greywar greywar

Your Freedom of Speech and My Freedom to Fire You

▼

Your Freedom of Speech and My Freedom to Fire You

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

from JoeUser Forums

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.

 

Site Meter
8,141 views 56 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

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.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
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...