Juan Williams fired

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free to say anything you want and nobody can get upset, employers can't discipline or fire you, and you can't be criticized. Freedom of speech means the government cannot make a law that keeps you from being able to freely criticize its practices. I can't be thrown in jail for criticizing the recovery act, or Obamacare, or anything of that nature.

 

True, this isn't a first amendment matter. Rather, it's a matter of political correctness. Just wait, this is only the tip of the ice burg is the pc crowd is allowed to continue their quest for dominance over everything we say and do. The free expression of opinion is being stifled and anything not deemed politically correct will be classified as hate speech. Mr. Williams, if we want to be honest, was fired because his opinion is hate speech.

 

Could the 1.8 million dollars from George Soros be a factor in their decision to fire Jaun Williams?

 

Face it. Juan, even as liberal as he is, is not liberal enough for NPR.

They were looking for a reason to fire him. He finally gave them one.


Looking for a place to start saving budget dollars, the government should defund NPR.

 

A quick way to solve this:

Defund NPR.

Then they can fire whoever they want.

 

This isn't as hard as y'all are making it.

The dude was asked his personal opinion on a matter; he gave it. He was subsequently terminated by his employer, basically citing that he isn't allowed to have a personal opinion.

It is a matter of free speech.

If he was asked NPR's opinion on the matter, and thus misrepresented his employer's position; or there was evidence he interjects his personal viewpoint into his reporting, and thus skews the reporting of the situation; the employment termination would have merit.

The case between the two private citizens? In another story, a veteran removed a flag from a place of business because the flag was tattered, and the business was basically violating federal and state flag laws -- which no one enforces. The business owner cited free speech, using the flag as his medium. When one party basically removes the ability of another party to say what they want, it becomes a free speech issue. The only time it's not "free" speech, is when that speech incites a situation that could potentially harm others.

 

There is a very big difference between Juan Williams and the Phelps case, a court (part of the government) ruled against Phelps for his speech. That is why he is challenging it as a free speech issue. He didn't get fired because of what he said.

 

Absent an employment contract to the contrary - employment is at will.

Meaning that the employer can terminate an employee at any time - even for no reason at all.

 

So you are suggesting that someone that works at the Presidents pleasure does not have protection under the constitution?

 

I give up, what is CTB?

 

IMO, viewing a person that losses his job for something he said as a violation of his free speech is as much of a stretch as the liberal judges that ruled for a woman's rights for abortion because of the right to privacy. They are both a stretch that goes much too far from what the original intent was.

 

I can terminate your employment because you're a lousy worker and cause my business to suffer; because you come in to work late more than once a week and cause my business to suffer; because you said or did something that caused me to lose business; because your appearance or lack of hygiene causes me to lose business; etc., etc.

Because you said something to someone else, that wasn't representing my business, that was presented as your personal opinion and not representative of my business - I believe, legally, I would have to show how my business suffers because of that, and therefore am facing "wrongful termination."

Additionally, to fire you, and cause you personal suffering and possible damage to your well-being, because you said something that I disagree with - well, that's a speech issue, isn't it?

 

In the case of Williams I am sure he has a contract with NPR. Based on how it is written he very well may have a case against them for wrongful termination. However he hasn't lost his right to free speech in this country and he is still very free to say the exact same thing over and over again.

As far as your general description about being fired, you are wrong. If a person doesn't have a contract they can be fired for just about anything other than discrimination.

 

Missing the point; he has the freedom, not arguing that he's lost any freedom. But if he was fired for what he said, then you have a case of someone trying to tell him he can't say certain things without there being a repercussion for saying those things, and therefore trying to limit his freedom to say those things, and that's a free speech issue.

 

1) The First Amendment was not addressing peoples right to speak openly without fear of losing employment. It was addressing our right to speak openly and without fear of government intrusion.

2) Being employed by someone is not a right.

3) Anyone fired for saying something openly still has the freedom to say that very same very thing in this county, that freedom was not lost. The only thing lost was their employment, not their rights.

4) Feeling "pressure" not to say something for fear of losing your job, is not a free speech issue.

 

Just wanted to add one more thing. Based on your logic anytime a parent told one of their children that they couldn't say certain things or they would be punished, that would also be a free speech issue. Do you see? Free speech is not automatic just because someone feels pressure not to say something or face undesirable consequences.

 

Your analogy doesn't stand up. Parents teach their children not to say certain things based on moral and ethical upbringing; when the child becomes old enough to determine for themselves, they choose to either say those things, or not to.

Further, the First Amendment has been used to justify an individual's right to burn the flag, or display that flag in a manner that violates federal and state laws, and thus exercise their personal right to freedom of speech. I understand that you're trying to make a case that this doesn't extend to private or corporate employment; however:
An individual may be wrongfully terminated if an employer discharged their employment in violation of the following:
* Federal or state discrimination laws
* Fair Credit Reporting Act or Bankruptcy Act employment-related provisions
* Constitutionally mandated First Amendment rights
* Voting leave laws
* Employer's own termination or discharge policies
* Employer-union collective bargaining agreement

I agree, however, that whether a judge will rule in his favor is a different matter.

 

So you are saying that a persons first amendment rights doesn't apply until someone become "old enough"?

Yes those things apply because they allow someone their free speech without fear of prosecution. That has nothing to do with losing your job. If however someone chose to go to work and burn the flag on the front lawn of their place of business, I bet most would be fired for doing so, yet not prosecuted.

Ha, the key word in that entire post is "may", as in "may be wrongfully terminated". No offense but where did you cut and past that from, one of those 1-800 lawyer type of sites? It sounds like one of those things that try and lure people into suing somebody.

 

I found this on some site that appears to be helping people with work place fairness. So if they were to be biased, I assume it would be in the employees favor. I did learn something though, that under limited circumstances some public employees would have some first amendment rights.

Below is a link to the entire article: (the emphasis is mine)

http://www.workplacefairness.org/2003_04_20_pblog_archive.php


"Workers should be aware, however, that workplace protections for speaking out are not particularly strong. A popular misconception is that employees have a "First Amendment" right to speak their minds; however, the First Amendment only applies to public employees, not those working for a private employer, and only then in fairly limited circumstances. The Chronicle is a private employer, and despite the irony of a newspaper demanding First Amendment rights for itself yet denying them in spirit to its employees, it may be free to do so, assuming that neither the union agreement or California law ultimately apply, which is yet to be decided. Employees who speak out on any controversial subject in the workplace may be willing to run the risk of termination, but it is a significant risk in some workplaces nonetheless. Thursday, April 24, 2003"