Pretty standard affair. You want to air out your whole life for others to see on the internet, you have to deal with the consequences both positive and negative.
Guy gets fired for bad breath Facebook post
- Thread starter Mr Nice
- Start date
- Status
I can't stand poor personal hygiene. But, after experiencing some other Countries, Varanasi, India stands out, even the most offensive BO from someone I don't have to spend every waking moment around, is tolerable.
Why would anyone ever "friend" co-workers on Facebook? Very foolish thing to do. Facebook in general is likely a good thing to avoid. At least keep your viewing options set to private so only "friends" can see what you post.
Well hold on a minute here....
So... We are saying that the government cannot go after people for their speech or words said?? Right?? Ok. Right... I agree.
But.... Free busineses can do WHATEVER they want to in order to go after someone (who's off their work's time clock by the way) for something said aka online, or even in person AFTER work hours not on the clock??
But wait a minute boys and girls... Who supports that government?? Ahh yes it is the taxpayers and citizens of this nation.
Have we not decided in a number of Supreme Court cases where the United States Constitution superseded a business's rights?? Ahh yes they certainly have in a number of cases. Where the court found that yes indeed the US Constitution took preeminence over a business's rules or regulations.
Why would this not be any different??????
Are you all too happy with corporations stepping all over YOUR constitutional rights? Without real just cause??
Are we stepping back in time over a hundred years of settled court rulings that clearly and unequivocally found that the Constitution clearly took preeminence over corporation rules??
Let us all remember that those corporations and businesses pay taxes to that federal government. And that if they decided on their own accord that federal laws did not apply to them and decided to not pay said government those taxes then people would be put in Federal prison in short order.
Our businesses and corporations greatly benefit from the taxes our government takes in, or the tax breaks those businesses or corporations receive, they also benefit from the protection of our nation at home and abroad. For those numerous benefits alone is just cause that our nation's Constitution should supercede any business or corporations rules for our rights when NOT at work or NOT on the corporate clock.
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
So... We are saying that the government cannot go after people for their speech or words said?? Right?? Ok. Right... I agree.
But.... Free busineses can do WHATEVER they want to in order to go after someone (who's off their work's time clock by the way) for something said aka online, or even in person AFTER work hours not on the clock??
But wait a minute boys and girls... Who supports that government?? Ahh yes it is the taxpayers and citizens of this nation.
Have we not decided in a number of Supreme Court cases where the United States Constitution superseded a business's rights?? Ahh yes they certainly have in a number of cases. Where the court found that yes indeed the US Constitution took preeminence over a business's rules or regulations.
Why would this not be any different??????
Are you all too happy with corporations stepping all over YOUR constitutional rights? Without real just cause??
Are we stepping back in time over a hundred years of settled court rulings that clearly and unequivocally found that the Constitution clearly took preeminence over corporation rules??
Let us all remember that those corporations and businesses pay taxes to that federal government. And that if they decided on their own accord that federal laws did not apply to them and decided to not pay said government those taxes then people would be put in Federal prison in short order.
Our businesses and corporations greatly benefit from the taxes our government takes in, or the tax breaks those businesses or corporations receive, they also benefit from the protection of our nation at home and abroad. For those numerous benefits alone is just cause that our nation's Constitution should supercede any business or corporations rules for our rights when NOT at work or NOT on the corporate clock.
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
Last edited:
Go back and reread Astro14's post. You are mistaken in your interpretation. Yes, the Constitution protects you against tyranny from the Government. No, in many cases it doesn't protect you against corporate tyranny. Just like corporations can deny you 2nd Ammendment rights by not allowing you to carry a weapon at work, or while on their property, they can certainly deny free speech.
As to the handbook defining the comment as violence, that's a stretch. Maybe that's actionable. As was mentioned already, in many states you can fire somebody for no reason at all, but if you mention a reason, you had better be right.
As to the handbook defining the comment as violence, that's a stretch. Maybe that's actionable. As was mentioned already, in many states you can fire somebody for no reason at all, but if you mention a reason, you had better be right.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Well hold on a minute here....
So... We are saying that the government cannot go after people for their speech or words said?? Right?? Ok. Right... I agree.
But.... Free busineses can do WHATEVER they want to in order to go after someone (who's off their work's time clock by the way) for something said aka online, or even in person AFTER work hours not on the clock??
But wait a minute boys and girls... Who supports that government?? Ahh yes it is the taxpayers and citizens of this nation.
Have we not decided in a number of Supreme Court cases where the United States Constitution superseded a business's rights?? Ahh yes they certainly have in a number of cases. Where the court found that yes indeed the US Constitution took preeminence over a business's rules or regulations.
Why would this not be any different??????
Are you all too happy with corporations stepping all over YOUR constitutional rights? Without real just cause??
Are we stepping back in time over a hundred years of settled court rulings that clearly and unequivocally found that the Constitution clearly took preeminence over corporation rules??
Let us all remember that those corporations and businesses pay taxes to that federal government. And that if they decided on their own accord that federal laws did not apply to them and decided to not pay said government those taxes then people would be put in Federal prison in short order.
Our businesses and corporations greatly benefit from the taxes our government takes in, or the tax breaks those businesses or corporations receive, they also benefit from the protection of our nation at home and abroad. For those numerous benefits alone is just cause that our nation's Constitution should supercede any business or corporations rules for our rights when NOT at work or NOT on the corporate clock.
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
Long rant about tyranny (which comes from the Greek, meaning lord/master/ruler, and among those early rulers, was one named Draco, whose laws were so severe that the word Draconian was formed...but I digress...).
But what do you really mean?
I'm not ignoring the hundreds of years of settled court cases, I am, in fact, referring to the original intent of the Bill of Rights - to restrain the Government. There are cases where corporations have violated Constitutional rights, but this is not one of those.
I have every right to use a legal product - but as a condition of my employment, I can be fired if that product is found to be present when I am at my job.
Was my Fourth Amendment right violated by the alcohol or drug test?
Nope. Court case after court case has upheld that I agreed to those conditions as part of my employment. The random test isn't a Fourth Amendment issue since the law requires that I be drug free, and I knew that the tests would be administered. From your statement above, you argue that no corporation should be able to violate my Constitutional rights...
Clearly, then, you advocate eliminating the ability of an airline to test pilots for drugs or alcohol, since they don't have a warrant, and it is tyrannical to search my person in violation of the Fourth Amendment, right?
Back to the original topic.
If an employer has a set of standards, usually in a corporate handbook, which lays out rules for your conduct, then you enter into a contract with that employer when you accept the job. If one of the rules is a prohibition on disparagement of fellow employees, then yes, your disparagement of a fellow employee, on facebook or not, is grounds for termination. You broke the contract.
You agree to the terms when you take the job. If you fail to abide by those terms, then they can fire you. If two parties, employer and employee in this case, have a contract, and one fails to fulfill the terms, then the other has recourse.
Simple as that.
No Federal law was broken. No right was denied. Remember, your right to swing your fist stops just shy of my nose. In other words, you have a right to free speech, up to the point that it damages someone else. Slander and Libel are two examples of speech that is not protected, because you have damaged another person. Public figures have difficulty proving damage under those concepts, because speech about them can be considered political, and therefore protected, but private people, like your co-worker, have a right to not be damaged by your actions.
You should not hurt other people (not merely feelings, but actual damage) with your speech.
So, firing you for breaking your contract with your employer, and for disparaging another person is not a violation of your free speech. You're perfectly free to express your opinion, politically. But, and this is really important, while you're free to say what you want about another employee, your Constitutional protection doesn't make you free from the consequences of violating your contract.
It's not tyranny.
You're free to express yourself.
And you're free to look for another job.
Well hold on a minute here....
So... We are saying that the government cannot go after people for their speech or words said?? Right?? Ok. Right... I agree.
But.... Free busineses can do WHATEVER they want to in order to go after someone (who's off their work's time clock by the way) for something said aka online, or even in person AFTER work hours not on the clock??
But wait a minute boys and girls... Who supports that government?? Ahh yes it is the taxpayers and citizens of this nation.
Have we not decided in a number of Supreme Court cases where the United States Constitution superseded a business's rights?? Ahh yes they certainly have in a number of cases. Where the court found that yes indeed the US Constitution took preeminence over a business's rules or regulations.
Why would this not be any different??????
Are you all too happy with corporations stepping all over YOUR constitutional rights? Without real just cause??
Are we stepping back in time over a hundred years of settled court rulings that clearly and unequivocally found that the Constitution clearly took preeminence over corporation rules??
Let us all remember that those corporations and businesses pay taxes to that federal government. And that if they decided on their own accord that federal laws did not apply to them and decided to not pay said government those taxes then people would be put in Federal prison in short order.
Our businesses and corporations greatly benefit from the taxes our government takes in, or the tax breaks those businesses or corporations receive, they also benefit from the protection of our nation at home and abroad. For those numerous benefits alone is just cause that our nation's Constitution should supercede any business or corporations rules for our rights when NOT at work or NOT on the corporate clock.
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
Long rant about tyranny (which comes from the Greek, meaning lord/master/ruler, and among those early rulers, was one named Draco, whose laws were so severe that the word Draconian was formed...but I digress...).
But what do you really mean?
I'm not ignoring the hundreds of years of settled court cases, I am, in fact, referring to the original intent of the Bill of Rights - to restrain the Government. There are cases where corporations have violated Constitutional rights, but this is not one of those.
I have every right to use a legal product - but as a condition of my employment, I can be fired if that product is found to be present when I am at my job.
Was my Fourth Amendment right violated by the alcohol or drug test?
Nope. Court case after court case has upheld that I agreed to those conditions as part of my employment. The random test isn't a Fourth Amendment issue since the law requires that I be drug free, and I knew that the tests would be administered. From your statement above, you argue that no corporation should be able to violate my Constitutional rights...
Clearly, then, you advocate eliminating the ability of an airline to test pilots for drugs or alcohol, since they don't have a warrant, and it is tyrannical to search my person in violation of the Fourth Amendment, right?
Back to the original topic.
If an employer has a set of standards, usually in a corporate handbook, which lays out rules for your conduct, then you enter into a contract with that employer when you accept the job. If one of the rules is a prohibition on disparagement of fellow employees, then yes, your disparagement of a fellow employee, on facebook or not, is grounds for termination. You broke the contract.
You agree to the terms when you take the job. If you fail to abide by those terms, then they can fire you. If two parties, employer and employee in this case, have a contract, and one fails to fulfill the terms, then the other has recourse.
Simple as that.
No Federal law was broken. No right was denied. Remember, your right to swing your fist stops just shy of my nose. In other words, you have a right to free speech, up to the point that it damages someone else. Slander and Libel are two examples of speech that is not protected, because you have damaged another person. Public figures have difficulty proving damage under those concepts, because speech about them can be considered political, and therefore protected, but private people, like your co-worker, have a right to not be damaged by your actions.
You should not hurt other people (not merely feelings, but actual damage) with your speech.
So, firing you for breaking your contract with your employer, and for disparaging another person is not a violation of your free speech. You're perfectly free to express your opinion, politically. But, and this is really important, while you're free to say what you want about another employee, your Constitutional protection doesn't make you free from the consequences of violating your contract.
It's not tyranny.
You're free to express yourself.
And you're free to look for another job.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bbhero
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
You should take a constitutional law course or at least do some basic readings about the law because most of what you've said is wrong on many levels. First those constitutional rights apply to the government, so the government can't restrict your free speech rights, but corporations aren't bound by those. They were always able to "trample" over those rights because they didn't exist as you think they did.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that a company doesn't have the right to decide that they don't want someone who uses it. Rights go both way, rights of the company, rights of the individual. Discrimination is completely legal. Unless it's a protected class. There's no law that says you can't discriminate against smokers, so it's perfectly legal for me to say I won't rent you an apartment if you're a smoker. Discrimination happens all the time, no shirts no shoes no service. Perfectly legal not to wear shoes or a shirt, perfectly legal for a business to decide not to serve you.
As was said early, your grasp of the law is weak.
The belief that businesses or corporations can or should be able to trample over top of our constitutional rights when not at work or on their time has been gaining traction for a period of time. And people so willing to be amenable to that idea is just chilling to me. What else do you want to surrender to businesses or big companies??
The right to use a perfectly legal product?? And I mean legal since the 1600s by the way
..On your own time?? Should that business have the right to not hire you if you use that product?? Isn't that discrimination?? How can that be possibly legal?? Or are you ok with that business firing someone for using a legal product on their own time, at their own home??
There is a lot about all of this that is not good if we freely give up our rights to the big business's or corporations. And give them to that authority to dictate our lives.
And EXACT same thing would be true if we ALLOWED the government to do the EXACT same thing..... Neither is right. Neither is good. Tyranny from government is wrong. Tyranny from businesses or corporations is wrong too...
You should take a constitutional law course or at least do some basic readings about the law because most of what you've said is wrong on many levels. First those constitutional rights apply to the government, so the government can't restrict your free speech rights, but corporations aren't bound by those. They were always able to "trample" over those rights because they didn't exist as you think they did.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that a company doesn't have the right to decide that they don't want someone who uses it. Rights go both way, rights of the company, rights of the individual. Discrimination is completely legal. Unless it's a protected class. There's no law that says you can't discriminate against smokers, so it's perfectly legal for me to say I won't rent you an apartment if you're a smoker. Discrimination happens all the time, no shirts no shoes no service. Perfectly legal not to wear shoes or a shirt, perfectly legal for a business to decide not to serve you.
As was said early, your grasp of the law is weak.
No...
Let's break this down in simplistic terms
..
Founding documents greater than party, big business or corporations... These are the founding laws.... Aka... the basis of laws in this nation... Which can trump any business rules at numerous times and circumstances....
Government...= Laws
Us... Aka people corporations, businesses....
The government cannot prohibit our "speech"... Ok.. simple right. Right I hope you follow to this point if possible....
Who supports them aka government via the tax code?? Us.. Right. You follow that so far......
What does the government perform on a daily basis that supports our RIGHTS and the rights of business?? Protection in every essence of the word... Our taxes... And government funded roads greatly help businesses and corporations
..... Follow so far... I hope so... It's not hard. Really it is not.
Ok score update time... Follow along my far out there ideological world champion..
#1 Nation's founding documents
#2 Government supported by people aka us
#3 Last place in this circumstance.... Business or corporations rules in a number of circumstances
..
So.. our government and it's abiding words in it's founding document take superiority over any and ALL big business or corporations "rules".
Just like business who say didn't want people who looked like say x... Are not allowed in.... Court rulings have said no... The Founding Laws of this nation take precedence over your "rules"...
Or how a business would not hire people who looked like such and such... Nope. No can do. Per court rulings... Because those business owner's ideas and rules are not constitutional... Because those businesses are under jurisdiction of this nation's Supreme Court.
Again.... Courts interceding in cases clearly and unequivocally stating that businesses could not abrogate individual's rights under our Constitution.
Government has decided... That NO ONE can discriminate by prohibiting who can go into a PUBLIC busineses if the look like this or that aka skin color... Right champ...
You following so far??
Are you following to this point champ?? It's not hard. But for you it appears to be... Because why I don't know...
You like being told what to do or say.... When not even present at work for "things stated"..... You are a few cards short of a full operating deck of cards in my opinion if you think that's a good idea.
Hey hoss.... How about a business saying your to far to be hired??? For a regular job... Or if your BMI gets to high then you get fired??? Is that a good thing???? I guess you are happy with that... Fits your agenda... Because you want to give businesses or corporations that kind of power and ability to do that?? Strange planet you live on then...
And what if someone drinks... A couple of drinks everyday after work meaning 1-2 maybe 3 and has no issues with doing that at all and is able to function just fine with no problems.. Should that person not be eligible for hire at a business or corporation?? A perfectly legal product... You think that's ok... Should that be allowed?? Is that constitutional??
What if a big business or corporation wanted to know if someone owned a gun?? And that business would NOT hire that person if they said they did indeed own a gun... Is that legal?? How so?? I don't think their ideas take preeminence over basic rights.
You want business tyranny... As long as it fits your agenda.....
A "protected class" only exist because SOMEONE took up their cause/case.... Which is what needs to start happening here in cases where businesses or corporations make rules that have the clear intention of depriving people of their rights while NOT on the company time clock...
We ALL are a PROTECTED class... By those founding documents.
To be protected against government AND BUSINESS/CORPORATIONS..
Let's break this down in simplistic terms
..
Founding documents greater than party, big business or corporations... These are the founding laws.... Aka... the basis of laws in this nation... Which can trump any business rules at numerous times and circumstances....
Government...= Laws
Us... Aka people corporations, businesses....
The government cannot prohibit our "speech"... Ok.. simple right. Right I hope you follow to this point if possible....
Who supports them aka government via the tax code?? Us.. Right. You follow that so far......
What does the government perform on a daily basis that supports our RIGHTS and the rights of business?? Protection in every essence of the word... Our taxes... And government funded roads greatly help businesses and corporations
..... Follow so far... I hope so... It's not hard. Really it is not.
Ok score update time... Follow along my far out there ideological world champion..
#1 Nation's founding documents
#2 Government supported by people aka us
#3 Last place in this circumstance.... Business or corporations rules in a number of circumstances
..
So.. our government and it's abiding words in it's founding document take superiority over any and ALL big business or corporations "rules".
Just like business who say didn't want people who looked like say x... Are not allowed in.... Court rulings have said no... The Founding Laws of this nation take precedence over your "rules"...
Or how a business would not hire people who looked like such and such... Nope. No can do. Per court rulings... Because those business owner's ideas and rules are not constitutional... Because those businesses are under jurisdiction of this nation's Supreme Court.
Again.... Courts interceding in cases clearly and unequivocally stating that businesses could not abrogate individual's rights under our Constitution.
Government has decided... That NO ONE can discriminate by prohibiting who can go into a PUBLIC busineses if the look like this or that aka skin color... Right champ...
You following so far??
Are you following to this point champ?? It's not hard. But for you it appears to be... Because why I don't know...
You like being told what to do or say.... When not even present at work for "things stated"..... You are a few cards short of a full operating deck of cards in my opinion if you think that's a good idea.
Hey hoss.... How about a business saying your to far to be hired??? For a regular job... Or if your BMI gets to high then you get fired??? Is that a good thing???? I guess you are happy with that... Fits your agenda... Because you want to give businesses or corporations that kind of power and ability to do that?? Strange planet you live on then...
And what if someone drinks... A couple of drinks everyday after work meaning 1-2 maybe 3 and has no issues with doing that at all and is able to function just fine with no problems.. Should that person not be eligible for hire at a business or corporation?? A perfectly legal product... You think that's ok... Should that be allowed?? Is that constitutional??
What if a big business or corporation wanted to know if someone owned a gun?? And that business would NOT hire that person if they said they did indeed own a gun... Is that legal?? How so?? I don't think their ideas take preeminence over basic rights.
You want business tyranny... As long as it fits your agenda.....
A "protected class" only exist because SOMEONE took up their cause/case.... Which is what needs to start happening here in cases where businesses or corporations make rules that have the clear intention of depriving people of their rights while NOT on the company time clock...
We ALL are a PROTECTED class... By those founding documents.
To be protected against government AND BUSINESS/CORPORATIONS..
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting...
So... You all too happy to grant a business the right to take action for words or speech done while not at work or on company time????
That does violate the first amendment rights of people.
As far as "contract" aspect part of circumstances go... That does make sense to me. A lot actually. One thing against that is the idea that the initial "rules" written by said company could be easily in sharp contrast with fundamental rights. Especially when it come to free speech. Now the contact part makes a whole lot more sense when it comes to routine drug or alcohol testing. One who does what you do... Or what I do for a living.... Should and must agree to contractual agreements including testing. That makes sense in that circumstance.
So... You all too happy to grant a business the right to take action for words or speech done while not at work or on company time????
That does violate the first amendment rights of people.
As far as "contract" aspect part of circumstances go... That does make sense to me. A lot actually. One thing against that is the idea that the initial "rules" written by said company could be easily in sharp contrast with fundamental rights. Especially when it come to free speech. Now the contact part makes a whole lot more sense when it comes to routine drug or alcohol testing. One who does what you do... Or what I do for a living.... Should and must agree to contractual agreements including testing. That makes sense in that circumstance.
Last edited:
Bbhero, you can set up all the straw men and knock em all down and it doesn't change a thing. Just because you disagree with the rest of the country's interpretation of the Constitution does not make you right. Continuing this argument without a fundamental understanding of that document and established law is not helping your case.
If you feel that strongly, vote for candidates that support your position. Give them big donations too, because they probably aren't bringing in any of that big corporate money.
If you feel that strongly, vote for candidates that support your position. Give them big donations too, because they probably aren't bringing in any of that big corporate money.
Ok .... Funny how you cannot or even choose to refute what I stated there.... Because you know full well it either a) happened already or b) would not be allowed to happen.
So... You are all too happy to have big company X to dictate your words or speech whole NOT being there.... You think that's a great idea??? That's awesome. So... In your universe.... We the little ones are truly subjugate to their "rules" at all times ALL the time.... And they can do whatever they want...
I'm sure people from say a large country far away would live that have that same authority that you want to give big business or companies... Fun times indeed.
And those instances are not strawmen... They happened. Whether you like it or not. Those instances happened. Right?? You know that things are the way the are because of court cases decided involving private businesses and individuals... Aka.. no govt involved by either party. The govt/courts were requested to intervene.
So... You are all too happy to have big company X to dictate your words or speech whole NOT being there.... You think that's a great idea??? That's awesome. So... In your universe.... We the little ones are truly subjugate to their "rules" at all times ALL the time.... And they can do whatever they want...
I'm sure people from say a large country far away would live that have that same authority that you want to give big business or companies... Fun times indeed.
And those instances are not strawmen... They happened. Whether you like it or not. Those instances happened. Right?? You know that things are the way the are because of court cases decided involving private businesses and individuals... Aka.. no govt involved by either party. The govt/courts were requested to intervene.
Last edited:
I will just point out a few cases for you to think about. Remember the case where that Google employee wrote a document questioning women in tech? Basically it was an opinion piece, but many people didn't like it. Google fired him. He tried to sue, lost the case.
Those types of cases happen all the time. I'm just saying the law isn't what you think it is. Maybe it should be, but the way it is now, it doesn't work the way you think it does or should.
Just look at the NFL cheerleaders getting harassed. Those stories are backed up by ex-cheerleaders, but no current ones will speak about it. Why? Probably because they're afraid of getting fired. That's the real world.
Note carefully that I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong. Just that it's the way it currently works now.
Those types of cases happen all the time. I'm just saying the law isn't what you think it is. Maybe it should be, but the way it is now, it doesn't work the way you think it does or should.
Just look at the NFL cheerleaders getting harassed. Those stories are backed up by ex-cheerleaders, but no current ones will speak about it. Why? Probably because they're afraid of getting fired. That's the real world.
Note carefully that I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong. Just that it's the way it currently works now.
ArrestMeRedZ I will say that the circumstance like that really concerns me. I have a strong question of authority no matter it be our leadership, media, or corporations. Let me say events in the past 16 years have made me think this way. I just want a lot more balance in circumstances.
Astro14 I am sorry for seeming to be giving you a hard time there. It was not my intention at all. I am sorry if it seemed that way. Typing what we think and then how someone else reads it and interprets it makes this medium very difficult at times.
One thing I don't think is remotely good idea... Talking trash about the business you work for online. That is preposterously dumb. And yeah I've seen that happen. World Champion did that at my last place of work.
Astro14 of course there are constraints on our rights at work. And we do enter into a "contract" circumstance there. Which certainly have it's own rules. And in many instances for very good reason. No doubt in that.
All I really think is there needs to be a bit more balance in that circumstance regarding an employee and corporation. I feel that the way things are going are way out of reasonable balance here.
One thing I don't think is remotely good idea... Talking trash about the business you work for online. That is preposterously dumb. And yeah I've seen that happen. World Champion did that at my last place of work.
Astro14 of course there are constraints on our rights at work. And we do enter into a "contract" circumstance there. Which certainly have it's own rules. And in many instances for very good reason. No doubt in that.
All I really think is there needs to be a bit more balance in that circumstance regarding an employee and corporation. I feel that the way things are going are way out of reasonable balance here.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Astro14 I am sorry for seeming to be giving you a hard time there. It was not my intention at all. I am sorry if it seemed that way. Typing what we think and then how someone else reads it and interprets it makes this medium very difficult at times.
One thing I don't think is remotely good idea... Talking trash about the business you work for online. That is preposterously dumb. And yeah I've seen that happen. World Champion did that at my last place of work.
Astro14 of course there are constraints on our rights at work. And we do enter into a "contract" circumstance there. Which certainly have it's own rules. And in many instances for very good reason. No doubt in that.
All I really think is there needs to be a bit more balance in that circumstance regarding an employee and corporation. I feel that the way things are going are way out of reasonable balance here.
I share your distrust of authority and of corporations.
The balance point between individual right to self-expression and limits of company interest is what's in question here...and perhaps the company was wrong, and perhaps the poster was wrong...
I am certain that the individual (call him horse-breath) read the FB post and complained. Then the HR department (another group that I distrust) got involved, and voila, an action was taken by the company. I've no doubt that the company wouldn't have even known about the complaint without horse-breath bringing it to their attention.
So, was horse-breath in the right? Was his aggrieved complaint valid? Was the company right to enforce their policy? Was the policy reasonably written? Would it stand up in court?
I really don't know the answers to any of those questions because I don't know enough about the details of this case.
I merely point out, for the benefit of everyone, that Constitutional Rights are enumerated for the protection of the individual from their government, and until the 14th Amendment, they were only viewed as protection from Federal Government action...It's a critical point, that is lost in many of the "free speech" discussions in the news recently.
Quite a few misconceptions exist about the nature of free speech and what the First Amendment right actually confers.
There are, in fact, 26 separate rights listed in those first ten amendments to our Constitution, and each one of them is widely misunderstood by both the public and the media. I wince at some of the opinion pieces I've seen recently, though I don't think we are far apart, bbhero, on our position.
If you're interested, I would really recommend any book by Akhil Amar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Amar in particular, "America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By" which addresses the nature of this thread: what we believe, what we practice, and what the Constitution actually says.
My wife and I had the pleasure of speaking (quite briefly) with Professor Amar at Yale a few weeks ago after hearing him talk. We wish we could take one of his classes!
For now, I'll settle for reading his books. They all sit on a bookshelf in our library, next to a bust of James Madison...
Cheers,
Astro
Astro14 I am sorry for seeming to be giving you a hard time there. It was not my intention at all. I am sorry if it seemed that way. Typing what we think and then how someone else reads it and interprets it makes this medium very difficult at times.
One thing I don't think is remotely good idea... Talking trash about the business you work for online. That is preposterously dumb. And yeah I've seen that happen. World Champion did that at my last place of work.
Astro14 of course there are constraints on our rights at work. And we do enter into a "contract" circumstance there. Which certainly have it's own rules. And in many instances for very good reason. No doubt in that.
All I really think is there needs to be a bit more balance in that circumstance regarding an employee and corporation. I feel that the way things are going are way out of reasonable balance here.
I share your distrust of authority and of corporations.
The balance point between individual right to self-expression and limits of company interest is what's in question here...and perhaps the company was wrong, and perhaps the poster was wrong...
I am certain that the individual (call him horse-breath) read the FB post and complained. Then the HR department (another group that I distrust) got involved, and voila, an action was taken by the company. I've no doubt that the company wouldn't have even known about the complaint without horse-breath bringing it to their attention.
So, was horse-breath in the right? Was his aggrieved complaint valid? Was the company right to enforce their policy? Was the policy reasonably written? Would it stand up in court?
I really don't know the answers to any of those questions because I don't know enough about the details of this case.
I merely point out, for the benefit of everyone, that Constitutional Rights are enumerated for the protection of the individual from their government, and until the 14th Amendment, they were only viewed as protection from Federal Government action...It's a critical point, that is lost in many of the "free speech" discussions in the news recently.
Quite a few misconceptions exist about the nature of free speech and what the First Amendment right actually confers.
There are, in fact, 26 separate rights listed in those first ten amendments to our Constitution, and each one of them is widely misunderstood by both the public and the media. I wince at some of the opinion pieces I've seen recently, though I don't think we are far apart, bbhero, on our position.
If you're interested, I would really recommend any book by Akhil Amar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Amar in particular, "America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By" which addresses the nature of this thread: what we believe, what we practice, and what the Constitution actually says.
My wife and I had the pleasure of speaking (quite briefly) with Professor Amar at Yale a few weeks ago after hearing him talk. We wish we could take one of his classes!
For now, I'll settle for reading his books. They all sit on a bookshelf in our library, next to a bust of James Madison...
Cheers,
Astro
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
