- #36
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 352
- 87
JohnDubYa said:I think people misunderstand what we mean by freedom of speech. Essentially, the *government* cannot prohibit certain views from being aired. This amendment has little to do with the private sector.
All you have to do is think about this logically. If you walked into your boss' office and called him a lousy jerk, should he not be able to fire you? If you are working on the Kerry campaign and you stated publically that you are a Bush supporter, can they not dismiss you?
Another example: If a public school teacher tries to indoctrinate his students into a certain political view, they should be fired. (At the university level, things are a little different.)
In fact, Scharzenegger fired one of his campaign advisors because he espoused certain views on taxation that were contrary to his campaign platform.
Just think about it.
the number 42 said:True, but what if the Pope excommunicated Kerry for his views on abortion? Or if your boss penalised you for saying (or posting) something political during office hours? I would agree that having an entertainer use the stage as a soap box isn't what most people call entertainment - especially if you don't agree with the views, as in the case of the Dixie Chicks' audience - but the penalty should fit the 'crime'. Let the audience vote with their feet.
There's a fuzzy line on these and I'm not sure either of you have it quite right.
The average person only needs to separate work from non-work.
Yes, your boss can fire you for disrupting the work environment with issues that have no relevance to your work. Actively campaigning for one of the candidates or trying to recruit members into your religion could both fall into this category.
No, your boss can't fire you for your political or religous views, even if you advocate those views publicly outside of work, UNLESS you're also making an effort to let everyone know who you work for when you air those views. You don't have the right to represent the company or use them in your views (neither positively nor negatively).
A Kerry campaigner couldn't be fired for being a Bush supporter, but he could be fired for standing in the Kerry campaign office and saying he was a Bush supporter on TV. He's actively damaging the efforts the office is trying to accomplish.
Celebrities are a different breed, since their public persona is the commodity being bought or sold.
The Linda Ronstadt situation is a slam dunk - she should have concentrated on doing what she was paid to do. (I still like her music)
Actively suspending the Dixie Chicks from radio playlists because of their political statements is a little fuzzier. The only true justification is the possibility that playing their songs might imply that the Dixie Chicks were representing the station's political views and that line of reasoning is a little thin. (But, I never listened to them, anyway)
Firing a reporter/commentator/DJ for making public political or racist statements is a little stronger case. Since the employee's public persona is the service the station is purchasing from the person, the employee's public image is a little more relevant. In other words, there's a reasonable possibility the reporter/commentator/DJ's views may be interpreted as representing the station.