- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,415
- Reaction score
- 47,413
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Wrong. Again.
but he is free to express such foolish ****
Wrong. Again.
The limitations of freedom of speech are well documented by SCOTUS:
First Amendment and the Meaning of "Free Speech"
What Does Free Speech Mean?
By the business world:
Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace - Businessweek
Libbos don't believe in freedom, so I'll never expect you to agree.
So, are you saying that free speech really isnt an inalienable right; more of a privilage?
Can you call your boss an asshole without consequences?
Why?
Because one company didn't like what their employees did?
Or did NSA agents turn up and take him away, torture him, arrest his entire family and eventually have him executed (Like what would happen in a country that really had no freedom of expression).
Far right wingers like yourself can never seem to get enough of feeling victimized by something or other.
A clown was banned because he wore an Obama mask and now a fuss is made about someone else wearing an Obama mask. Now the Bill of Rights has to be trotted out, definitions given, and laws have to be looked at just because a couple of people wore Presidential masks to events which were just designed to be fun.
We certainly live in uptight times.
This was a PRIVATE Companies rules. Let me ask you, can you call your boss an asshole and not expect consequences? Does that mean they have hindered your free speech because you can't call your boss an asshole without consequences?
Same thing here, if you break the rules you face the consequences. This is no more a case of free speech being hindered than it is calling your boss an asshole and then crying that your free speech is being hindered.
I don't believe that it was private company rules that were in question. The incident occurred at a private company party where everyone, or at least most, were fine with it, and awarded them third prize. The company was fine with it until some black preacher, who was not in attendance, nor had any real interest, claimed he was offended, and spoke out a few days later. Company then changed the rules retroactively.
Again, if they were representing their company in ANY fashion whatsover, the company has a right to step in. I'll give an example, if I go to someplace with a group of Co-workers and reserve a spot under the company name, we are representing the company. The company I had worked for had strict rules to not do anything in the companies name that would embarrass or cause harm to the company.
Now if this was a group of people that reserved a place under someone elses name and the company was not mentioned AT ALL, then I would agree with the costume people. But given what I have read, they in fact were representing the company.
Again, they weren't representing their company. They were at a private party. AFIK, no one at the party has claimed to be offended.
Doesn't matter who funded the party. The offendee sure as hell didn't.
If soeech is subject to repercussion, then it's not free.
There was a Tory MP not so long ago who was fired when pictures appeared of a stag party in France showing him sitting beside another partygoer in Nazi uniform. Some might see no problem at all, some might call it guilt by association, but the party didn't want the association to be made, so there he was, gone.
It's a simple question really....
If you're a business owner and you're hosting a company halloween party and someone comes dressed in KKK robes with a sign saying "Typical Tea Bagger", and it causes one of your potential customers whose at the party to be offended, do you as a business owner have a right to fire an employee you feel harmed your company? Or do you, as a business owner, not have the right to choose to cease employing one of your workers?
A hypothetical which didn't happen. No one who was at the party claimed to de offended. The company was fine with it until some outside preacher with no real interest claimed to be offended.
But it was OK for prince Harry to wear a Nazi uniform.
If speech is not subject to repercussion you're restricting someone elses ability to speak.
You just proved my point.
A hypothetical which didn't happen. No one who was at the party claimed to de offended. The company was fine with it until some outside preacher with no real interest claimed to be offended.
no, it wasn't
which is why you have not seen him act so foolishly since
would not be surprised if he had a word with his grandmother about that poor choice of attire
We certainly live in uptight times.
That you have no clue what free speech is? Yeah, I guess I did.
Good to know grandma had to step in and straighten out a grown man.