The Gross National Debt

Friday, January 28, 2011

You can’t say that here

Do you have freedom of speech?

“Yes,” you say.
an excellent government waffle on free speech.

OK, are you willing to accept the personal consequences of that free speech?

“Um, what are you talking about Baker?” you ask.

From the Evil HR Lady (love that nick!): Free speech, not free from consequences speech.  (And remember, it’s only government suppression of speech that is illegal.)

Free speech does not extend to the private sector.

“YES IT DOES,” you yell at me.

Really? Show me where that is in the law or Constitution. Show me case law.

You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

Shaddap already.

Whistleblower laws, upheld by SCOTUS, regard safety issues not straight freedom of speech issues.

You can be fired from your job for the things you say and do.

Myself, I think that is entirely appropriate.

Some of you are boggling over that sentence.

“How can you, a diehard proponent of free speech and personal freedoms, support the right of a company to fire someone because of what they say?” you ask.

Because I believe you should be held accountable for the things you say and do.
Nuf said.

The courts constantly uphold firings over verbal sexual harassment. That’s holding a person accountable for what they say.

“Ummm,” you say.

Because I also believe in the freedom of a company owner and manager to run the business the way they see fit.

If you work for a company, you draw compensation (money) from the business. As such, the business has a right to expect one thing from you:  You will be a productive employee.

Who decides if you are a productive employee?

The company.

If the company decides you are no longer a productive employee, you can be let go. Fired in other words.
Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press. Ya don't like it, ya buys ya own press.

If what you say and do reflects ill upon the company, which you represent by being employed by the company, then are you really being a productive employee?

Why should a company continue to employ someone who does not fit the company policy regarding employee behavior? Why should a company employ someone who belittles the company in public? Why should a company be forced to employ someone who is not productive?

If you don’t like the way the company does business, do not associate with them in any fashion. I do this. I personally boycott a business. I will not enter the building, allow my money to be spent there and I do not allow the business name to appear in my writing and the newspaper I run.

If enough people boycott the business over it’s practices, those practices will change or the business will shut down.

Yes. It is that simple.

I REALLY REALLY like that. Yassee it keeps everything out of the government’s and the court’s hands.

The people decide what is right.

I like it.

Free Speech also means you have the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. Too often too many people forget that part.

Exercising his right to keep his pie hole shut.

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment also protects the actively stupid. Whether you like it or not.

1 comment:

  1. Points well stated, however... The people are not always wise, particularly in large groups. Egypt is a prime example. Their troubles are probably better solved by a well-placed sniper's round to the dictatorial cranium, but apparently, no one there has been up to the task. Now, the Egyptian people stand on the edge of the abyss that is revolution, for good or ill. Freedom of speech can also become mob rule, with the flick of a stome.
    Perhaps the only positive is that they are collectively taking back their voice.


Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.