Thursday, March 17, 2011

Dear Dr. Bill, You have said that I have misinterpreted

the First Amendment a couple of times recently, can you be more specific about what you mean, and where I go wrong? I understand it to mean you can think and say pretty much anything you like short of an overthrow of the US Government, advocating civil unrest or singling out a race for mistreatment. Heaven knows things are published that I`d prefer never see the light of day, and I`m not speaking politically here.

Rob

Reply 1 : Dear Dr. Bill, You have said that I have misinterpreted

http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6130_102-519820.html?messageId=5099949#message5100309

The point is that you are free to speak, within certain restrictions, without concern for persecution (eg: criminal penalties) on the part of the government. You are NOT Constitutionally protected from all consequences of your speech. When high level employees of a business embarrass their employer they should expect to be fired.

This is so basic that I think it astounding a would-be scholar should be unaware of it.

As an example, which includes information about specific cases, at least one of which is more-or-less similar to the present situation:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action. When considering private authority figures (such as parents or an employer), the First Amendment provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. "All may dismiss their employees at will,...for good cause, for no cause, or even for a cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong.

Further down:
... Pennsylvania courts rejected the Third Circuit's reasoning, "believing that you can't claim wrongful discharge under a provision of the Constitution unless you can show state action," which is impossible where the employer is a private enterprise

The Constitution ONLY protects speakers from the State. It does not protect them from their own poor judgment. There are exceptions, of course (an employer would be barred from firing an employee for refusal to commit a crime) but they are rather narrow.

Reply 2 : Dear Dr. Bill, You have said that I have misinterpreted

half of my brain. Having finished doing some other things I reviewed in my mind what Id posted to you and had gone quotation marks Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unquote, but it doesnt say anything about all speech being protected. Im sorry (Im also sorry my keyboard has reverted either to French or some other language because this is what I get for an apostrophe) I had a brain spasm of sorts. Of course workers are not necessarily protected.

I believe it protects speech in the open air as a private citizen, but not when youre speaking as and employee of either a government or a private concern.

All I can say that I have occasional hiccoughs just as I had when I was composing this
and couldnt rememeber apostrophe. Now I have to shut my computer down and hope that
corrects the French thing

Thank you Dr Bill, sorry for the temporary misunderstanding on my part.

Robrt

No comments:

Post a Comment