How free speech can get you fired

[Platapus]

No, what it means is that the government can't make any laws infringing on your freedom of speech.

Try telling your wife that you have freedom of speech. ...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Try telling your wife that you have freedom of speech. ...

Sounds like a guy who learned that the hard way!

[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]

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]

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.