Political Crossfire Forums

firefigher919 · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Wingate, NC

A County Manager in North Carolina has informed the employees of the county that they are not allowed to publicly question the decision-making and or knowledge of the County Commissioners nor the County Manager and that any public comments, whether in uniform or not and whether on the job or not, will be treated as insubordination.
While I agree that while in uniform or on the job there is a fine line between insubordination and freedom of speech, my issue is with the suppression of freedom of speech when not on the job. Can anyone site constitutional law and case(s) that would prohibit an employer form limiting your public speech about issues and concerns with your job?

micfranklin · Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:01 am Post subject:

I wouldn't call this a step towards fascism, but then limiting free speech has never been something I like.

patrickt · Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 1763 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico

There was recently a case in Chicago where a man had things to say publicly about some rich guy and lost his job. He got a lot of support but there was no legal case. The First Amendment says there shall be no laws infringing on your right to free speech. You wife can leave you, your boss can fire you, and your kids can deny they're any relation to you.

Remember the company that fired people for smoking on their own time? Remember the ACLU protecting the identity of people in NAMBLA to protect them?

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6939 Location: Ohio

...

These people were employed by the State. You're right, private organizations are not obligated to let you say what you want on their property, but the government is.

This IS a step towards fascism.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

firefigher919 wrote: A County Manager in North Carolina has informed the employees of the county that they are not allowed to publicly question the decision-making and or knowledge of the County Commissioners nor the County Manager and that any public comments, whether in uniform or not and whether on the job or not, will be treated as insubordination.
While I agree that while in uniform or on the job there is a fine line between insubordination and freedom of speech, my issue is with the suppression of freedom of speech when not on the job. Can anyone site constitutional law and case(s) that would prohibit an employer form limiting your public speech about issues and concerns with your job?

If I talked bad about my company while I'm off the job, I know I would (rightfully) risk my job. If this were a private employee, it would be open and shut--any talking bad about the company=firing. However, this gets more complicated because it involves government.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

The right to freedom of speech does not mean that there are not consiquences for that speech. I can see where the case in Chicago is legal. He was not sue or taken to jail for his speech but the man he spoke ill against has the right to retaliate as long as it is legal (which I think costing the man his job is legal). As for the NC case, I think they overstepped there. It is a government agency taking the stand that their employees cannot say anything bad about the government. I can understand the part about whiel at work but once the employees are on their own time they should be able to say what every they want.

eynon · Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:

so what if a city employee wanted to run for one of those positions? could they not critisize the current practices?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10973 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Demonic Spoon wrote: ...

These people were employed by the State. You're right, private organizations are not obligated to let you say what you want on their property, but the government is.

This IS a step towards fascism.

micfranklin · Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

TNBiologist wrote: The right to freedom of speech does not mean that there are not consiquences for that speech. I can see where the case in Chicago is legal. He was not sue or taken to jail for his speech but the man he spoke ill against has the right to retaliate as long as it is legal (which I think costing the man his job is legal). As for the NC case, I think they overstepped there. It is a government agency taking the stand that their employees cannot say anything bad about the government. I can understand the part about whiel at work but once the employees are on their own time they should be able to say what every they want.

Agreed. What people say or do on their own time is none of the companies business.

patrickt · Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 1763 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico

"Agreed. What people say or do on their own time is none of the companies business."

Sorry, I don't agree. If a police officer, on his day off, marches in a Klan rally wearing a white robe, no problem? Or, an employee of the EPA, on his own time, gives speeches about how environmental protection is extortion, bad science, and an unreasonable burden on citizens, no problem? How about a Parks and Recreation employee or an employee at a day-care center who gives speeches on his own time about pedophilia being an acceptable alternative lifestyle. No problem?

There is recourse in the organization if the restrictions are unreasonable as in the ACLU recently when a proposal was made to forbid board members from criticizing the director or his decisions. A little publicity and suddenly the proposal was never seriously considered. But, there are, in my opinion, reasonable restrictions.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

micfranklin wrote: TNBiologist wrote: The right to freedom of speech does not mean that there are not consiquences for that speech. I can see where the case in Chicago is legal. He was not sue or taken to jail for his speech but the man he spoke ill against has the right to retaliate as long as it is legal (which I think costing the man his job is legal). As for the NC case, I think they overstepped there. It is a government agency taking the stand that their employees cannot say anything bad about the government. I can understand the part about whiel at work but once the employees are on their own time they should be able to say what every they want.

Agreed. What people say or do on their own time is none of the companies business.

Actually, it is. If an employee slanders his private company on HIS OWN TIME, he can be fired. Court decisions have upheld this. A Miller employee was fired for drinking Bud Lite in a public bar on his own time (and happened to get photographed and put in the paper doing so). He was fired. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies. They can fire you for political speech or any other type of speech. All the First Amendment does is protect your speech against the government. Since this guy is working for a county, IMHO, he should be able to say what he wants on his own time.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

perdidochas wrote: micfranklin wrote: TNBiologist wrote: The right to freedom of speech does not mean that there are not consiquences for that speech. I can see where the case in Chicago is legal. He was not sue or taken to jail for his speech but the man he spoke ill against has the right to retaliate as long as it is legal (which I think costing the man his job is legal). As for the NC case, I think they overstepped there. It is a government agency taking the stand that their employees cannot say anything bad about the government. I can understand the part about whiel at work but once the employees are on their own time they should be able to say what every they want.

Agreed. What people say or do on their own time is none of the companies business.

Actually, it is. If an employee slanders his private company on HIS OWN TIME, he can be fired. Court decisions have upheld this. A Miller employee was fired for drinking Bud Lite in a public bar on his own time (and happened to get photographed and put in the paper doing so). He was fired. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies. They can fire you for political speech or any other type of speech. All the First Amendment does is protect your speech against the government. Since this guy is working for a county, IMHO, he should be able to say what he wants on his own time.

They should be able to say whatever they want but that does not mean there will not be consequences. Let me explain my logic, while working for a government agency I should not be able to badmouth siad government agency while on duty. Example, a cop should not be able to walk up to a suspect he is arresting and tell the suspect that the law is bullsh^t. After that cop gets offduty he should be able to go to his local bar and express his opinion that said law is bullsh^t without fear of being fired. While working for a private agency I should be able to criticize that company while at work or off work. This does not mean that my company cannot fire me for saying these things but they cannot prevent me from saying them while the cop should be prevented from degrading the law while on duty.

Starnexus · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 38

I think people have a misconception of the bill of rights. All they do is prevent the government from infringing upon those specified rights. There's nothing that says that employers or anyone else cannot infringe upon them. In this case the government is an employer and is not actually passing laws that infringe upon the rights of its constituents so from a purley first amendment perspective the county does have the right to impliment this policy. Just like I cannot bad mouth my boss and expect to be protected under the first amendment.

That said: I do think that congress should pass laws to protect certain rights from employers but alas under our corporate controlled government that will never happen...

JackarooSundown · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 433 Location: Three thirty.

Starnexus wrote: I think people have a misconception of the bill of rights. All they do is prevent the government from infringing upon those specified rights. There's nothing that says that employers or anyone else cannot infringe upon them. In this case the government is an employer and is not actually passing laws that infringe upon the rights of its constituents so from a purley first amendment perspective the county does have the right to impliment this policy. Just like I cannot bad mouth my boss and expect to be protected under the first amendment.

That said: I do think that congress should pass laws to protect certain rights from employers but alas under our corporate controlled government that will never happen...

Even if one is legally free to curse at his boss, what do you think that boss is gonna do when the company needs to lay someone off?

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6939 Location: Ohio

patrickt wrote: "Agreed. What people say or do on their own time is none of the companies business."

Sorry, I don't agree. If a police officer, on his day off, marches in a Klan rally wearing a white robe, no problem? Or, an employee of the EPA, on his own time, gives speeches about how environmental protection is extortion, bad science, and an unreasonable burden on citizens, no problem? How about a Parks and Recreation employee or an employee at a day-care center who gives speeches on his own time about pedophilia being an acceptable alternative lifestyle. No problem?

Nope. No problem with any of those situations.