[ale] [OT] Working for Bill

[Brian MacLeod]

Freedom of speech allows you the protection to say what you will without
interference from government or individuals, as written in the
Constitution.  It does not give you protection from potential repurcussions
of that speech from those in the community around you.  Otherwise, no one
would ever be allowed to critique ANY expressed idea, no matter the
motivation.

At the same time, if your speech is the direct cause of action that is
illegal, you can be pursued by government for inciting those actions.

I'm tired of hearing that people have a right to say whatever they want and
have no consequences.  EVERY action has consequences.  I have a right to
counter-protest another group's protest, but as long as we're both obeying
the law, I have to recognize that they too have a right to speak.  Neither
myself nor the group have the right to not be offended.

In this case, an employee speaking out against the leadership of his
employer is risking their employment.  This should not be a surprise to
anyone.  Speaking out was an action they chose to take.  If I was running a
business, I should have the right to fire that person for that.  I don't
have the right to fire them because of qualities that are undeniably a part
of their existence (color, sex, age).  But I should always retain the right
to fire them for their inappropriate behavior, particularly when such
behavior is known to be inappropriate by all parties.

In the case of whistleblowing, there is an appropriateness of such speech
because the employee owes not just the company a level of responsibility,
but the community within which the company and employee reside.  There are
also channels with regulators which you open to do that, rather than just
going to the public and decrying the problem.  Sure, there are exceptional
circumstances to this, because let's face it, no society is perfect, and we
can't think of every possible action (legal or otherwise) that may occur.
But we've got quite a few appropriate outlets for the majority of the
wrongdoing that goes on in boardrooms as well as on the street.

It would be different if the company denied my right to the speech at all.
That's illegal.  I still retain the freedom to speak, but it comes with a
responsibility of dealing with the repurcussions of my speech.

bnm


On 4/21/06, aaron <aaron at pd.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 14:56, Warren Myers wrote:
> > On 4/20/06, aaron <aaron at pd.org> wrote:
> > > {re: big of MicroSoft not to fire bloggers]
> > > [snip]
> > > Free speech is a right guaranteed to all citizens living under the U.S
> .
> > > constitution, not some special privilege dispensed by the mercenary
> > > lawyers  of corporape America.  There is nothing "magnanimous"
> > > about _not_ attacking or violating our freedoms and civil liberties.
> >
> > Free speech is not guaranteed to individuals working for others,
> however, in
> > the context of their employment agreement.
>
> Honoring above board, specifically stated and mutually agreed upon
> contractual
> obligations of confidentiality regarding explicit items of information was
> not the point in question. The broad corporate legal assaults on citizens'
> rights to publically express personal opinions, discuss political views or
> expose illegal activities and corruption without threats to their
> livelihood
> or coercion from their employers was.
>
> > Just like some businesses disallow individuals from carrying weapons
> > onto their premises, a private organization can disallow publication of
> > information by their employees.
>
> ...but only to the limits that those contracts and agreements are not a
> violation of law, and coercion in expectation or demand that a citizen
> forfeit their constitutional rights is clearly prohibited by the founding
> tenets of our justice system. An employment contract could just as easily
> grant permission for the corporation to poison an employee's children, but
> those provisions would be equally illegal and unenforceable, even if the
> indentured family were living in company housing on the corporate farm.
>
> The self interested goal for the corporation is to pervert the terms of
> employment into a concession to slavery, as exemplified by the exploitive
> practices of outsourcing and hiring of illegal immigrants. The current
> tragic
> trends within the fascist friendly, anti-constitutional courts has been to
> not only suggest that private corporate interests might usurp a citizen's
> civil rights, but that these illegal provisions would be an undeclared
> assumption of every employment contract. At some point in the rabid fad of
> glorifying and globalizing the avarice of the corporate elite, a lot of
> people seem to have forgotten that it is the citizens and the commonwealth
> that grant corporations their legal privilege and charter to operate, not
> the
> other way round.
>
> peace
> aaron
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...