Your Freedom of Speech and My Freedom to Fire You

Let's have a freedom festival! Yay! You're still fired!

Published on October 5, 2005 By greywar In Current Events

This is mainly in response to this article here.

Your freedom of expression is not exclusive. Freedom does in fact extend to businesses as well folks.

Your employer can refuse to spend it money on anything it likes. That is *it's* freedom of expression you see. You can be legitimately fired for saying things on your blog that you would be fired for saying on a street corner.

If you work at IBM and you stand out on the street telling people how much IBM sucks and that your boss blows chimps for fun and your boss walks by... guess what? You are fired and it is perfectly justified. Blogging is the exact same thing.

You have the freedom to say what you like and your boss has the freedom to fire your dumb ass.

Here is the thing... If you wouldn't say it to your boss's face, maybe you shouldn't put it on your blog? If you do thats fine just be prepared to take responsibility for your actions.

Frankly, you have to be some sort of moron to bitch about work on a blog your employer reads that can conclusively be tracked to you.

Honestly, I hate screeds claiming to be about freedom of speech that are really just rants against businesses and capitalism. Just say, "Workers of the world unite!", rant against the "Bourgeoisie Establishment" and wave the damn Hammer and Sickle. At least that I can respect for it's honesty.

Comments (Page 3)

Spc Nobody Special

on Oct 05, 2005

In what way are corporations "Stalinist", latour?

All the bathrooms are run as a collective. Everyone contributes.

stutefish

on Oct 05, 2005

Double wow.

Greywar, I don't think it's the abridgement of rights that makes an organization communist or socialist. I do think that the military's inefficiencies come from the fact that it is a military organization--a type of organization that has been around for thousands of years, and has always had a unique set of characteristic problems. Some of those problems may also be characteristic of other types of organizations, including modern attempts at socialism and communism, but an overlapping problem space does not an equality make.

Besides, I think a lot of people mistake "exchanging swiftness of action for consistency of action" for "inefficiency". I also think a lot of people confuse "not getting things done my way right now" with "inefficiency". I strongly suspect that the military isn't nearly as inefficient as it looks, and that most of what looks like inefficiency--even to experienced soldiers--is actually a carefully-calculated tradeoff between two desireable but exclusive goals. And since the military's entire purpose is to calculate and commit to such tradeoffs (keeping soldiers alive vs. defeating the enemy, for example), it's always going to look more inefficient than it actually is. Combine that with the serious need for secrecy in planning, executing, and reporting, and you've got an organization that will appear to be inefficient and incompetent no matter how well it actually performs.

Anyway, the military as socialist and communist organization? I think not. If anything, I'd say it's pretty thoroughly fascist--which is exactly as it should be.

xtine

on Oct 05, 2005

I just saw Fahrenheit 911 and it was just about what I expected. My "suspension of disbelief" was stretched to its limits. But regarding this thread in a very loose manner, I have a question: Were those soldiers in the movie punished? At least administratively?

I sure as hell hope so!

Zoomba

on Oct 05, 2005

You can waive your constitutional rights in a contract. The government does not have to accept you into the armed forces, nor do you have to enlist. You can choose to give up every single freedom if you like, there's nothing against that. Also, military regulations are NOT laws, they're rules of conduct that apply to those who choose to live under them.

Lotherius

on Oct 05, 2005

To some extent, you can waive rights. However, no contract can allow someone to break the law.

If, for example, I signed a contract allowing someone to kill me - he cannot legally fulfill the contract, regardless of its being signed. And, furthermore, if he did attempt to fulfill the contract, he's still up for murder (premeditated) despite my granting him permission via contract.

Same thing with slavery contracts - you can't sign away your freedom. Employment contracts - an employer can persuade you to sign a contract saying you'll work under unsafe conditions, but OSHA can still shut them down despite your 'permission'. A lot of scams and dodgy investments have a clause that states the signor cannot sue, even if the other side doesn't hold up its end of the contract, yet in many cases you can still sue if something they do breaks the law. A more common version is that you agree to arbitration instead of a lawsuit - but anything criminal must still go to a criminal court.

My grandparents' home, which was bought in the 1950s, has a deed restriction clause that says they cannot sell, rent, lease, loan, etc the property to any "negro, hispanic or italian' persons. They signed it, and agreed to it. Deed restrictions are perfectly legal, too. However, that clause is unenforcable, despite its being in a contract.

When you sign into the armed forces, the same conditions apply. You can get out of the contract. They can't enslave you. Of course, they're going to give you a dishonorable discharge, but that doesn't abridge your freedoms. Assuming, of course, that you didn't commit a crime as a way of getting the discharge.

There are tons more examples, I've just barely scratched the surface. It just bothers me how many people think that something is legal just because it's in a contract. All contracts, regardless of how willing the signatory parties were to sign, must still stand the test of law. Otherwise it becomes an illegal or simply unenforcable contract.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

You can choose to give up every single freedom if you like,

Interesting statement. And while I dont know exactly how, I would say the absolute is not true. But that is worthy of its own discussion.

I am willing to bet that some of your freedoms cannot be voluntarily given up. At least not yet.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

And, furthermore, if he did attempt to fulfill the contract, he's still up for murder (premeditated) despite my granting him permission via contract.

Um, not in Oregon. At least until SCOTUS decides that one.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

"negro, hispanic or italian' persons.

WOW! They must hate my friend (the writers of the restriction, not your grandparents). Guido Jamal Chavez.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

You can get out of the contract. They can't enslave you.

This is in fact untrue. You can misbehave and disobey orders but the government is under no obligation whatsoever to let you out of your contract. Most of the time they do let you out, but it ain't a must. They are perfectly within their rights to try, convict, and imprison your stupid ass for the rest of your enlistment or longer since all military contracts are extensible at the governments whim.

Once you sign that dotted line my friend you are G.I.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

However, that clause is unenforcable, despite its being in a contract.

It is unenforceable now... because we have passed legislation to make it that way. I assure you that it was perfectly legal at oen time.

stutefish

on Oct 05, 2005

Lotherius makes a good point.

But it's not actually illegal to NOT speak. Nor is it illegal to promise someone else that you will not speak. Nor is it illegal to sign an employment contract that includes a promise to not speak. And it is not even illegal to fire you for breaking that promise.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

Lotherius makes a good point.

Yours is a whole lot better though.

latour999

on Oct 05, 2005

Latour- Where was that said anywhere here? Are your political beleifs along the lines of "My boss blows chimps!"? If so, then yes if your boss happens to read it... thanks for playing. Next time, perhaps you can respond to the issues *in* the article?

Well, I was saying that I disagree with the statement that I quoted, the one about you having freedom of speech, but there are consequences which you aren't protected from. I mean, even under Hitler and Stalin, there was freedom of speech with "consequences."

What I was trying to say was not that you should be able to get away with slander, you should be able to not have to worry about whether you will be fired for something you say or do off duty. Unless of course you are divulging company secrets or committing slander, or coming to work drunk/high.

Delicious irony!

Latour is a socialist who believes in freedom of speech. Let us quickly pass over all the people who tried to implement Socialism on a large scale, and discovered that freedom of speech was one of the first things that had to go.

I don't see irony in believing two things that are not compatible. And I am not a Leninist, so don't even try to compare me to the Soviet Union.

True socialism and freedom of speech are about as incompatible as burgers and beer.

greywar

on Oct 06, 2005

I mean, even under Hitler and Stalin, there was freedom of speech with "consequences."

From the GOVERNMENT! Do you understand that this is why people don't take what you say seriously? This is not the Government shooting people for having an opinion! It is private citizens (even in publicly held companies it is a group of private citizens) deciding to cease paying someone for doing something inapproriate for an employee! Stay on topic!

greywar

on Oct 06, 2005

Also thank you for Godwining this thread. Good grief.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!