So much for freedom of speech and expression.

[jamil]

If we have to get back on topic I'll say this. I don't have a problem with people saying it's poopy that she got fired. If that's what greg meant to say, well, that's fine. He's just as entitled to his free speech as the next person. But if he's going to say that a company doesn't have the right to fire an employee because that employee said something in a very public way that doesn't reflect the values of the employer, he should expect that to be challenged.

While I agree that the First Amendment applies to the idea that government may not limit free speech, I also believe that many ideological values should transfer throughout mediums. As an example, while it may be true that a "presumption of innocence" is directed solely at the courts, it is certainly a good idea that should apply to friends, children, and employees. Is it mandated? No. But to fire someone based solely upon accusation may be legal, it certainly isn't honorable.

I would also put forth the argument that the media is more than just a business. It is a platform and tool that is used to inform and enlighten the public (at least in Utopia.) It is different from other forms of business by its very nature, at least regarding the First Amendment. If we cannot bring forth ideas, concepts, and thoughts that are controversial in the media, up until recently there were no other platforms. As such, I do believe the media of all places should try to stick to a very liberal interpretation of First Amendment values, all while conceding they have no legal reason to do so. My point here would be that just because an action is legal doesn't make it just.

Finally, fired for calling someone, in a PRIVATE message, a F*** is hardly a reason for termination. It isn't as though she said it in public. This is extremely unfair to an employee by holding them accountable for a private communication that was personal in nature and did not reflect poorly upon the employer until the other turd made it public. Bad form...

Oh, and to Actaeon277, the Constitution LIMITS me, as an individual, to being age 30 to run for Senate. Minor, I know, but it is a limit on my power to seek office, gain power, and affect a positive change on my fellow Americans.


Regards,

Doug

 

[WebSnyper]

I'd leave Frank out of it. I hear he curbstomps.

Yeah, but he's not going to chase you down

 

[Libertarian01]

If we have to get back on topic I'll say this. I don't have a problem with people saying it's poopy that she got fired. If that's what greg meant to say, well, that's fine. He's just as entitled to his free speech as the next person. But if he's going to say that a company doesn't have the right to fire an employee because that employee said something in a very public way that doesn't reflect the values of the employer, he should expect that to be challenged.

Just to clarify, where do you stand on the fact that she did NOT say it in public? According the the article she sent him a private message and he then made it public.

Any thoughts on that line of thinking?

I am not arguing here, just wanting your thoughts.

Doug

 

[WebSnyper]

If we have to get back on topic I'll say this. I don't have a problem with people saying it's poopy that she got fired. If that's what greg meant to say, well, that's fine. He's just as entitled to his free speech as the next person. But if he's going to say that a company doesn't have the right to fire an employee because that employee said something in a very public way that doesn't reflect the values of the employer, he should expect that to be challenged.

Agreed. It is not that we agree or don't agree one way or another with what she said. The premise of this thread was not based on that at all.

 

[WebSnyper]

Just to clarify, where do you stand on the fact that she did NOT say it in public? According the the article she sent him a private message and he then made it public.

Any thoughts on that line of thinking?

I am not arguing here, just wanting your thoughts.

Doug

I know this was not directed to me, but I'm not sure I have an opinion myself on that aspect as it relates to her getting fired, other than putting it in writing was probably not the best thought out move.

 

[femurphy77]

Free willy!

Free Hat!!

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I am of the opinion that a privately owned business should be able to fire people for whatever reason they want. "I don't like your face. Pack up your stuff." Is it a jerk move? Yep. Should the market react by not buying the jerk's goods or services? Probably. People can buy stuff from jerks, or not, whatever. If you're upset with the radio station for firing someone, change the station. It isn't complicated.

 

[Libertarian01]

I know this was not directed to me, but I'm not sure I have an opinion myself on that aspect as it relates to her getting fired, other than putting it in writing was probably not the best thought out move.

Maybe not the best thought, but still it was private. I could argue that anything we say may(?) be recorded but we don't limit ourselves to that. A private communication was used as the reason to fire her. Let us stick with that thought for a moment.

Doug

 

[Woobie]

Just to clarify, where do you stand on the fact that she did NOT say it in public? According the the article she sent him a private message and he then made it public.

Any thoughts on that line of thinking?

I am not arguing here, just wanting your thoughts.

Doug

I know your question was aimed at a weightier intellect than mine, but that aspect of this story struck me as well.

I try to assume that anything I say could be distributed farther than I intended it to, even though it often isn't. And if you're going to say something the other party will find insulting, you have to expect that will happen, particularly if you put it in writing.

Whether the remarks were intended to be private or not, they became public, and her name, and by extension the station's, was attached to them.

 

[jamil]

Just to clarify, where do you stand on the fact that she did NOT say it in public? According the the article she sent him a private message and he then made it public.

Any thoughts on that line of thinking?

I am not arguing here, just wanting your thoughts.

Doug

Are we saying at what point should government be involved in the decision for what may an employer fire an employee? Or are we strictly talking about "right" or "wrong" here? Because the latter is subjective. Not that we couldn't figure out an objective way to look at it.

In this case Olsen insulted one of the show's guests in a private email. It doesn't matter who made it public. It doesn't really matter that it WAS made public at all. But that it was made public certainly forces the radio station's hand.

But even if it remained private, if the guest complained to LA Talk Radio that their co-host insulted him, in what world would it be inappropriate for them to fire her? In what world would that be a free speech issue? In what world should a government have any authority in that situation to step in and have any say in the matter at all?

 

[femurphy77]

Unfortunately in today's world everything you say or write has the potential to be made public with relatively little effort. I've counseled co workers to mind their facebook posts etc lest they find themselves in the same position as the dj. Do I agree with someone being fired after a personal conversation was made public? Hell no! The douche that outed her did it more than likely knowing exactly what would happen to her and at this moment is probably being hailed as a hero by sjw's around the world. Can the employer do it? Apparently so, and as long as it's an at will state there would appear to be no legal recourse.

 

[femurphy77]

Are we saying at what point should government be involved in the decision for what may an employer fire an employee? Or are we strictly talking about "right" or "wrong" here? Because the latter is subjective. Not that we couldn't figure out an objective way to look at it.

In this case Olsen insulted one of the show's guests in a private email. It doesn't matter who made it public. It doesn't really matter that it WAS made public at all. But that it was made public certainly forces the radio station's hand.

But even if it remained private, if the guest complained to LA Talk Radio that their co-host insulted him, in what world would it be inappropriate for them to fire her? In what world would that be a free speech issue? In what world should a government have any authority in that situation to step in and have any say in the matter at all?

Deciding what is and isn't an insult is subjective. Whose standards should be followed?

 

[Woobie]

Deciding what is and isn't an insult is subjective. Whose standards should be followed?

Sounds like a job for that superhero of subpoena, that lion of litigation: Reasonable Man

 

[femurphy77]

Sounds like a job for that superhero of subpoena, that lion of litigation: Reasonable Man

My question isn't really relevant I realize but I get so tired of people getting so butt hurt about just about everything nowadays. Getting ***** slapped occasionally is part of growing up!

 

[Libertarian01]

Are we saying at what point should government be involved in the decision for what may an employer fire an employee? Or are we strictly talking about "right" or "wrong" here? Because the latter is subjective. Not that we couldn't figure out an objective way to look at it.

In this case Olsen insulted one of the show's guests in a private email. It doesn't matter who made it public. It doesn't really matter that it WAS made public at all. But that it was made public certainly forces the radio station's hand.

But even if it remained private, if the guest complained to LA Talk Radio that their co-host insulted him, in what world would it be inappropriate for them to fire her? In what world would that be a free speech issue? In what world should a government have any authority in that situation to step in and have any say in the matter at all?

At this stage I am asking strictly "right & wrong." I am guessing that he wasn't so nice with her either, so the potential argument could be made that she was provoked.

After all, it is a political talk show. When we have potential extreme liberals and conservatives meet, the volatility level rises significantly, and the radio station management was certainly aware of this.

I do have a deep concern that WAY too much latitude is being given to companies about how an employee's private life can impact their employment status - read "risk of termination." It concerns me deeply that we are not making a very bright line between what I do on my work time versus what I do on my private time.

This article seems to show some degree of scope-creep toward a dangerous precipice.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

Another thing related, not that I want to get the topic going again, but just to say this. I generally don't like seeing companies take these virtue signaling stands. I don't think they really cared as much about what was said in private as they cared about what the public would think of them if they didn't take a stand. And I think that does tend to stifle free speech.

In a situation like this, I'd rather see companies have the stones to say, hey, that doesn't reflect our values, we don't stand behind what she said, but we'd rather let the market place decide your own morality. We're not going to decide for you.

For example, I'd have respected Angie's list more if they'd have said that. I've said before, if companies decide to take a stand on a political issue, so will I. Angie's list did, and I canceled my membership. If I were in that market I might keep listening to her show. But I'd still think she's douchy for getting snotty with the gay dude.

 

[WebSnyper]

Maybe not the best thought, but still it was private. I could argue that anything we say may(?) be recorded but we don't limit ourselves to that. A private communication was used as the reason to fire her. Let us stick with that thought for a moment.

Doug

It is not really relevant honestly. They did not even need a reason to fire her...

Are we saying at what point should government be involved in the decision for what may an employer fire an employee? Or are we strictly talking about "right" or "wrong" here? Because the latter is subjective. Not that we couldn't figure out an objective way to look at it.

In this case Olsen insulted one of the show's guests in a private email. It doesn't matter who made it public. It doesn't really matter that it WAS made public at all. But that it was made public certainly forces the radio station's hand.

But even if it remained private, if the guest complained to LA Talk Radio that their co-host insulted him, in what world would it be inappropriate for them to fire her? In what world would that be a free speech issue? In what world should a government have any authority in that situation to step in and have any say in the matter at all?

Pretty much.

My question isn't really relevant I realize but I get so tired of people getting so butt hurt about just about everything nowadays. Getting ***** slapped occasionally is part of growing up!

And agreed... I have personally taken this approach to preparing my kids for the rest of their lives...

On another note, I really thought I was going to come into tis thread and find out it was about Pistachio Girl... not Cindy Brady.

 

[Libertarian01]

It is not really relevant honestly. They did not even need a reason to fire her...

So now are we talking legally or "right & wrong?"

Because IF we are talking legally most boards, judges, courts, etc tend to side with plaintiff's regarding firing without cause. I'm not an expert, but as a student of human resources and compliance issues it has been explained in detail that when push comes to shove most judges tend to favor having a reason to fire someone. The reason most employers get away with firing employees is not because they are on strong legal grounds, but rather the employee doesn't have the knowledge or resources to fight. Because when they do, they can often win.

In this case all it would take would be for her to illustrate a time when a male radio personality "insulted" a guest and wasn't fired to have a pretty solid EEOC claim. Relatively simple and strong legal precedent.

Regards,

Doug

Edit: Even IF they do have a reason for termination, most boards, panels, juries, judges want to see that the employee was first reprimanded and had their bad behavior explained to them while giving them a chance to correct their behavior. Failing this - employee often wins.

 

[jamil]

"Right" or "wrong is subjective. Sometimes cruelly so. Oh, and EEOC should no longer exist. People aren't equal.

So now are we talking legally or "right & wrong?"

Because IF we are talking legally most boards, judges, courts, etc tend to side with plaintiff's regarding firing without cause. I'm not an expert, but as a student of human resources and compliance issues it has been explained in detail that when push comes to shove most judges tend to favor having a reason to fire someone. The reason most employers get away with firing employees is not because they are on strong legal grounds, but rather the employee doesn't have the knowledge or resources to fight. Because when they do, they can often win.

In this case all it would take would be for her to illustrate a time when a male radio personality "insulted" a guest and wasn't fired to have a pretty solid EEOC claim. Relatively simple and strong legal precedent.

Regards,

Doug

Edit: Even IF they do have a reason for termination, most boards, panels, juries, judges want to see that the employee was first reprimanded and had their bad behavior explained to them while giving them a chance to correct their behavior. Failing this - employee often wins.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Just so the nonbelievers don't feel left out there is also a philosophical/scientific debate about free will among atheists/agnostics.

Where can I read up on this debate? I didn't know it was that big of a deal to be a non-believer and have free will.