jim Crow laws understood what reality was very clearly. They just thought it was wrong. Being able to blog about committing felonies and still keep your job is nothing at all like Jim Crow laws, and for you to compare them like this is deeply offensive and disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/180 "2013-07-31T20:57:14Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Of course, he would then be subject to criminal and civil penalties for making you feel those consequences. Did he violate my right to free speech tho? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892.md?page=10)