Racists Getting Fired - Racism on Social Media

[me662ll a]

Do YOU even know what freedom of speech is and what is and isn't protected by the constitution?

I do, and anyone with half a brain can see that you clearly don't. 

 

You don't have to agree with what a person says, but you have to defend their right to say it, because it is also your right. 

 

[HEATHEN]

I do, and anyone with half a brain can see that you clearly don't. 

Yeah your idea of freedom of speech is a no-holds barred world of people saying whatever the **** they want to say without being held accountable.


But in OUR world, in THIS country. Libelous and explicitly profane speech used to degrade a person or a group of persons is NOT protected by the constitution.


So yeah, kick rocks homie with your ********. Too early in the morning for that nonsense.

 

[ccastro02]

I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. Obviously, you have the right to publicly post what ever you'd like. No one is going to throw you in jail, nor should you be in fear for your life. However, your employer also has the right to be made aware of your actions outside of the work place & your employer also has the right to fire an employee based on said actions. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

 

[me662ll a]

Yeah your idea of freedom of speech is a no-holds barred world of people saying whatever the **** they want to say without being held accountable.

If it isn't at work, and doesn't affect performance I don't care what they say.

But to say that certain things should be punishable is the exact opposite of free speech and you know it. 

But in OUR world, in THIS country. Libelous and explicitly profane speech used to degrade a person or a group of persons is NOT protected by the constitution.

Actually it is. You see all those public KKK meetings, or gay/transexual slander groups protesting funerals and ****, and not getting arrested?

Freedom of speech. 

 

[HEATHEN]

I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. Obviously, you have the right to publicly post what ever you'd like. No one is going to throw you in jail, nor should you be in fear for your life. However, your employer also has the right to be made aware of your actions outside of the work place & your employer also has the right to fire an employee based on said actions. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Eh, it's subjective.


An employer has rights to terminate an employee if said employee is spreading libel and hate speech.


But if an employee is expressing an unpopular opinion but is not trying to incite or provoke others, they don't have that right.


Company policy does not supersede the constitution, and employer can't just go firing folks unless they ACTUALLY have the right to do so.

 

[HEATHEN]

If it isn't at work, and doesn't affect performance I don't care what they say.

But to say that certain things should be punishable is the exact opposite of free speech and you know it. 

I'm done with you. If you don't understand that we have a constitution and libelous, hate speech or fighting words are IN FACT not protected by our constitution then why are we talking?


I might as well be talking to a box of rocks.


If you've got an issue with our constitution go take it up with Congress or someone who actually gives a ****, but for the purposes of this discussion it holds absolutely no water that you don't agree with the constitutional limits on freedom of speech.

 

[me662ll a]

Stop acting like a cry baby and a little kid. The constitution doesn't need to specify what is and isn't covered, because it's all covered, under the 1st amendment. 

You seem to have a problem with free speech, why is that?

 

[ccastro02]

I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech. Obviously, you have the right to publicly post what ever you'd like. No one is going to throw you in jail, nor should you be in fear for your life. However, your employer also has the right to be made aware of your actions outside of the work place & your employer also has the right to fire an employee based on said actions. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Eh, it's subjective.


An employer has rights to terminate an employee if said employee is spreading libel and hate speech.


But if an employee is expressing an unpopular opinion but is not trying to incite or provoke others, they don't have that right.


Company policy does not supersede the constitution, and employer can't just go firing folks unless they ACTUALLY have the right to do so.

An employee can fired at will for any reason at the sole discretion of the employer so long as it doesn't violate the following labor laws:

1- Discrimination: The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
2- Retaliation: An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. In the United States, this "retaliation" is forbidden under civil rights law.
3- Employee's refusal to commit an illegal act: An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
4- Employer is not following own termination procedures: Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

 

[dathbgboy]

How many of your realize that there code of ethics and morality in most companies? Does not some things said violate those codes?

And it seems that people get defensive about race and wanting to voice their opinions (no matter how negative they are) about it, but not other subjects, such as sexism, abuse, those with mental disabilities

 

[HEATHEN]

Stop acting like a cry baby and a little kid. The constitution doesn't need to specify what is and isn't covered, because it's all covered, under the 1st amendment. 

You seem to have a problem with free speech, why is that?

LOL WHAT? So do you think the 1st amendment and the constitution are two separate entities?

Just stop dude, don't do it to yourself.

An employee can fired at will for any reason at the sole discretion of the employer so long as it doesn't violate the following labor laws:

1- Discrimination: The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
2- Retaliation: An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. In the United States, this "retaliation" is forbidden under civil rights law.
3- Employee's refusal to commit an illegal act: An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
4- Employer is not following own termination procedures: Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

Right, like I said, so long as the employer is within his rights.

 

[me662ll a]

LOL WHAT? So do you think the 1st amendment and the constitution are two separate entities?

Key word: specify. 

Reading comprehension is fundamental. 

 

[HEATHEN]

Key word: specify. 

Reading comprehension is fundamental. 

Again do you think they're two separate entities? The first amendment is a part of the constitution, the same constitution that does not protect libel, hate speech and fighting words.


You're learning a lot today huh?

 

[ccastro02]

Stop acting like a cry baby and a little kid. The constitution doesn't need to specify what is and isn't covered, because it's all covered, under the 1st amendment. 

You seem to have a problem with free speech, why is that?

LOL WHAT? So do you think the 1st amendment and the constitution are two separate entities?

Just stop dude, don't do it to yourself.

An employee can fired at will for any reason at the sole discretion of the employer so long as it doesn't violate the following labor laws:

1- Discrimination: The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
2- Retaliation: An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. In the United States, this "retaliation" is forbidden under civil rights law.
3- Employee's refusal to commit an illegal act: An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
4- Employer is not following own termination procedures: Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

Right, like I said, so long as the employer is within his rights.

Correct, and firing someone for what ever reason apart from those of which i mentioned above would be protected under the employers rights. It can be something as little as wearing a red shirt to work - yup, you can legally be fired for that.

 

[HEATHEN]

Correct, and firing someone for what ever reason apart from those of which i mentioned above would be protected under the employers rights. It can be something as little as where a red shirt to work - yup, you can legally be fired for that.

Right, but good luck to that employer for not catching a discrimination lawsuit as a result.


Why? Because good luck trying to explain to the judge it was over a red shirt and not because the employee was _____________.


In other words, you can't just fire someone for posting their sentiments on say, oh, illegal immigration, and expect that to be defendable in court. More than likely an attorney worth his salt is going to turn it into a discrimination suit.


Pretty silly rebuttal on your end.

 

[me662ll a]

Again do you think they're two separate entities? The first amendment is a part of the constitution, the same constitution that does not protect libel, hate speech and fighting words.

You're not very smart to say the least. I said it doesn't specify every exact detail and scenario, because it's covered in the 1st amendment, and (so you know) when I say constitution or 1st amendment in this discussion I'm using them interchangeably, since you can't get that through your thick head. Sure, there are certain restrictions, but not on personal social media pages, or out in public. 

Look at how mad you're getting over the fact that there are people who believe others should be able to say whatever they want, outside of certain areas of course. Saying what you want and acting on those ideas are two entirely different things. 

 

You are overflowing with a social justice warrior mentality right now. 

 

 

[PRIME]

First 4 replies are gold.

 

[mrnappy]

Well if people pulled thier pants up they wouldn't get killed. Right?

 

[HEATHEN]

You're not very smart to say the least. I said it doesn't specify every exact detail and scenario, because it's covered in the 1st amendment, and (so you know) when I say constitution or 1st amendment in this discussion I'm using them interchangeably, since you can't get that through your thick head. Sure, there are certain restrictions, but not on personal social media pages, or out in public. 

Look at how mad you're getting over the fact that there are people who believe others should be able to say whatever they want, outside of certain areas of course. Saying what you want and acting on those ideas are two entirely different things.   

You are overflowing with a social justice warrior mentality right now.   

LOL, not in public? That's exactly where the restrictions apply the most. You can't say just anything to someone and expect not to have incurred any repercussions, hence fighting words ARE NOT protected by our constitution. You can't go around spreading libel without expecting a defamation lawsuit, you can't go around spewing hate speech without being arrested for a LITANY of offenses.

Keep attacking my intelligence b, because all you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[ccastro02]

Correct, and firing someone for what ever reason apart from those of which i mentioned above would be protected under the employers rights. It can be something as little as where a red shirt to work - yup, you can legally be fired for that.

Right, but good luck to that employer for not catching a discrimination lawsuit as a result.


Why? Because good luck trying to explain to the judge it was over a red shirt and not because the employee was _____________.


In other words, you can't just fire someone for posting their sentiments on say, oh, illegal immigration, and expect that to be defendable in court. More than likely an attorney worth his salt is going to turn it into a discrimination suit.


Pretty silly rebuttal on your end.

Only that firing someone for wearing a red shirt or having viewpoints on illegal immigration is not discrimination. In the work force discrimination is only limited to race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation. Like I said, like it or not - whether you agree with it or not & whether you believe it or not, employers have the legal right to fire employees for any reason what so ever so long as it doesn't violate the four rules I posted above. Sorry if you don't agree with it.

EDIT: Any lawsuit brought to the employer that hasn't violated any of the wrongful termination laws I posted will more than likely be thrown out of court.

 

[HEATHEN]

Only that firing someone for wearing a red shirt or having viewpoints on illegal immigration is not discrimination. In the work force discrimination is only limited to race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation. Like I said, like it or not - whether you agree with it or not & whether you believe it or not, employers have the legal right to fire employees so long as it doesn't violate the four rules i posted above. Sorry if you don't agree with it.

I'm not saying it is discrimination, I'm saying good luck trying to explain to the court that you fired an employee for wearing a red shirt (or for the purposes of this thread, something said that wasn't explicitly hate speech or libel).


More than likely that employee would find a lawyer to hit him with a discrimination suit.


I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I just you're being a bit petty and impractical in your presentation.

 

[me662ll a]

LOL, not in public? That's exactly where the restrictions apply the most. You can't say just anything to someone and expect not to have incurred any repercussions, hence fighting words ARE NOT protected by our constitution. You can't go around spreading libel without expecting a defamation lawsuit, you can't go around spewing hate speech without being arrested for a LITANY of offenses.

Keep attacking my intelligence b, because all you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

Your argument is only valid if you assume that all racism/negativity = fighting words, which isn't true. 

Why do you have a problem with someone saying what they want? If they aren't threatening you what's the problem? They'll hurt your feelings? 

 

[ccastro02]

Only that firing someone for wearing a red shirt or having viewpoints on illegal immigration is not discrimination. In the work force discrimination is only limited to race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation. Like I said, like it or not - whether you agree with it or not & whether you believe it or not, employers have the legal right to fire employees so long as it doesn't violate the four rules i posted above. Sorry if you don't agree with it.

I'm not saying it is discrimination, I'm saying good luck trying to explain to the court that you fired an employee for wearing a red shirt (or for the purposes of this thread, something said that wasn't explicitly hate speech or libel).


More than likely that employee would find a lawyer to hit him with a discrimination suit.


I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I just you're being a bit petty and impractical in your presentation.

Petty & impractical? Thanks, and here i thought i was doing a good job being the voice of reason.

 

[HEATHEN]

Your argument is only valid if you assume that all racism/negativity = fighting words, which isn't true. 

Why do you have a problem with someone saying what they want? If they aren't threatening you what's the problem? They'll hurt your feelings? 

It's pretty straight forward, if an individual has the intent to breach peace and incite violence with insulting speech that would be construed as fighting words and that would not be protected by the constitution.

 

[tr1ll]

 

[HEATHEN]

Petty & impractical? Thanks, and here i thought i was doing a good job being the voice of reason.

I mean yeah, you're not wrong. I just don't think you really believe an employer can get away with firing an employee for posting something that wasn't explicitly hateful or libelous online.


It's a fine line is all I was ever saying and it would be awfully easy to step into a pile of **** unless they had a valid reason for that employee's termination.


A red shirt or an unpopular stance (but not hateful or libelous) wouldn't fly as a legitimate explanation. Any wrongful termination lawyer worth his salt would definitely find a way to create a lawsuit.