How free speech can get you fired

[Platapus]

Let's just say that education occurred.

[Stealhead]

I think that many Americans misunderstand what freedom of speech means to be honest Ozzie Guillen did not get arrested finned or other wise punished by the state local or federal government therefore his rights where not violated and he did not get fired only suspended so he just can not go to games for a few days.

I think some think that it is literal that you can say anything that you want to whomever you want when you want when it really is allowing a citizen to say "I do not like this about my government" without fear of punishment (so long as they do not directly incite violence or threaten).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I think some think that it is literal that you can say anything that you want to whomever you want when you want when it really is allowing a citizen to say "I do not like this about my government" without fear of punishment (so long as they do not directly incite violence or threaten).

How were his rights NOT violated? He hasn't even made a comment that is really anti-government (one may not agree with praising Cuba or Castro, but that's not the same as anti-government) or anti-corporation, yet he is being very overtly punished. He would likely not do so again and thus his freedom of speech has been constrained.

The intent of freedom of speech bills is to avoid those powers that be from using their powers to interfere with it. If one believes in freedom of speech at all, there is little to no moral difference between the government and a corporation.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

How were his rights NOT violated?

Because the First Amendment only protects people from the government. The government was not involved in any way in this case. If he had been arrested for what he said, the First Amendment would apply.

[Sailor Steve]

The Bill Of Rights was only intended to protect citizens from abuses by the government. It does not extend to abuses by other citizens. That's the purpose of civil lawsuits. You can argue that his rights were violated, but not by the government, so laws addressed specifically to the government do not apply. To attempt to make it so subverts the purpose of Constitutional protections in the first place.

[Diopos]

I think we are hiding our heads in the sand here.

1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence
2. By firing him because he voiced an opinion at least two (if not all) of the above stated unalienable Rights have been violated meaning his Liberty (stating his opinion) and the means for the pursuit of Happiness (loosing a job he wanted/accepted and the monetary compensation that came with it).
3. The constitution may protect the citizens """only"""" from the goverment (within the context of some previus posts), but the goverment is there to secure the citizens "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the first place. So as long as the guy's unalienable Rights are violated it sure is the job of the goverment to rectify it.
4. If the goverment does not "secure these rights" it can be considered to have become "destructive of these ends" and therefore you, as USA citizens, have the right to get rid of it.
5. If the guy had lost his job because, say, he voiced his support for the man and women of your armed forces fighting in Afganistan, would you react with the same """constitutional""" manner.

It is not about god damn Castro, or the Cuban minority in Florida. It is about what the USA is supposed to be. Not only for you but the rest of the world, too.

.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Diopos

I think we are hiding our heads in the sand here.

1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ***8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ***8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence
2. By firing him because he voiced an opinion at least two (if not all) of the above stated unalienable Rights have been violated meaning his Liberty (stating his opinion) and the means for the pursuit of Happiness (loosing a job he wanted/accepted and the monetary compensation that came with it).
3. The constitution may protect the citizens """only"""" from the goverment (within the context of some previus posts), but the goverment is there to secure the citizens "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the first place. So as long as the guy's unalienable Rights are violated it sure is the job of the goverment to rectify it.
4. If the goverment does not "secure these rights" it can be considered to have become "destructive of these ends" and therefore you, as USA citizens, have the right to get rid of it.
5. If the guy had lost his job because, say, he voiced his support for the man and women of your armed forces fighting in Afganistan, would you react with the same """constitutional""" manner.

It is not about god damn Castro, or the Cuban minority in Florida. It is about what the USA is supposed to be. Not only for you but the rest of the world, too.

.

Read Steve's post again.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Bill Of Rights was only intended to protect citizens from abuses by the government. It does not extend to abuses by other citizens. That's the purpose of civil lawsuits. You can argue that his rights were violated, but not by the government, so laws addressed specifically to the government do not apply. To attempt to make it so subverts the purpose of Constitutional protections in the first place.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...
That's the purpose of civil lawsuits.
...

Civil law does not exist in an institutional vacuum. It is based on the same foundations as your executive, repesentative and judiciary branch of goverment.

[Stealhead]

You are failing to take into consideration that he is obviously employed under contract in that contract it surely stated that one is not to do or say anything that will have a negative result on the organisation.The Marlins are based in Miami a city with a very large Cuban population many of which came to the US as refugees from Cuba the majority of these Cubans dislike Castro and the current Cuban regime and will dislike it if their team appears to support in anyway a person that they dislike and as a result they may refuse to attended or support the Marlins in other ways.So when you take into consideration the location of the Marlins and the fact that a large portion of its fan base are anti-Castro Cuban Americans it should not be much of a surprise that the team would in some way punish any member that makes a pro or even vaguely pro Castro statement.It is no different from someone on the Marlins team saying that people in Miami are idiots.It should be pretty obvious that a person in the employ of any professional sports team should not say anything that may upset a portion of said teams fan base because they then threaten the bottom line of that organisation and that this would be in the contract that they signed.

Also how do you figure that civil law does not apply? That makes no sense at all honestly civil law suits are filed every day.Perhaps it is different in Greece.

Civil law applies in any non governmental institution there is no such vacuum.

[Diopos]

Of course civil law applies. It might be even the proper tool in this case. What I am trying to say is that if you are fired for expressing a point of view is, in itself, a fundamental issue in a democratic society. The goverment (all branches) are there to protect your basic rights, if it fails to do so it loses its legitimacy.

I asked in a previous post in this thread. Was there a relavent clause in his contract? Would the contract be considered legal if it had an """"antiCastro"""" clause? Would the whole issue been dealt differently with in Illinois rather then Florida?

.

[Platapus]

Lemme ask this.

When Neal bans someone from his website, is that an infringement on that person's First Amendment rights? Is Neal breaking constitutional law?

Of course not.

This is a privately owned website and Neal can ban anyone he chooses for no reason than he chooses to do so. I have no First Amendment rights on a privately owned website.

Why would this be any different than being fired from a private company?

Now, depending on the law, there may be isolated circumstances where people are protected from being fired for saying stuff. But that protection comes from another law/regulation and not from the First Amendment.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Neal banning a person does not pose much threat to one's livelihood. It also does not significantly restrict freedom of speech because there are a great number of alternate ways to express oneself.

Thus from a utilitarian viewpoint, Neal's property rights can have precedence.

Not so much in a job.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You are failing to take into consideration that he is obviously employed under contract in that contract it surely stated that one is not to do or say anything that will have a negative result on the organisation.

Even if there is such a clause in his contract, there is room for arguing for a balance of interests and rights here.

Would you have said the same if the issue had been oh, teaching Creationism in schools, and the company tried to argue that they were located in a Bible belt area and thus its employees must avoid offending sensibilities?

Originally Posted by razark

Because the First Amendment only protects people from the government. The government was not involved in any way in this case. If he had been arrested for what he said, the First Amendment would apply.

Going by its letter, it doesn't even cover the whole government, only Congress (its legislature). Nevertheless, I don't think anyone would argue that rights weren't trampled if some branch of the Executive enacted policies that would have a depressing effect on freedom of speech.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Not so much in a job.

So you're arguing that jobs should be directly protected by the Constitution? Should Federal law cover every possible contingency? Could it? As has been said repeatedly, the Constitution is a guidebook for the Government, and the Bill of Rights guarantees protection from abuses by the Government, nothing more. Further protections are given in other laws. If the man feels his rights have been violated he can take it to court, and possibly win. That is his guaranteed protection under the law.

Going by its letter, it doesn't even cover the whole government, only Congress (its legislature).

That's because only Congress can make laws.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone would argue that rights weren't trampled if some branch of the Executive enacted policies that would have a depressing effect on freedom of speech.

That would depend on where and why such policies were enacted. Free speech doesn't include revealing government secrets, and people have gone to prison for that. Even so, they got their day in court, and if they didn't the people tried to do something about it. Not always successfully, but that's a problem we'll always face.

[Platapus]

It should be pointed out, again, that Florida is an ''At will employment" state. With few exceptions, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.

In Florida, as in many other states, your boss can fire you just because he does not want you in his place of business (with some exceptions)

[Stealhead]

Why do some keep speaking as if the guy got fired? He did not get fired he got suspended (I assume with pay as it does not say suspension without pay) did it not say that in the article?Some keep saying he lost his job either they misread the article or they are attempting to blow the story out of proportion.

Florida is an at will employment state which means to an extent that an employer can simply release you for what ever reason but this does not mean that you get no protections you still will be able to draw unemployment and such and the law is also helpful to the employee as because part of the law makes the first 90 days of employment a probationary period(some employers extend their probationary length) this means that the employee if they feel that the job does not suit them for what ever reason they can resign from the job and it has no negative reflection on their work history.On the face of it the law sounds like it is harsh on employees and not employers but it is not really that unfair because it allows an employer to more easily get rid of crappy workers which means that they will be able to hire the best employees.And for employees it is a good thing because it allows them 90 or more days to decide if they like the job or not and they can resign from the job and it is even fair to poor workers because an employer can simply let them go just like that and they have no blemish form getting fired on their work history. I cant say for everyone in the entire state but have heard few reasonable people have any troubles with this law seems to me the dirt bag type people that usually are poor workers are the ones that dislike this law also generally speaking unions are weak in the South East anyway and the law is somewhat anti-union.It is what it is life is not fair.