So your position would be that in the interests of maximizing profits, corporations should be able to control their employees’ speech at all time and in all circumstances?
They should be able to control who they employ. How the difference still escapes you is frankly baffling.
In practical terms, how much difference is there between “They should be able to control whom the employ” and “They should be able to control their employees’ private lives”?
I will happily infringe on employers’ rights in the interest of promoting free speech and the public discourse. While there is no guarantee of consequence speech, the Constitution does bar the government for imposing consequences on speech. Why should we not consider likewise barring employers from imposing consequences for free speech?
It’s relevant because I am trying to discover the boundaries you have regarding free speech and imposing consequences on it. You seem not to like freedom of speech very much, I am just trying to figure out what if any limits you would set on attempting to suppress it.
The current limits are perfectly fine.
Both examples in this thread (OP & Dangerosa’s story) consisted of public remarks that were made by people who were acting as representatives of their employers. I’m not seeing the slippery slope here.
No, I’m not. I’ve already said that I think she could have been fired for saying “Fuck” on air more than once. I am trying to establish the ideas that there should be boundaries on an employers’ ability to impose consequences on an employees’ free speech in their private life.
They can hire whomever they choose, as far as I’m concerned, I just think they shouldn’t be able to fire or otherwise penalize a person for what they say in their private life. There should be a BOUNDARY between work life and private life, which employers should be COMPELLED to respect.
Your scatological reasoning is still boring and useless.
We are on a slippery slope of speech rights here. Clearly people feel that this reporter crossed a line by discussing her work on the Internet. I agree that she did go to far in this case.
But, exactly where is that line? Say for example that she blogged about a bad dinner at a restaurant. Something totally unrelated to her job. Her bosses at the tv station are upset and fire her because her comments are negative. Is that ok too?
I just find it disturbing that any blogging or forum content has to be hidden behind pseudonyms. OMG our bosses are watching and they’ll fire us.
I’m fully aware that the first amendment ensures freedom of speech without government interference. But did our founding fathers ever envision our employers restricting free and open speech? There are employers who routinely demand email, facebook, twitter account information from new hires.
We’re in a new world today. Casual conversations that used to occur in homes and at restaurants are blogged instead. Yet our bosses feel free to search us out and monitor what we say.
So say that I work at the local Chicken B Us franchise. I stay quiet at work, not one to to ruffle feathers, so to speak.
But after work I post on my “Misc. Ramblings From Leftfield6” blog that Chicken B Us is, IMHO, a shitty place to work. I post that I, and all of the other waitstaff, have utter contempt for the imbeciles that roll in here night after night. After work, the whole Chicken B Us waitstaff go out and drink till we are are completely fucked. I think one time we killed a horse, but not sure, it was foggy that night. I put all of this out there in the blogosphere, cause, you know I can and all.
Local media picks up on my comments, runs the story, and Chicken B Us is faced with public outcry. Guess what, my career at CBU? Done.
Back to real world here. Are you seriously saying that Chicken B Us shouldn’t be able to can my ass and make an example of me? Seriously?
Not only should they, they HAVE to. You are free to say whatever you want. But actions have consequences, that’s just how it is. What utopian world do you live in where you can say whatever you want and there are no consequences?
The line is where it starts affecting her job.
What? Cite Please.
Just one example. California just passed laws to protect people from demands for their social media accounts. It’s a growing problem that states are starting to address.
Employers aren’t just googling their employee’s names. Now they are demanding the account information. That’s scary.
There are a FEW extreme exceptions, but don’t act like this in the normal in asking for access to public media. I work in HR for a large organization, and we are NOT considering any version of this,
There are a few organizations asking for this, but most of the stories I have seen are LEOs and other occupations where they are trying to scrub out people with extreme views.
If the television station that Ms Shea Allen worked for had needed to ask her for access to her blog, that’s one thing, but they didn’t. It’s just out there for anyone to see.
Yes, it would. So I didn’t say it. My point was the the controversy over the firing was what brought her comments to light **on this message board. ** Otherwise, we might never have known of them.
OK, he was talking on company time as a company representative. I have ALREADY said that I would be OK with the reporter being fired for saying “Fuck!” on air more than once. I am making a distinction between one’s private life and one’s public life. If he had posted on his blog that his company was an ass company run by jerks, and cited a few instances … his right to free speech. Don’t like people saying things like that? Don’t be an ass company run by jerks.
factually wrong, with respect to the OP. Check the blog, it’s a private blog under her name, not the company name, and while she does not hide who she works for, that’s just one aspect of who she is.
Nobody controlled anybody’s speech here! She said what she wanted to say. She typed it up, put her name on it, it went on the Internet for all to see. It stayed on the Internet - if it came down, she took it down. The whole world saw what she had to say. Nobody said “take that down or we’ll fire you.” Nobody said “We are going to force [blog site] to take down your blog.”
What happened was her employer read it and said “Man, you are a shitty person. Not being a shitty person is high up on the skills we require for this job. I don’t think you qualify for this job anymore. You’re fired.”
Her speech wasn’t touched. It still remained. All her employer did was react to it.
If I came up to you and said “Evil Captor, you are a shitty human being, and ugly too. I hate you so much, I should punch you in the face. What are you going to do about it? I mean, really, you stupid fucking asshole.” And then you punched me in the face. Would that be restricting my right to free speech? No, that would be you reacting to my speech in the manner of your choice, and me feeling the consequences of my speech.
That was not your point. Your point was that old people would have never read them because they don’t read blogs. In other words, more shit logic.
You find yourself on increasingly tenuous ground. Which is why you did not answer my question. I take it you feel an employer could fire her for ANY of the scenarios I mentioned, then. Well, good to know.
No, it isn’t. She posted as a news reporter about things she did as an employee of the station and about her job on a public forum.