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 4)

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2005

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.

Well since none of my brothers have touched this, then I will. No you can NOT get out of that government contract. It's called desertion and you WILL spend time in a federal prison if you try to break that contract. You are only right on one point....you will end up with a dishonorable discharge. At which point you lose rights. First one that pops into my mind is the right to own a gun. The only way to get out is to go AWOL (absent without leave) and after 30 days it becomes desertion which is a federal crime.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2005

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

If she signed a contract stating to the effect that if she did something against the company rules while on her off time she could be fired. Then what they did was legal. What she did was in the uniform of the company. You think not? Okay try Weyco Inc. Smoke a cigarette at home and get fired. And this is legal and has been in court of law. Link

drmiler

on Oct 06, 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.

Zoomba....I think your a little off base on this. Please recall it's called the "uniform code of military justice". And they do have things like JAG complete with "lawyers". The only thing is that "military law" for the most part does not affect civilians.

Zoomba

on Oct 06, 2005

drmiller, I meant more that the rules and enforcement of military rules aren't quite the same as congressional laws passed and enforced by the police or federal law enforcement on the civilian population. It's an internal justice system that exists with special rules and is separate from everything else. It's a special system you have to sign on to join, so their rules and regs can to an extent defy the bill of rights if they so choose.

kingbee

on Oct 06, 2005

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

nor is it illegal to enter into a contract you intend to breach by underfunding pensions for those employees who do abide by the rules. nor is it illegal to declare bankruptcy and rely on people who do their jobs to cover your obligations with tax dollars--as delta continues to do.

greywar

on Oct 07, 2005

way to lose an argument and change topics.

I meant more that the rules and enforcement of military rules aren't quite the same as congressional laws passed and enforced by the police or federal law enforcement on the civilian population.

Actually they are exactly like that. Congress was the entity that established the UCMJ.

drmiler

on Oct 07, 2005

I meant more that the rules and enforcement of military rules aren't quite the same as congressional laws passed and enforced by the police or federal law enforcement on the civilian population.

Actually they are exactly like that. Congress was the entity that established the UCMJ.

Missed a main point sir.... that is, they are "not" enforced by police nor enforced on a "civilian" populace. The only thing they have in legal commonality is that most of them were written by congress.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

Interesting sidebar. Do you have a right to wear any t-shirt you want with any saying you want, on an airplane? Does Lori Heasley have a case?

dharmagrl

on Oct 07, 2005

meant more that the rules and enforcement of military rules aren't quite the same as congressional laws passed and enforced by the police or federal law enforcement on the civilian population.

As Greywar said, they ARE like that.

Zoomba

on Oct 07, 2005

Last I checked, military laws do not impact me, as a civilian in any way shape or form unless I'm on a military base, I'm interfering with a military operation of some kind, or martial law is declared (I'm sure there are other exceptions here). Please note the last two words in what you all are quoting me on... I'm distinguishing them from the sorts of laws that apply to the CIVILIAN POPULATION.

I can't think of a nation in all of history that affords the same level of freedom/lack thereof to the general populace as it does to its military. The military has always been treated as a "special case" when it comes to this sort of stuff. Sometimes they are given greater freedom, but most often they're given less. They sacrifice many of their freedoms to protect them for the rest of us.

Yeah, passed by congress, but not enforcable by civilian police, or enforcable on the civilian population.

stutefish

on Oct 07, 2005

I'd assume that no, airlines have the right to restrict speech on their property.

Which leads me to the conclusion that private ownership of property is a foundation-stone of human rights.

Which may explain why socialist regimes always seem to have a serious human rights problem...

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!