Having been a Moderator over at another railroad discussion site, a few of my "renegades" were always telling me about their Right of free speech. This article, appearing in this past Saturday's Times, I think lays out succinctly what freedom of speech is, and what it is not:
HERE’S a quiz for the coming campaign season. Which one of these actions could get you disciplined or fired?
A) Hanging political cartoons on your office door.
B) Sending emails to your colleagues soliciting support for a controversial cause.
C) Writing a blog at home stating your opinions about a local campaign and posting it on Facebook.
D) All of the above.
The answer is D. Now, that’s not an absolute. It depends on whether you are a private or public employee. It also depends on where you live.
What the essence of this article is that even though the Bill of Rights sets forth expressed Rights, it says nothing whatever regarding the consequences of exercising such Rights.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: What the essence of this article is that even though the Bill of Rights sets forth expressed Rights, it says nothing whatever regarding the consequences of exercising such Rights.
Now this is a statement worthy of 1984. Of course you have rights, but there will be punishment for exercising them. Huh?? The whole concept of something being a right is that there is no punishment given when you exercise it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, from your immediate remarks, it would appear a clarification of intent is necessary.
Absent the independent contractor profiled by The Times disclosing any client proprietary information for which there would be exposure to civil liability, that contractor has not violated any laws, because Congress or any State cannot enact any such law, for sharing political views contrary to those held by the client. However, the client is free to contract with whatever party he wishes for services, and therefore the contractor has been adversely affected in the marketplace.
Hence, there is no protection from the consequences of having exercised free speech.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Speaking of freedom of speech, is anyone concerned about yesterday's (2/26) ruling regarding net neutrality?
From their 2nd argument in favor of net neutrality:
" As of now there are no restrictions on Internet access unless specifically imposed by the government, and unwarranted government interference is a rare occurrence in democracies ".
You have to be kidding.
The details of net neutrality won't be coming out until this summer. Will there be restrictions of what website will be tolerated? Will the Rail Forum need a federal license (and pay a license fee) to exist? What about severe criticism of Amtrak? Would you be in trouble?
Richard
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Harris, from your immediate remarks, it would appear a clarification of intent is necessary.
Absent the independent contractor profiled by The Times disclosing any client proprietary information for which there would be exposure to civil liability, that contractor has not violated any laws, because Congress or any State cannot enact any such law, for sharing political views contrary to those held by the client. However, the client is free to contract with whatever party he wishes for services, and therefore the contractor has been adversely affected in the marketplace.
Hence, there is no protection from the consequences of having exercised free speech.
Clarification understood. I wasa thinking of the political side. That is some of the things we see of late where people express views contrary to the latest "politically correct" viewpoints they suffer serious consequences up to loss of job is simply wrong. However, if someone uses freedom of speech to justify publicly describing internal decisions of his employer as idiocy in great detail or reveals internal information, yes, that sort of stuff should have consequences.