• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Liking" Something on Facebook Not Protected by First Amendment

Why should he keep them on? They publicly expressed that they are against him in the election. I'd fire them too.

Because "supporting their boss' re-election" is not a part of their job description
 
When the employer is a govt agency, yes it is

What about Gen. McChrystal and Marine Staff Sgt. Gary Stein, both whom were Government employees.
 
Last edited:
What about Gen. McChrystal and Marine Staff Sgt. Gary Stein, both whom were Government employees.

Their job requirements are set out in the USMJ and it's well-established that the military operates by different standards. This is also well-known - well-known enough that even you knew this
 
And you make an assumption. Myself only asked a question and made no reference as to what I knew or not knew.
 
And you make an assumption. Myself only asked a question and made no reference as to what I knew or not knew.

Because it's totally honest to ask a question one already knows the answer to in a debate :roll:
 
And you make an assumption. Myself only asked a question and made no reference as to what I knew or not knew.
He basically gave you the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent, albeit having failed at trying to set him up with a "got'cha!" moment. But hey, if you want to disavow being intelligent, and claim that you didn't already know that the military is a whole different animal, who are we to argue?
 
Liking something on Facebook is not free speech, replying to somebody's status updates is cyber stalking, and making fun of somebody on twitter is harassment. I don't like it, but at this point somebody should just get it over with and introduce a constitutional amendment declaring that the internet is serious business.
 
He basically gave you the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent, albeit having failed at trying to set him up with a "got'cha!" moment. But hey, if you want to disavow being intelligent, and claim that you didn't already know that the military is a whole different animal, who are we to argue?

If you had noticed, the question was originally in response to “When the employer is a govt agency, yes it is”, as that statement is a blanket coverage. And sangha is right, it was an honest question in that context regardless of any military knowledge known or unknown before hand. There is nothing “gotcha” as you put it in an honest question to a blanket statement.

Now as to your statement “claim that you didn't already know that the military is a whole different animal”. Show by my responses in this thread such a claim was made by myself.
 
When the employer is a govt agency, yes it is

From the article:

"Roberts (the sheriff) claims they were either fired for poor performance, or because supporting his opponent "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.""

Virginia is an "at will" employment state, meaning your boss can fire you for any reason, at any time, with the exception of religion, race, and gender, or are working under contract that you have not violated. There is no legal recourse for the 6 employees.
 
From the article:

"Roberts (the sheriff) claims they were either fired for poor performance, or because supporting his opponent "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.""

Virginia is an "at will" employment state, meaning your boss can fire you for any reason, at any time, with the exception of religion, race, and gender, or are working under contract that you have not violated. There is no legal recourse for the 6 employees.

I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong, that "at will" legislation applies only to private employment, not public employment
 
Don't they have a contract? Aren't they civil service (which implies they do have a contract)?

If they're cops, most likely, but "paper pushers" like clerks, and the like, usually aren't. That's how it is here in Texas, anyway. I really don't see a point in giving temps and clerks a contract, to be honest.
 
If they're cops, most likely, but "paper pushers" like clerks, and the like, usually aren't. That's how it is here in Texas, anyway. I really don't see a point in giving temps and clerks a contract, to be honest.

Actually, they usually are also covered by SS, though I don't know what it is in this specific case.

And the point is to prevent politicians from giving those jobs based on politics. It's called patronage, and most people agree that it's unfair and undemocratic in a meritocracy
 
Actually, they usually are also covered by SS, though I don't know what it is in this specific case.

And the point is to prevent politicians from giving those jobs based on politics. It's called patronage, and most people agree that it's unfair and undemocratic in a meritocracy

You miss the point of the 1st amendment entirely. ANY boss may fire those that they feel are not helping "get the job done" as much as some random, unknown replacement worker may. A gov't job, like a private job, need not (and should not) be a "job for life". You work at the pleasure of the boss. You certainly have no right to try to elect a new boss (fire him?) that he does not have to replace you. It is insane to assert that employees that don't like the boss, especially when that can be easily proven, are as likely to cooperate and work as hard as they can to please that boss. Note the massive turnover in the federal SES workforce after each election, especially when the party in power changes. You have the right ro say anything you want to, but no right to expect no consequences from that speach. Had the sheriff arrested, or otherwise harrassed them, then THAT would be a free speach issue, but not merely firing them becuase he did not like them, their work habits or their "likes".
 
Actually, they usually are also covered by SS, though I don't know what it is in this specific case.
I don't either. If they had a contract, I don't think they'd be suing on the basis of First Amendment rights.

And the point is to prevent politicians from giving those jobs based on politics. It's called patronage, and most people agree that it's unfair and undemocratic in a meritocracy

That's a topic for another discussion. One I generally agree with.
 
You miss the point of the 1st amendment entirely. ANY boss may fire those that they feel are not helping "get the job done" as much as some random, unknown replacement worker may. A gov't job, like a private job, need not (and should not) be a "job for life". You work at the pleasure of the boss. You certainly have no right to try to elect a new boss (fire him?) that he does not have to replace you. It is insane to assert that employees that don't like the boss, especially when that can be easily proven, are as likely to cooperate and work as hard as they can to please that boss. Note the massive turnover in the federal SES workforce after each election, especially when the party in power changes. You have the right ro say anything you want to, but no right to expect no consequences from that speach. Had the sheriff arrested, or otherwise harrassed them, then THAT would be a free speach issue, but not merely firing them becuase he did not like them, their work habits or their "likes".


That's not true

Many employees (including most govt employees) are hired under a contract which prohibits their being fired without cause
 
Back
Top Bottom