Many of us run blogs, or web logs, where we address various subjects, publish to the web, and invite others to participate.

Recently, news reports have been coming out about how you can be fired for what you post on a blog. I invite you to google on "blog free speech" to see what has been going on.

It seems that your right to free speech means that the free speech can also cost you your job, and thus your means to make a living. This isn't free speech as far as I can see. Sure, there are things you could publish that might hurt an employer's financial situation -- like confidential information. But, as you'll see from the news reports, an employer can fire you just because the blog is found to be offensive. I think this is going too far.

Question for debate:

Should the United States Congress pass a law that protects bloggers' freedom of speech rights by making it illegal to fire bloggers for what we post?

Please let us know what should be permitted in a blog and what should not.

Let me ask the same questions Walter Williams asks.



I come to the same conclusion as Dr. Williams



Do you have the right to quit a job due to your personal dislike of your employer's internet blog? Of course you do. Do you think you should have any restriction on the reasons you decide to discontinue working with a company or individual? My guess is probably no.

There is no constitutional guarantee that free speech will not have negative consequences. What the 1st prohibits (Well, before the McCain/ Feingold decision) is government restrictions on most speech. An employer should be able to hire and fire, in the absence of an employment contract, at will.

I would agree with Hobbes here. Sadly there are indeed people of such low caliber as to try and destroy those they disagree with or try to bend others to their will by threatening their being able to support their families. Any employer who would do so deserves the contempt they have earned.
I would hope Americans would respond in kind by completely destroying the business of someone like this and running them into the ground--They deserve no better.
In the case of a larger type of corporation and organized boycott to severly damage the business and in effect have the firing manager dumped on the street where his reputation should earn him the inability of finding a new job.

Sounds about right.

Hugo and Christopher,

I understand your arguments and am assuming both of you are against a federal law to protect the free speech of bloggers.

Okay, I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants absolute rights of employers over employees. Employment at will and firing at will aren't exactly the same things, as fired employees have successfully brought law suits against former employers based on federal law. Sexual and racial discrimination are the most commonly won cases.

I am okay with an employer restricting the use of company assets for blogging, but when it is done on the employee's own time and dime, and when the blogging does nothing to harm the company, then the employer should be restricted, by federal law, from doing an arbitrary firing.

The web has brought free public speech to more people than any other medium. Allowing this free speech to be intimidated by employers is giving employers too much power. I see where we need this protection now more than ever as blogs become readily accessible to the people.

We don't tolerate firing for sexual or racial reasons, nor should we tolerate firing for publishing thoughts, observations and ideas that do no harm to the employer.

I find myself in agreement with Hugo and Christopher. You have a right to free speech. You have no right to be free from any consequences leveled on you by private citizens for what you say.

Also, your right to free speech created no right to be heard, be published, be televised etc..

This issue is a bit odd to me. On one had, I find the companies that would do such a thing a detestable. I suggest a Blog that names these companies for all to see so that we can be sure not to let one of our personal dollars go to them.

On the other had, the internet is the easiest realm on the planet to speak out, try to make changed and do so anonymously or under an assumed name.

I post here daily, and I ocassionally update my Blog. I do both under the name of OverlandSailor, and not my real name because I am a Union Member, and many of my positions are counter to the Unions positions. A union can easily create a situation and caused you to loose your "Good Standing" status with the union. According to my contract with my employer, If I am not a member of the local IN GOOD STANDING the the employer is REQUIRED to terminate my employment.

I think the practice of employers firing people because they do not like the employees views that are posted on the employees blog is wrong from a moral, not to mention common sense point of view.

However, everyone has the ability to avoid this by simply avoiding putting their name on their site, that is if their ego will allow that, if not, they should blame their ego, as much as their employer for their newly achieved unemployed status.

Hey, Overlandsailor

Yep, and once again the argument goes to what is, not what should be.

Have we become so afraid of authority that we have let our most basic freedoms get compromised by the heavy hands and boots?

Why do we have to hide when we exercise our rights?

Once again:

Should the United States Congress pass a law that protects bloggers' freedom of speech rights by making it illegal to fire bloggers for what we post?

So, should we do this? Or are we too chicken.

My mistake there, having just finished working 15 hours on re-wiring the house my Mom just purchased I probably should NOT have being posting. I didn't even copy the question or directly answer it.



No we should not pass such a law. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequence for what you say when it comes to other PRIVATE citizens.



What freedom is compromised here? When have we ever had the freedom of consequence in regards to PRIVATE citizens?



We don't have to hide. So long as we are willing to face the potential fall out from the exercise of our right to free speech.

Why do employers not have the right to determine who they feel is best suited to work for them and who is not, based on that employees actions or opinions?

I may not agree with what employers have done here, but I believe they have every right to do it.

I have to come out from the woodwork and ask.. How does the 1st Amendment have anything to do with the private sector... Time and time again, especially on this board I see this being brought up about people's 1st Amendment rights being trampled and it ends up not having ANYTHING to do with federal government.

Are you really saying you want the 1st Amendment changed to include the private sector?

Sleeper,

I have to point out that the private sector is governed by law, just as we all are. I am proposing a federal law similar to laws that uphold civil rights.

Are you proposing that it is alright to fire someone for his or her race? His or her sex? Religion? These are all rights granted via Constitutional amendment and upheld by federal law.

So is free speech. As long as that speech does not harm the employer in a demonstratable manner, it should be made illegal to fire anyone exercising their free speech on their own time and dime.

Now someone give me a better reason not to do this other than employers have this right. I know. That's not the point -- employers should not have this right to take jobs away from people exercising free speech. That penalty is simply too much, and the ability to arbitrarily do this is granting too much power to employers.

How hard would it be to demonstrate harm? An employ runs a porno-graphic Blog, a Right-Wing Blog, a Pro Socialism Blog, whatever the case, it is a public forum and there are those in the public that will see this and if they discover the employee works at ABC company they will boycott that company because of their strong opposition to the employees positions.

The harm is the potential loss of sales due to the employer/ company being associated with publicly presented views that some in the public find offensive (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of those offended). Companies regularly seek to avoid public opinions on all subjects that do not directly relate to their business to avoid this sort of problem.

Would you extend this right further, and make it illegal for people to group together and promote boycotting companies who they feel support the wrong political ideology, or have employees that do?

AM, I hold the right of association to be a fundamental right. I also hold property rights to be fundamental. One of the most basic rights of man is to be able to choose who you associate with. I should be able to choose who I let in my private home and who I hire, and fire, in my private business.



Yes, I am. All laws prohibiting private discrimination should be repealed. Once again it comes down to the right of association. I am unaware of the Constitutional amendment that prohibits private discrimination. Everyone should have equal protection under the law. This means government should not discriminate.

1-We need language that states that your first amendment rights may not be infringed by the government or employer of a respective individual. The founders in their time could not have forseen a time when corporations would have enough power to rival the federal government itself. If you blog on your employer's time and dime, then by all means, you should be reprimanded or fired on the spot. If however, you do so on your own time, your employer should never have the right to dismiss you, unless what you type out qualifies as slander and that kind of thing. Then again, that's why we have courts, to settle issues sucha s that.

2.-I believe that what should be permitted is already covered by existing laws and the courts. If you've been wronged, there is a recourse, the issue is already setled on this in my opinion.

First I honestly thought I would agree with Hugo and OverlandSailor, but none of you can address a good point that Author Musician has set forth... what about civil rights parallel. If there truly is a freedom of association, then how is it that companies/corporations can be sued for firing some one on the basis of race or sex. Or not hiring on the same basis.

Now, Hugo believes this is O.K., but the courts do not and I disagree with Hugo, yet I do agree, I'll explain later. If we allow for mass market entities like corporations then we have to have regulation. I as a citizen need employment to sustain myself. To allow corporations to fire me simply because they do not like my views is de facto abridgement of my freedom of speech. Say my employer found out... Droop224 works for me. I don't like what he says to Hugo, I'll fire him. Oh, my bad for stating an opinion to the public that has nothing to do with my job or my work ethics.

Now let me clarify: Employer fires me due to the fact he finds out I'm Droop224 and am posting replies while I should be working!!!! Good to go, fire me!

Employer fires me due to the fact he finds out I'm Droop224 and he doesn't like my opinion.... this is very bad. but.... BUT the employer should be able to do it, but that should definately be terms for wrongful termination and that company should be held liable in a civil court.

In the end it is that person's company/corporation it is their right to fire, but there should be very extreme measures to discourage such behavior.

Imagine the world where a CEO can go to a board room and ask "how many people are democrats, anyone who raised their hand is dismissed!"

Imagine a world where a CEO who believes in strong family values saying "How many women here have kids?? Mothers should be home barefoot and butt-naked taking care of their kids... you are all FIRED!!"

Should the CEO/president/company owner be able to do this? Well, yes, but it should still be unlawful and the company should be civilly liable.

As I look at AM position I come to realize yes corporations should be able to fire people but it should be illegal. There are reasons I can't hit people I don't like in the mouth, even if most people agree withthe reasonings I am hitting them. There should be no measurable consequence to some one acting in a legal manner. But there should be a consequence to those who harm those acting in a legal manner.

No OS, sorry, but you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you truly belieeve in the things you say in your blog, you should be willing to sign your name to it, and take whatever consequences come your way, according to the first paragraph of yours above.

However, you don't do that. You hide behind a pseudonym, so that you don't have to face the consequences of your speech.

And while I'm here, let me ask you and Christopher and Hugo where it ends. A couple of weeks ago, we established that an employer can fire you for making unhealthy lifestyle choices like smoking even if you don't smoke anywhere but at home. That same employer is now contemplating the same employment options (or lack thereof) for those that are overweight and don't don't lose weight.

Last week, in Wisconsin, it was a guy that worked for a Miller Beer distributor, as a forklift operator. He was at a public function put on by the city where he lives. The local paper was there taking photos, and this guys picture happened to appear in the paper, with him holding a Bud Light. That was on a Saturday. He was fired on Monday for not making the "proper beverage choice".

Now we have people fired for expressing their views in their own journals, and on their own time.

So tell me guys, where does it end? When is enough, enough? How much ownership should a company have over you, when you are not on their time, or on their property? Or should we just all be willing to go back to the 1880's to 1920's, and all work for the "company master", live in the "company apartments", shop only at the "company store", and only speak when told to by the company? Because I swear, I think that's exactly where we're headed with this kind of garbage.

If you disagree, please point out to me where I'm wrong. Oh, sure, you can tell me I have a right to go and work for somebody else, but if this trend continues, there soon won't be anywhere else to go that isn't just as bad.

Where do I start? I'll start with this.



You have to have some respect for the free market. Employers who discriminate against employees, for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance, will suffer economically. The odds of someone rising to a CEO position who does not understand this is pretty low. If we eliminated all civil rights laws protecting races, gender and religious affiliation immediately the effect would be slight.



There was an important USSC decision that protected the NAACP from having to disclose their membership. Does this mean these members were cowards who refused to accept the consequences of their actions? No, I think they behaved quite rationally. It seems to me OS is behaving quite rationally also. Anonymity is a perfect option for someone whose blogging activity might prompt his employer to fire him.



Please, I could give the same slippery slope argument. If we restrict the right of an employer to fire internet bloggers should we also restrict their right to fire someone who uses his free speech to go cuss out the CEO and take a crap on his desk? We are not talking about giving the employer any new liberties here. An employer has always had the right to fire someone whose speech is not in the best interest of the company.

The fact is you should not lose your basic civil rights just because you become an employer. I consider the rights of association and the rights of property pretty basic.

So an employer shouldn't lose their basic civil rights but an employee should?? I would agree that an employer would lose their basic civil rights if the government prevented the firing of employees who were generally bad at their job, but firing someone who on their own time puts a sign in their yard or a sticker on their car is not a civil right. By allowing this, we would be reverting to a modern day form of feudalism. The lords(emoployers or upper-management) would keep the serfs(the rest of us) in line by regulating our daily behavior by dangling the potential of losing a steady check and health benefits before us. Of course the king and royalty(higher level poltiicians) would love this sisytem, since people would put their livelihoods and families above say....writing a controversial letter to the editor. The employer's property and right of association are respected in the working sphere, it's when the employer harasses or fires an employee for civic reasons that The right to operate a business is a civil right, the right to deny employment to minorities or fire people at a whim isn't.

Interesting point, but it begs a question. What kind of parents name their child NiteGuy

I am having my cake and eating it too. It's called making the most of your situation aka being rational.

You seem to be suggesting that my only choice is to blog under my real name or not blog, should I then assume you will be calling for the elimination of the secret ballot next election?

I choose to blog under the name OverlandSailor, rather then my real name because it is the only option I have. Even if you passed a law saying employers could not fire me for blogging I will still not be protected. The reason I would be fired is because I lost my good standing status from the union, and contractually my employer is required to fire me when that happens.

Also, my personal issue here is not with my employer but with my union. I do not think it would be politically possible to pass a law like this to prevent unions from "disciplining" their membership in this sort of manner so people like me would still have to deal with the reality that actions have consequences.



When you do something publicly, you have a chance of it negatively effecting you. That's life. And actions have consequences.

The reality is that these companies will receive such a backlash from bloggers alone that the negative press and the potential loss of sales will likely cause them and other companies to be very careful about such terminations in the future.



It's garbage alright, it's a strawman. Going back to what you are suggesting is impossible because the market no longer works that way. If a company created such a horrible work environment they would find that they were only able to employ the bottom of the barrel in the industry because anyone with any skill would seek employment with a competitor, or similar business.



Now, imagine the public reaction to this sort of outrage. Imagine to Boycott movements, the harassing phone calls, the loosing employees to competitors and the legal defense costs of all the wrongful termination suits.

Companies don't do this kind of think on a general basis (one or two crackpots here or there does not a trend, make) because it is effectively financial suicide and the stockholders would demand leadership change because of the falling profits.

The thing is, though, that if an employer does that, it's bad for his business. If an employer hires and fires based on job competence, then his business will have a competitive advantage over crazy bosses.

Imagine, for example, two hospitals. One of them hires and fires based on the competence of the doctors - the other hires and fires based on the employee's aggreement with the employer's right-wing bible-beating ideology. Which will succeed in the market? The hospital with professional doctors, or the hospital with creationist rednecks?

Once again let me state there is no right to speech free of consequences. I am the one arguing for maintaining the status quo on this issue. Employers currently have the right to fire someone due to an internet blog. I don't see this being greatly utilized. Let us take another association, that between husband and wife. Should I be protected from the consequences of free speech in my marriage? I tell the wife she looks a bit fat in that dress should the government insure I don't end up sleeping on the couch? I have had several jobs. Ultimately quit every one of them. I have only had one marriage. Is not my marriage more important than my job? Should my wife be able to leave me on a whim? Does her right of association trump my right to a happy marriage. Is a happy marriage a right? Is a job a right?

No, neither a marriage or a job is a right. In both my marriage and my job speech can have negative consequences. Property rights are basic. I should have a right to who I choose to best utilize my assets. The right of association is basic. I should have the right to leave my job for any reason whatever. My employer should have the same right to terminate me for any reason.

No, neither a marriage or a job is a right.

Not sure where the logic goes on this, Hugo. Your right to get married is protected by law, and that's what I'm arguing here -- free speech needs protection by law. Think you're getting "right" and "entitlement" confused.

It is true that nobody can approach an employer and demand a job. Well, you can, but you probably won't get it -- unless related to the employer in some way, and you have leverage. "Listen here, Dad, I'll tell Mom on you unless . . ."

Regarding the right to association, the employer hired the employee. That was the exercising of this right [sidebar: what part of the Constitution gives this right?]. Most outfits have a kind of contract that's called a job description. Certain skills, abilities and talents are outlined for doing the job. There might be a catch-all thing about duties as assigned, but let's keep this simple.

The association is that the employer will pay x amount of bucks for services rendered. A certain level of behavior is expected while on the job, and if the employee does something outside the job that is illegal, then the association could be terminated. Otherwise, if law isn't involved, this can become an arbitarary situation.

You got fired because the employer doesn't like how you drive your car, although your driving is perfectly legal and does not harm the company. Maybe you follow the speed limits. Or you got fired because the boss was ticked at the stock price. I hope you can see how this employer right of association can be easily used to strip an employee of his or her rights.

Certainly the exercising of free speech can potentially harm an employer. However, exercising free speech should never be considered a threat to an employer all the time. This eliminates free speech as a right, and that's wrong.

I know people have become generally silent in the work place, due to the fear of saying something wrong. Don't see how this benefits employers at all.

Think we're covered by state law on this one. In Colorado, if an employee gets fired for reasons not stated in a document available to the employee, then a law suit can follow -- and be won. Part of the reason Colorado has done this is a history of employers trying to wiggle out of unemployment comp -- it wasn't a firing -- it was a layoff.

I'm arguing for a similar thing to be done on the federal level, being as freedom of speech is a federal right.

I am not against firing for reasons that actually harm the employer. It would be fair if the employer were required to do a policy on what free speech might be harmful, and that is the case in this state (pretty sure). It ought to be a national thing. That way, when employer and employee start the association, both know what's expected.

That's a good way to start either a marriage or a job.

Yes, indeed. If you do something publicly, you have a chance of it affecting you. I don't disagree with that. If you write a blog, and someone disagrees with your stances, you risk losing readership from some. Maybe you even get some nasty comments. If you are not directly denigrating your company though, or producing material that could be seen in anyway as reflecting badly on your company if discovered (no porn, etc), then what gives the business the right to fire you based on your political leanings, or whatever?


Apparently, it's not impossible, though. We are seeing this kind of stuff more and more. A woman before the elections who was fired for not removing a pro-Kerry bumper sticker from her car (we debated that one right here in AD). The no-smoking company from a couple of weeks ago. The Miller Beer guy, I just mentioned in my last post. The blogging example. Stories from years past, where Coke employees are fired for being caught drinking Pepsi, or even eating at establishments that Pepsi owns (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, etc.).

My point is, that right now, you may find a backlash against some of the smaller companies for this kind of behavior. But that may not last, as long as some companies are seen as getting away with it, I think that more will try. And the more that succeed, the more onerous it will become. And what about the larger companies, where a few disgruntled boycotting customers and terminated employees may be seen as a rather small drop in a very big bucket?

As you say, right now it may be a strawman, because of the limited (but growing) instances. But every time a company is seen to get away with something, you can bet that others will follow suit.

"They fired their employees for smoking, even at home, because of stated insurance costs? Hey, let's have everyone in our company take screenings for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes. If they don't get it under control in 3 months, axe them. And if we see them eating at McDonalds, or that diabetic eats a candy bar, kick them to the curb. After all, their "lifestyle choices" will only lead to higher healthcare costs for us too."

"They fired a woman for having a pro-Kerry bumper sticker on her car in their parking lot? Great. Shows initiative. After all voting for those damned liberals is a vote against the interests of this company. If you see someone at a Democratic rally, or hear someone speaking out against the Republicans, fire them too. They are hurting our business."

See, you and Hugo call this a slippery-slope argument. But we're already seeing the slope, in my opinion. It may be rather gentle, so far. But it has the potential for getting a lot steeper, in a rather big hurry. The more and more companies get away with the baby slopes, the easier it is to be willing to tackle the slalom and downhill courses.

All in the name of employer and free association rights, of course.

Sorry, all of this strikes a little too close to home right now. My wife and daughter were both terminated jobs in a hotel they work for in town. When the new owners came in, they promised no changes past the new GM and Food and Beverage director. Then, five minutes before my wife was due to go home the next night, they fire her, not because she was management, but because she was on salary as an admin assistant, working for the sales, catering and restaurant managers. They ended up firing everone, with the exception of two sales managers, that were on salary.

Hey, I'm a GM for a different hotel, and my wife's been in this business long enough to know that that's how things go. But then they fired my daughter two days later. Not because she's on salary, she's not. She worked the front desk, part time. Maybe 16-20 hours a week total. No, they fired her because they were afraid that she might bad mouth or retaliate against the new ownwership in some way for firing her mother. Not because she had done so, mind you, because she hadn't even been back to work yet. But just because they thought she might. So now, this company gets to decide that they are going to retain employees or not, based not on performance, but on what they think (rightly or wrongly) may be in an employees mind. Slippery slope, indeed.

Again, I ask you, and Hugo. Where do you draw the line? There must be some point where even the two of you say "that's enough. This far, no farther". What is that line for you?

The right to free speech is a guarantee not to be prosecuted under the law for voicing your opinion. There is no right to free speech without consequence, nor should there be. People need to understand that with freedom of speech comes responsibility. So, currently your employer can fire you, but they can't sue you for what you post on a blog.

To create a federal law protecting employees from being fired based on freedom of speech would cause lots of problems. If it occurred, you would be able to call your boss at his home from your home, call him any assortment of bad names, tell him he can't do his job and that he likes to have sex with animals without any sort of consequences for that behavior. Why? Because that speech would now be protected under law to the point that he wouldn't be able to fire you. This makes no sense.

The protections of free speech that we have today are important. It is meant to protect us from being legally prosecuted for our opinions. It does not mean, nor should it mean we can say whatever we want, anytime we want, without consequence.

Most companies have a policies and procedures manual as well. In most company manuals there is a section that describes bringing discredit on the company (quite similar to the Bringing discredit on the service clause in the military's UCMJ).

I will agree with you that employers should cover this in the policies and procedures manual, and I will agree that if they do not then there are reasonable grounds for a wrongful termination suit. However, I have never worked for an employer who did not have something in regard to making the company look bad publicly in their P&P.



It can become arbitrary, however the guide is the documents put forward by the company. Their expected code of conduct, their policies and procedures manual, etc. If, these documents do not exist or are cryptic in nature then the employee can seek to have the issue "arbitrated" by a judge in civil court.



OK, let's say I work for an Alarm Company (Which I do) and let's say that I start a blog on Breaking and Entering Techniques and put my name on it (which I did not). CLEARLY my association with the company and that blog could be cause for some to choose another company to do business with.

Let's say I am a business councilor, and let's say my blog covers my beliefs and support of conspiracy theories, black helicopters, etc. and I my name is publicly available on the site. Would not my involvement cause some to consider other companies for their business.

When I worked as a Private Investigator in New Jersey, I was a vocal Republican at the time (which I certainly am not anymore). Law Firms were one on my major sources of work. However, most law firms, at least in NJ, were very politically involved, some were Democrat supporters, some were Republican supporters. I could not get work from any of the Law Firms that were Democratic supporters because of my public support of the Republicans at the time. Should they have been allowed to do that? Can they not choose to put their money where they wish? Should we also restrict sites like Buy Blue?

This is something that is a major issue for me when it comes to our country these days. NO ONE wants to accept that their actions have consequences. If you march in a protest against nuclear power, and you work for a company that sells to nuclear plants or one of the plants themselves, you should expect that your job would be forfeit if this is discovered.

You ask, where do employers get the right of freedom of association in the Constitution? Well, where do employees get the right to employment in the constitution?

As a Centrist, should I be forced to continue to employ some left wing or right wing nut ball for my home improvements? Why is it not my right to choose how I spend my money?



If those political leanings effect the company they have every right. If you write about the need for massive increases in environmental regulations and standards, and your name is publicly attached to that blog, and you work for a company that sells supplies to big industry, your blog could hurt the company by associating your environmental views with them because you work there. Some plants might take offense to the way you portray industry in general and then choose to seek another supplier as they are not willing to put their money in a company that supports such actions. Where is the difference between this and Buy Blue?



I could be wrong, or maybe I was unclear when I posted, or maybe you are confusing me with someone else, but I don't think I ever put forward the slippery-slope argument. I don't see why it is necessary, I feel limiting employers in this manner is wrong on it's own.



That is always the difference in politics isn't it? Where is the line drawn.

The line for me is simple. If your action could bring discredit on the company and could result in loss of sales / profits due to citizen boycotts, or businesses choosing to take their money elsewhere, then your employer should have the right to terminate you.

Why is it that there is no responsiblity placed on the employee? No one forced the employee to take the job, no one forced the employee to start a blog, no one forced the employee to disclose their true identity on that blog.

The employee chose to do all of these things, one choice conflicted with another ad the result was the loose of their job. Why is this the employer's and not the employee's problem / fault?

If the employee was a neo-nazi who publicly marched with the KKK, would we question the termination? If the employee worked for Air America and ran a blog with their name attached where they publicly blasted liberal ideas, would we be surprized if they got fired? If the employee worked for a security company and publicly advocated PETA's / ELF's breaking and Entering and Arson tactics would we be surprized that the employee was fired?

What about a different perspective. A Student at a university is a skinhead who publicly denounces all races other then white people in the courtyards. Are we surprized or up in arms when they are kicked out of that college?

I think we should be outraged, just as we should be outraged about any employer that fires an employee because they supported Kerry rather then Bush, or marched in a rally demanding tighter corporate controls. But it is up to the public to make their outrage heard through their collective wallets, it is not up to the government to abridge the freedoms of one party to favor another.

OLS,

I think we're in basic agreement on how employee free speech should be protected, perhaps in disagreement that this freedom ought to be protected at the federal level. Right now I do believe whatever protections exist are at the state level.

Regarding the Constitution and the two rights given above, I guess the answer is that neither right is guaranteed. Freedom of speech is, so there you go. How can a right not guaranteed in the Constitution trump one that is?

The granting of a job to a prospective employee is a lot more important than simply shooting a round of golf with business buds. There's a power relationship here, with the employee getting the short side of it.

So let's use my blog as an example. I write mostly about street music and music in general. I work as a subcontractor in telecommunications, so the relationship between job and blog could not be more distant. Well, you can use computers with music -- that's about it. Oh, and there are online services like CD burning. Okay, some pretty shaky connections. However, I own the computer and pay for the broadband, so no connection there. I blog on my own time too, and actually put in a lot more hours for the client than what gets charged. That's my own thing, a little added value. In return, the client grants comp time when its needed, like for dentist appointments.

Now let's say Verizon buys MCI (the bid has been made and published in WSJ), and say Verizon does the wise move of hiring me on as a regular employee. Let's say also that I have to sign the non-compete agreement that says, to the effect, that I can't blog on the relative strengths and weaknesses of telecom companies, putting Verizon in a bad light.

Okay, now say the wise boss who hired me on gets reorged away, and I get someone who has had nothing but bad times with employees who also do music. The boss finds out about my blog and activities as a street musician. Bam! I'm fired.

I'd sue in Colorado and likely win, but in Michigan? Would I have that option? Other states? Here's the weakness I see by not having free speech protected in federal law.

Meanwhile, citizens who might want to do a blog on something similarly distant from the employer could be scared away from doing so. I see that as a clear violation of the First Amendment, and a form of mild slavery. You want to work, then stay silent.

Even if you want to blog about street music. That's what I see as wrong.

For those who have drawn all sorts of scenarios that would hurt an employer, including the midnight call -- I'm in agreement, but I also think these scenarios are already covered by law, and universally.

I'm also in agreement that the exercising of rights can carry consequences. It's a matter of appropriate consequences versus inappropriate.

If I ever get fired from the telecom industry because I run a street music blog, that constitutes an inappropriate firing. The two activities are not connected unless one stretches the mind thin to the snapping point.

Seems to me that doing stretches like this has become a fad. That's scary.

Please, no further bastardizing of the Constitution. The authors of the constitution were heavily influenced by natural law theory. To be honest I doubt if they could imagine the infringement on freedom of association and property rights that goes on today. Freedom of association and private property rights were viewed as fundamental rights of man. Our Supreme Court has found rights of association in the Constitution, much like they have found the right to privacy. The right to be protected from non-governmental consequences emanating from speech is not a constitutional right. I am fighting for the employer to be able to say the words "You're fired." It seems some people wish to limit an employer's free speech in this area.

The Bill of Rights was written to specifically limit the powers of the federal government.



I think Chief Justice Warren understood that freedom of association is protected by the Constitution.

By this analogy, it could be argued that by protesting in public, you don't have protection from the "consequences" of being pelted with eggs or being assaulted by police or citizens who oppose your view point. Of course, such activity is not allowed and that kind of "consequence" is not something that is tolerated in our soceity, as the police try and do their best to make sure that protesters are not violently attacked, as many a skinhead an klan member can attest. By allowing negative "consequences" we are allowing a chilling effect on the first amendment, and allow it to shrink when it needs to shine most, when unpopular views are aired.



Perhaps so, but the frequency of this kind of thing does not take away from the fact that it is wrong in nature. If only five African-Americans are prevented from eating at a Denny's restaurant, is that more tolerable than say fifty? Where is that cut off line between "o.k." and " not o.k." in this reasoning?

I can see where hugo and overlandsailor are coming from on this issue. But I would probe the structure of what a business is, compared to what a citizen is. A business, whether publicly traded or not, is granted its operating parameters by the people of the state, through the tool we call government. A business is necessarily something which bridges the gap between the private and public sectors of society. As such (the misinterpretation of the Santa Clara case notwithstanding), a business as an entity should not be afforded the same rights as a citizen.

The problem I have with hugo's interpretation of the freedom of association is that it is ultimately saying that rights are only available to those who can afford them. Of course, the "founding fathers" who wrote the Constitution intended exactly that - "rights" were for landed white gentry. Somewhere along the way, thankfully, we fought many battles in order to change that so that these "inalienable" rights were not dependent upon one's ability to pay for them.

The idea that the market, left to its own devices, will sort this out correctly, is demonstrably false. The market will only "correct" business practices to conform with the prevailing cultural paradigms, whether those happen to include exploitations like slavery, or not.

We all have freedom of association. The owner of a business can hang out with whomever she wants. She can go home and blog all night about the scourge of minorities destroying our nation. So can the employee. But the business itself transcends the private sphere and becomes a part of the social contract we all share. As citizens of the states, we absolutely have the right to decide what restrictions might be contained in a company's charter. I just don't buy the idea that everything we own automatically becomes an extension of our rights as citizens. If we own property, for example, even under a libertarian ideal, our rights concerning that property are limited by how what we do with that property might encroach on others' rights. I see businesses the same way. They have the right to control how their employees act while on the job, but not what they do while on their own property, on their own time. If property rights are supreme, as hugo often says, then why would a business owner be able to dictate what an employee does on his own property?

It's not that an employee has the "right" to their employment. That's a red herring. It's that employers don't have the right to base their employment contracts on how another citizen exercises their own basic rights while not on the employer's property.

All that said, I can see both sides of this issue. Overlandsailor has provided us with some provocative hypotheticals which are quite compelling.

This does not fit the analogy. "Pelting [someone] with eggs" constitutes assault. Assault being an illegal act, whereas terminating someone's employment is not illegal.



By not allowing negative consequences we are limiting the rights on one in favor of another. Does this not have an equally chilling effect? Are we not saying that as employers you no longer have the right of freedom of association and freedom of speech?

Employers currently have the right to fire someone due to an internet blog. I don't see this being greatly utilized.


Racial discrimination is illegal, as is clear in the Civil Rights Act. However, since I had family working at Denny's at the time I can tell you that the Company did not just face lawsuits on these issues, it faced enormous pressure from citizen groups in the form of protests, boycotts and the like. The company became hypersensitive to the issue and constantly hammered policy after policy to correct this issue down the line to all of it's employees. I good example of market correction in action.



First, and I would suspect Hugo would hold even stronger beliefs on this then I do, I don't feel the government should be involved in allowing a business to operate through licensing and such, unless the business is something that puts the lives of consumers at risk, like a doctor, an electrician, etc. Secondly, the supreme court has granted "personhood" in the sense of rights to businesses on numerous occassions starting in the 1800s. A list of such cases can be found Here.



I understand your point, but this is not really true in or society. First, as a former employer myself I'd like to point out that many employers can less afford the legal fight for their rights then their employees can. These are really the employers I want to protect because the big corporations with their human resource experts and corporate attorneys will figure out how to word someones termination to protect themselves, while the small business man/woman do not have these experts at their disposal. Secondly, where in our society do we see that people have the ability to fight for their rights withoutsomeone having the ability to afford the fight? Without the ACLU, countless legal cases would have never been fought and won in regards to rights because people could not afford the cost of fighting them. The ACLU being a private non-government institution.



Until it becomes public knowledge then the boycotts, lost sales come at the company full force. Futhermore, if the company is publically traded the stockholders would demand the removal of such a leader.



And this "right' can be found where? Why do we have this right over an employer simply because this person chooses to pay people to do a job, and give them employee status as well as various other benefits? How many more people would loose their employee status, to contractor (1099) status if we began to dictate what employers can require of employees to this extreme?



If the employee's actions can result in lost business and are in violation of the companies policy and procedure manual, employee handbook, code of conduct, etc that the employee had to sign off on when hired then the employer has every right to fire the employee for these actions that damage the employers property (in the sense of lost business and image) and the employee was aware this could happen because they agreed with the company P&P and other documents as they clearly "stated" when they signed of on them on their first day after being hired.



So again. I hire a man to mow my lawn weekly. He turns out to be a right wing nut ball. Am I required to continue use him instead of hiring someone else? Why is it how I spend my money is not protected?



Just not quite compelling enough I guess.

I like this debate because it highlights the real constitutional crisis, and actually crisis of freedom world wide. Corporations are now far more powerful than our own federal goverment- so it is probably high time we established a bill of rights specifically enumerating individual rights and limiting corporate rights, and providing punishment to corporations and thier officers that violate those rights

So again. I hire a man to mow my lawn weekly. He turns out to be a right wing nut ball. Am I required to continue use him instead of hiring someone else? Why is it how I spend my money is not protected?

OLS, this begs the question of why you would fire the guy. Bad mow job? Or anything about what you're paying him to do? Is he dangerous in some way?

Just curious.

It's not a right that comes from somewhere. Corporate charters are drawn up by the state. The "state" is the tool its citizen use to establish the parameters of their society.

I understand that corporations are treated as citizens, and how it happened. It was a clear case of judicial activism for the benefit of very powerful corporations during the 'robber baron' years after the Civil War. Corporations are not mentioned once in our Constitution, even though they did already exist. If Jefferson and company (no pun intended) wanted to enumerate the rights of businesses they could have easily done so.



Right, but the kind of harsh reading of freedom of association we are talking about undermines the Civil Rights Act, because if the business has an absolute right of association, the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. The actions of consumers you describe is admirable, but history reveals that the corporate sector has needed to be corrected by adjusting the parameters of their charters, not just by the market itself. Perhaps objectivists like hugo believe that, given enough time, such things as the emancipation proclamation and the Civil Rights Act would be unnecessary, because the market would have adjusted. We'll never really know. We do know that the market did not adjust on its own to the emancipation of slaves for 100 years , and was finally forced to by the Civil Rights Act (and its ilk). If the market itself couldn't correct something as obvious as racial discrimination, why should it correct these lesser, more subtle matters in any kind of timely fashion?



I really do understand your point here, but I disagree. Even if the market eventually "corrects" a businessman who sets up a false insurance company, it likely won't stop that company from bilking plenty of people out of their money. I still contend that a business is unique in that, even if it is a sole proprietorship, it is an entity which reaches from the private sector (the businesswoman's ideas and actions), into the public sphere of citizens interacting. Even if you are correct in believing that licensing is largely unnecessary, the fact is that businesses are chartered by the states, and as such, are entities whose existence is defined and suffered by the people of that state. In this election, the people of several states decided that because marriage is a contract in the eyes of the state, the people had a right to decide that it could be limited to a man and a woman. As long as businesses are licensed by the state, shouldn't the people of that state have the right to define the parameters of that license?



In our country, while we have become more egalitarian in many ways, freedoms and "equality under the law" are still stratified by economic status. Poor people are incarcerated and punished far more often and more harshly than rich people. Money does buy freedoms which the poor cannot purchase. I would like to see this ended.



I am not advocating this level of protection.



I am sorry, but you're right.

Let me explain how unlimited freedom of association would have established civil rights. Does anyone remember the era of Jim Crow? It was Jim Crow laws that kept the races separate. Individuals of different races could not marry. You could be thrown in jail from drinking from the wrong water fountain we had schools established by local governments that were "separate but equal".

The fact is it was government ignoring rights of association that extended the suffering of black Americans. Loving vs. Virginia established freedom of association for couples wishing to marry. Brown vs. Board of Education prevented states and local governments from establishing separate education facilities that conflicted with the right of association. Slavery itself, while clearly constitutional at the time, was the greatest violation of rights of association. Imagine being forced to work for an employer for life. Nothing was ever a greater violation of the right of association than the institution of slavery. Most of the USSC decisions made documenting rights of association were in defense of the civil rights movement

IMO, there are certain natural rights that no government should infringe upon. When they are infringed upon they threaten all our liberties. Blacks were enslaved in this country for 250 years due to an improper respect for the freedom of association. In this case an employee was tied to his employer. The natural condition is for men to be able to freely negotiate the terms of a labor contract, rather they be the employer or the employee. Yes, Quark, given proper respect for freedom of association the Emancipation Proclamation would not have been needed, slavery would not have existed.

Let us take a gander at this



Would you really have wished the state of Alabama to be able to shut down the NAACP in that state because as Quark asserts "corporate charters are drawn up by the state"?

Internet bloggers have the same option that the NAACP membership in Alabama in 1958 had...the right to remain anonymous.

I am fighting for the employer to be able to say the words "You're fired." It seems some people wish to limit an employer's free speech in this area.

- Hugo

Okay, fine. But the employee getting fired also has the right to say the words "I'll sue the pants off your outfit due to wrongful termination" in some states. This right needs to be made available nation-wide to protect our freedom of speech.

Here's an interesting web site regarding this and other freedoms we have and need to preserve:

Find Law, Constitution

A quote from James Madison (Father of the Constitution):



That's pretty clear. Now consider blogging as a form of journalism. It is not only free speech, but freedom of the press that we're talking about here.

Taking away a person's ability to make a living is pretty serious stuff, and if employers are allowed to do this for no good reason, then I have to say again that this is simply wrong. One bad reason is punishing an employee for having a blog that causes no harm to the employer.

And that is where we disagree. Those state laws interfering with employer/employee contracts should be eliminated. Problems with an evil corporation ? Guess what I strongly support your freedom of association in forming a union.



You really need to take that Madison quote in context. I have yet to see any rational assertion that the 1st Amendment prohibits private consequences emanting from your speech. We have been over this.

Let me repeat, and expand upon, my earlier argument. Legally I can tell my wife "You look kind of fat in that dress." Legally, I can tell my wife "That gal next door sure is hot." Legally I can tell my Roman Catholic wife "That Pope sure is a moron." I am protected from any legal consequences from my speaking freely. However, divorce laws are pretty darn leniant. She can legally call up a lawyer and I will suffer consequeces from my free speech. Now, I hold my marriage to be much more important than any job I have ever had. I can always get another job. Not sure if I could find another woman to put up with me. Would you insist the federal government get involved and restrict an individuals freedom of association to leave a spouse who annoyed them with their free speech?

Maybe the guy does a fantastic job. However, I disagree with the man's politics to the point that I do not wish to continue the arrangement. Simply put, I do not put my money into companies, people, things I don't agree with. The only exception to this is my union dues going to support candidates and political groups I personally do not support, because I have to accept that, because I have to pay those dues, to keep my union status, to keep my job.

Why is it wrong for me to desire to put my money where my mouth is?

Right, but then you support the employers right to fire me if I try to start a union.... It's like Bloockbuster v. the neighborhood video store. They have the money and time to wait you at.



O.K. In the same token if you go to work and call your boss fat, you should be fired... If you go to work and tell your boss at miller that you would rather work at Budweiser, you should be fired. If you tell your catholic boss, the pope is a moron... you should be warned, but hey it is still inappropriate talk at a workplace. I think most people here would agree to that. Do you think people are actually arguing that you should be able to say whatever you want to your boss and not get fired??
Because what I am hearing is that it would be wrong for a boss to discriminate based on things outside of work, that don't deal with work. You want all the power to be with the employer in some mad hopes that the market will "take care of itself"

And you can say how much more important a wife is than a job, but like my 6th grade teacher Mrs Pace told us, "romance without finance is a nuisance"

And basically what is being asked is to avoid the stifling of free speech SHOULD we make laws that make it illegal for employers to fire you because on your own website you besmirch Bush or Kerry. You want to allow the employer to punish with impunity, with no regards hiding behind some wall of "freedom to associate".
As Quark points out if the be all, end all, is the right of an employer to hire and fire why aren't anti-discrimination laws found unconstitutional??



Well if you have established that he will work on your yard until the end of the year and you fire him because he had a John Kerry sign in his yard, I think he has a good case to take you to court and sue you. If you pay prior to his service, like a subscription I think you should be able to say I don't want to pay. But I think there is a difference between not subscribing to a service and longer and firing an employee

Whoa, AuthorMusician, hold up there! I'm not sure I can grant your premise that blogging is a form of journalism. There are bloggers who do journalism and there are journalists who blog, but to call blogging another form of journalism is something I'm not sure I agree with.

Too many bloggers offer opinion as if it were fact and with no compunction to offer anything resembling balance, fairness or objectivity. For example, perhaps the best known blogger on the net is Matt Drudge. Look at his lead story today and tell me where the journalism is.


OSCAR HOST CHRIS ROCK SHOCK: ABORTION IN AMERICA IS 'BEAUTIFUL'

Shock Oscar host Chris Rock recently declared that abortion in the United States is a "beautiful thing!"

"Abortion, it's beautiful, it's beautiful abortion is legal. I love going to an abortion rally to pick up women, cause you know they are f**king," Rock said during his club routine.

Veteran members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have grown concerned over the choice of Chris Rock to represent the Academy before a worldwide audience, well-placed insiders claim.

"This is not who we are," said one top source from Los Angeles.

During a recent rant, Rock blasted heartland Americans.

"Weird white guys getting overly patriotic, with their f**king flag hats on," Rock said.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cr1.htm

"Blasted heartland Americans?" Chris Rock is a COMEDIAN. This is what he does for heaven's sake! He uses the F-word, he insults white folks, black folks, gay folks and straight folks. Matt Drudge is a freaking idiot who is setting himself up as some kind of judge of morality, but he's a little late with this "news." Drudge mentions that Rock made some of his remarks in an Entertainment Weekly article, but neglects to mention Rock said this three weeks ago.

Maybe "heartland Americans" should be ticked off at Jeff Foxworthy for his "You Might Be A Redneck If...." jokes? In Drudge's nutty world, maybe so.

I don't see hacks like Drudge as journalists. I see him as a partisans peddling a distinct point of view. There's a place for people like that and they're called columnists and you find them Op-Ed pages of newspapers. That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of bloggers who don't take their forum seriously and try to get their facts straight before rushing to their computer. There just seems to be lot who don't.

As it presently stands there is no reason to broaden the rights of free speech to protect bloggers. Over time people learned to discern a difference in the way the New York Times and Wall Street Journal practice the profession of journalism and how The National Enquirer does it. I want to see that same kind of defining begin to occur in the practice of blogging before new rights and protections are extended to bloggers.

Actually, my example was that he was a right wing nut, but that is really irrelevant. So then you're saying if money changes hands, then freedom of association is forfeit?



Well, considering how many "journalists" inject opinions and leanings into supposed news stories, it would appear to me that most bloggers are at least acting like "journalists" whereas the ones that actually show integrity and follow some standards are more like dinosaurs.

Should the United States Congress pass a law that protects bloggers' freedom of speech rights by making it illegal to fire bloggers for what we post?

Please let us know what should be permitted in a blog and what should not.

Yes. I think there should be an exception to such a rule however, if the bloggers reports mention his employer.

For the average person running a blog OS, I don't think that a company has any right to fire someone based on their political leanings. In my opinion it is about reach. The average person has a small readership and really shouldn't be considered a threat to the company. The chances of some competitor, industry player or media person finding your blog and connecting it with your company so that the company's image could be tarnished is small. If you were just a rank and file employee the person that found you would also have a hard time making a case that your views represented the company in the first place.

The difference between joe blogger who keeps a political blog and something like BuyBlue is that BuyBlue isn't a personal blog (it is a non-profit corporation) and the average blogger hasn't had his name published in almost every major newspaper in the country in connection with their blog. I'm not talking up our site or anything but that is the difference.

Now in my case I fully expect that someday I might face repercussions with my employer for my part in all of this, but I'll worry about that when it happens - in fact I'm planning for it. However, a personal blog isn't even in the same ballpark and the people that keep them really shouldn't have anything to fear. If they want to write about how good or bad of a job Bush is doing with their spare time outside of work hours it really shouldn't matter.

In my opinion the only time I would find it acceptable for someone to be fired for their blog is if they were divulging company secrets or if they were engaging in something illegal. Almost all companies have rules against those things. They do not however have rules against having an opinion about the world around you and to be fired for that is a pretty scary thought.

Sounds like Mrs. Pace was pretty materialistic. It is sad when I have to defend why a marriage is more important than a job. I thought conservatives were the materialistic ones.

The fact is a wife can leave her husband because the color of their car is blue. An employee can leave his employer because the color of his car is blue. My wife can leave me because I blog on the internet that Pepsi is superior to Coke. I can leave my employer because I don't like the color of the urinals in the men's room.

There are certain fundamental rights that government should seldom infringe upon. The rights of association and rights of property are two of them. If we had prohibited infringement on rights of association in 1600 slavery would never have existed.

That's a rather broad, sweeping generalization Overlandsailor but it does aptly demonstrate the distinction between a trained journalist and someone who has a web page and a opinion.

You mistake my skepticism of digital "journalists" for condemnation. I'm not opposed to a wide spectrum of opinions and views that have been traditionally shut out by mainstream publications. I don't want more gatekeepers. I want less.

But don't kid yourself that bloggers are somehow "purer" than someone who took Journalism 101 and decided to pursue it as a career. Don't denigrate what a professional journalist does by presuming having something to say and a web space to say it on puts you on the same plateau as somebody that's been at it for years.

I go to bloggers for a perspective. I go elsewhere for the facts.

I do not believe so. As people have said before, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

But putting that aside, I think that such legislation would be deeply unfair unless it worked both ways. If you think risking one's livelyhood for one's free speech is bad, you should be utterly outraged that a particular class of people's speech could be considered special. But that's exactly what would happen.

The "speech" of an employer will be fair game, while the employees speech will be off limit