Incidentally, anyone who thinks bridge can’t be cool should read Ian Fleming’s Moonraker. It has virtually no similarity to the movie of the same title.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Of course, it’s true that America, like all cultures, does have its social pressures. But when Americans talk about “freedom of speech,” it means something very specific, which is that the government can’t stop you from expressing yourself, or jail or kill you for doing so. It has nothing whatsoever to do with citizens giving each other platforms from which to express themselves. It wouldn’t be considered the least bit contradictory to strongly support the Constitutional “freedom of speech,” while also at the same time using that freedom, as well as the freedom of association that we also have, to provide platforms for one’s preferred speech at the expense of someone else’s.
[/QUOTE]
Sarahfeena is right. The Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech to all Americans means absolutely nothing. Corporations can and do rule us like kings. So long as it’s not the government doing the ruling, all is good.
Really, all is good.*
*This message brought to you by Hypermegaglobalcorp!
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Sarahfeena is right. The Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech to all Americans means absolutely nothing. Corporations can and do rule us like kings. So long as it’s not the government doing the ruling, all is good.
Really, all is good.*
*This message brought to you by Hypermegaglobalcorp!
[/QUOTE]
Please don’t say I’m right and then distort what I said. That’s not nice.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Even if the USBF were these players’ employer, which I’m pretty sure it is not, they could still fire them for this. There’s nothing to prevent a private employer from firing you over a free speech issue. Indeed, even a government employer might well be able to fire these players if the speech was disruptive enough. So I fail to see what the basis for a lawsuit would be against this private association.
[/QUOTE]
Bridge players have sued bridge orgnaizations in the past and won (or at least caused a settlement to be reached), where the organization had imposed a lifetime ban. Of course that is not what is happening here, but the punishment here is even more draconian (IMHO.) I agree that there is a basis for a lawsuit, but by the time it is settled the suspension will be up.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Please don’t say I’m right and then distort what I said. That’s not nice.
[/QUOTE]
Am I really distorting what you said that much? What limits, if any, would you place on the rights of corporation/organization to restrict the speech of members/employees?
My feeling is, if my freedom of speech is being restricted, it doesn’t matter who’s doing or why. It’s still happening, and it still violated the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment. I’m really saddened that so many Dopers are willing to give up their freedom of speech so easily.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
Bridge players have sued bridge orgnaizations in the past and won (or at least caused a settlement to be reached), where the organization had imposed a lifetime ban. Of course that is not what is happening here, but the punishment here is even more draconian (IMHO.) I agree that there is a basis for a lawsuit, but by the time it is settled the suspension will be up.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Am I really distorting what you said that much? What limits, if any, would you place on the rights of corporation/organization to restrict the speech of members/employees?
My feeling is, if my freedom of speech is being restricted, it doesn’t matter who’s doing or why. It’s still happening, and it still violated the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment. I’m really saddened that so many Dopers are willing to give up their freedom of speech so easily.
[/QUOTE]
Scenario:
You work for AlgherCorp. You decide to wear a button that states “I did not vote for Bush.” You wear this button to a client meeting. The client, a long term Bush supporter, cancels the contract.
I fire you for being so stupid as to wear a political statement while representing Alghercorp. You did this in such a way as to hurt my company.
Are you claiming that this is violation of the spirit of not the letter of the First Amendment?
Please clarify your opinion on how the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech applies to political speech (to keep with the real world situation) when the person is representing a particular company.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
But this is another example of what I’ve noticed since living here - people in the USA always say they support (in principle) freedom of speech, but there are all kinds of pressure in day-to-day society to discourage people from voicing criticism of the USA.
[/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree. If they’d have held up a “Free Tibet” sign, I think they would have been met with a similar punishment. I agree that it’s within the rights of the organization to censure the players for bringing politics into what is supposed to be a non-political event, just as I believe it’s appropriate for the Academy of Motion Pictures to play music the second Richard Gere opens up his mouth.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Am I really distorting what you said that much? What limits, if any, would you place on the rights of corporation/organization to restrict the speech of members/employees?
My feeling is, if my freedom of speech is being restricted, it doesn’t matter who’s doing or why. It’s still happening, and it still violated the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment. I’m really saddened that so many Dopers are willing to give up their freedom of speech so easily.
[/QUOTE]
Algher’s post expresses the answer to this nicely. But what I’ll add to it is what I said earlier. I (as a fellow citizen, or owner of SarahCo, or whatever non-governmental body I represent) can’t take away your right to free speech. But, I don’t have to give you a platform for it (I would think that this is within my own 1st amendment rights). And, I have a right for my person or property to be free from it. I do think that any control companies try to exert over a person’s free time IS violating the spirit of the 1st amendment, but this tends to extend more to health-based issues like smoking than it does to political activity, from what I’ve seen.