A quick story about racism.

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

No, it's not. 'The Collective' has nothing to do with one's employer at all. One's employer has every right to control your speech within the workplace, or failing that, ask you to leave. Get over it.

The workplace is part of the general society, general society rules must be either voluntarily maintained or else compelled in the workplace. Considering that America was built upon the principle of freedom, and free speech is part of that, then free speech must be maintained in the workplace. This free speech needs to be modified in fairness to the employer, as they need to be able to set the product or service that they are selling. I for instance don't think that employees should be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a political slogan on it if that slogan is detrimental to the business. However, speech between employees in absence of the customers rarely meets a reasonable need for the employer to have any say in the content of that speech. Possibly only a direct threat should be grounds for the employer to have recourse against the employee.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

How did I stifle free speech? Specifically. Details. I'm calling your bluff.

The team member who made the comments had the exact ability to say the same comments after I talked to the other team lead. Their rights: unaffected. I wasn't trying to take away their speech rights. I was bringing attention to the other team lead of what kind of professionalism a member of his team was exhibiting, because I thought he would care about how his team was perceived. He did care. He agreed. He addressed it. done. End of story. All rights intact.

I used speech and intellect to address this issue, not mandates or any other strawman BS (thought police, speech trials, etc) you labor on about.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

As you clearly said: I can condemn racist speech and simultaneously defend free speech.

No one denies that u r free to DISAGREE
with anything someone says; its only a question of you trying
to get him to shut up because u don 't like what he says.

the heckler 's veto

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

This is so naive as to be laughably absurd. To repeat (this is the third time now), first amendment rights end at the door of a private property. If i am an employer with many employees, and i am following equal opportunity employment principles, then the odds are good that i will have female employees, and employees who are members of racial or ethnic minorities. Not only do those employees have a right to work in an environment which is free of harrasment and intimidation, i have a right to expect that the workplace environment will be conducive to my employees best performance. Therefore, my employees have a right not be subjected to sexual harrassment, nor racist nor ethic slurs, nor threats, nor ridicule. I have a right to announce and implement rules to assure that.

This is only a "free speech" issue for people completely out of touch with reality, and the law, or people who think that they have rights which transcend the rights of private property. Of course, it would equally apply to people who seem to think that they should have the right to perpetrate sexual harrassment, or to practice racist bullying, or to threaten others for saying or simply being something the clown doesn't like.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is only a "free speech" issue for people completely out of touch with reality, and the law, or people who think that they have rights which transcend the rights of private property. Of course, it would equally apply to people who seem to think that they should have the right to perpetrate sexual harrassment, or to practice racist bullying, or to threaten others for saying or simply being something the clown doesn't like

The private property exclusion made some sense when companies were owned almost exclusively by individuals and partners, it does not make sense to call a corporate owned business private property. You also skate right by without acknowledging that this same hostility to free speech has been extended to government owned property such as schools, the free press, and everywhere else. The attack on free speech knows no boundaries. Besides I am pretty such that TKO made his attack on free speech talked about in this thread on public property, so your point is really irrelevant.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Somebody slap me! Is it 2009 or did I time warp to 1959?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are turning a thread about allowable speech in the modern workplace, into your soapbox for ranting about government control of speech. Please stop. I don't care what your opinion about the government regulating your speech is; it is immaterial to the discussion we are having.

Cycloptichorn

Government control was raised as a factor in support
of the author of this thread in moving to stiffle free speech.
If I remember accurately, the author of this thread looked favorably
upon that argument: (if he rejects that argument he is free to say so).

Cycloptichorn, u are OBSESSED with strangling, curtailing and controlling free speech
to beat it into the mold that conforms to your wishes.
If u just speak into a tape recorder, then u will get what u want.
This forum does not serve that function.

Need I advise u where to stuff your request ?

Odd use of the word 'obsessed,' considering I rarely discuss this topic at all. And, highly ironic coming from you, Siggy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

How did I stifle free speech? Specifically. Details.

OK, the specific details of how u stiffled free speech
are that u tried to get his boss (?) to threaten him
(directly and explicity, or indirectly and vaguely)
as to his economic well being if he exercised his natural right
and his constitutional right to think what he chose to think
and to express his thoughts freely.
Speaking to his boss was your technique of suppressing the victim 's speech.

THAT 's how.

Quote:

I'm calling your bluff.

I 'm bluffing ??
I find humor in that.

Quote:

The team member who made the comments had the exact ability
to say the same comments after I talked to the other team lead.

U successfully attempted to get him THREATENED by his boss (?)
into relinquishing his right of freedom of speech
because u did not like the speech.

Quote:

Their rights: unaffected.
I wasn't trying to take away their speech rights.

TECHNICALLY, that is true,
the same way that if a robber robs u of your cash,
he does not and cannot rob u of the RIGHT to have the cash.
The victim still has the RIGHT to have that cash,
after the robber has taken the cash away,
and while the robber is out on the town spending it.

U are not capable of TAKING AWAY anyone 's rights,
but u are able to violate them, and that is what u successfully did.

Quote:

I was bringing attention to the other team lead of what kind of
professionalism a member of his team was exhibiting, because
I thought he would care about how his team was perceived.
He did care. He agreed. He addressed it. done. End of story. All rights intact.

No. U successfully had him financially intimidated, qua loss of wages.
By scaring him out of the exercise of his rights,
u have violated those rights. Its the same as hiring goons
to stake out the polls at election time and having them THREATEN
your least favorite folks to go away, without actually laying hands on them
and then claiming: "End of story. All rights intact."
Thay have the right to vote and u scared them out of using that right.

Right to vote or right to speak freely = same principle.

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

Somebody slap me! Is it 2009 or did I time warp to 1959?

You sound like a simpleton who assumes that time has brought progress. I hope not. You must use your own noodle, decide for yourself if the change has been progressive or regressive, and also allow the possibility that other people may reach a different conclusion from you.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are turning a thread about allowable speech in the modern workplace, into your soapbox for ranting about government control of speech. Please stop. I don't care what your opinion about the government regulating your speech is; it is immaterial to the discussion we are having.

Cycloptichorn

Government control was raised as a factor in support
of the author of this thread in moving to stiffle free speech.
If I remember accurately, the author of this thread looked favorably
upon that argument: (if he rejects that argument he is free to say so).

Cycloptichorn, u are OBSESSED with strangling, curtailing and controlling free speech
to beat it into the mold that conforms to your wishes.
If u just speak into a tape recorder, then u will get what u want.
This forum does not serve that function.

Need I advise u where to stuff your request ?

Odd use of the word 'obsessed,' considering I rarely discuss this topic at all. And, highly ironic coming from you, Siggy.

Cycloptichorn

U sure are manifesting that obsession on THIS THREAD, Cy.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

How very naive of you. Corporations are person for the purposes of the law. Educate yourself.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Actually, I'm not. Obsession doesn't mean discussing a point of view on a thread. It means something else entirely.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'm not a simpleton and...yes, time has brought great progress . It's disconcerting to find advocates for halting the hands of time...or making them spin backwards

I'm using my noodle and I've decided that the change has been progressive... as you know from my other discussions with you ...I'm well aware that you've reached a different conclusion from me and that I look forward to reading different viewpoints

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Actually, I'm not. Obsession doesn't mean discussing a point of view on a thread. It means something else entirely.

Cycloptichorn

On this thread, u r single mindedly
and repeatedly trying to stifle freedom of speech
unless the speech is what u like it to be. Is that better ?

0 Replies

From the Law School of the University of Missouri at Kansas City, this page discusses the issues of free speech on private property which is used for public purposes, or functions as a public commons. Please note that that does not describe the situation with which DTKO began this discussion. DTKO's situation is covered in this introductory paragraph:

Quote:

As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activitites of others on the property. You are under no First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice. Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can annoy customers or discourage others from eating there.

I encourage people to go to that page and read about the exceptions, almost all of which relate to public uses of private property.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Isn't this all unnecessary though? At no point was the other team member being mandated to speak in any particular way. Public or private.

Never once.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

How very naive of you. Corporations are person for the purposes of the law. Educate yourself

please attempt to pay attention...I am saying that this is a mistake that must be corrected.

0 Replies

Oh yeah . . . tell that to the courts.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I understand that, Boss. But i'm sure you've noticed the number of times that other members are wrapping themselves in the flag and singing "God Bless America" before they launch into a rant on free speech rights. In fact, in any work place situation in which the work place does not serve as a public commons (such as a commercial mall, or a shopping center parking lot), the only obligation of the employer in restricting speech is to be non-discriminatory. If you can't discuss politics, no one can discuss politics.

I'm just getting tired of the "i disagree with what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it" phoniness which suffuses the arguments of the ranters.

If, in fact, your employer had chosen to restrict that kind of speech, it would have been perfectly legal, so long as it applied equally to all employees.

0 Replies

If I spoke openly, not just on my job, but when I encounter persons related to my work on off times, I would very shortly become unemployed. It's a restriction I cheerfully accept most of the time. I have free speech in my personal life, and that's good enough for me.

0 Replies

A quick story about racism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know