Free Speech - Trump gets fingered / She gets fired - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14903696
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-suing-for-my-right-to-flip-off-the-president/2018/04/05/a0abcf10-38e8-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html

Why I’m suing for my right to flip off the president

Juli Briskman was fired for after a photo of her giving President Trump the middle finger went viral. Now she's suing. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

By Juli Briskman - Juli Briskman is a marketing and public relations professional living in Sterling.

One sunny Saturday last fall, I hopped on my bike and headed out for a ride near my home in Virginia. President Trump decided to spend some time outdoors that day, too, at the golf course he owns, not far from my biking route. Our paths crossed on Lowes Island Boulevard. As his motorcade sped by, I extended my middle finger in a brief and almost reflexive expression of my frustration with his mean-spirited and narrow-minded politics. Three days later, I lost my job.

A wire service photographer covering Trump captured the gesture, and a Voice of America reporter posted the photo online. It went viral. The next evening, I used the photo as the background on my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, neither of which mentioned where I worked. But after the weekend, I did let my employer, Akima, know that I was the cyclist in the picture.

While acknowledging that the First Amendment protected my right to extend my middle finger, my boss told me that “corporate protection” dictated that he terminate me on the grounds of a social media policy that prohibits “obscene” or “inappropriate” content. Akima does business with the government, and company executives obviously feared that the Trump administration would (unconstitutionally) penalize my employer for my gesture. So, that Tuesday, they forced me out.

The First Amendment bars retaliation against me by Trump. But Trump doesn’t need to punish me for my speech if fear of him spurs my employer to do it. And a private employer can’t suppress my freedom of expression on my own time out of fear of illegal government retaliation without violating Virginia employment law, which is why I filed a lawsuit against my former employer this week.

I am not alone in having my ability to make a living threatened by my desire to exercise my right to free speech. No one who follows football thinks that all 50 quarterbacks signed by NFL teams in the past year are more talented than Colin Kaepernick. The president’s relentless attacks on Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem created an environment in which many teams were reluctant to sign him and risk a backlash that could hurt their bottom line. Now Eric Reid, one of the first to join Kaepernick’s protest, is facing speculation that the salary he can draw as a free agent is reduced because he engaged in political dissent.

These are the stories that have made news, but this facilitation of speech suppression is creeping throughout the private sector. Take, for example, Protect Democracy, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization helping me bring my lawsuit. Members of the group have told me that their mission — preventing a slide to a more authoritarian form of government — has made it difficult for them to rent office space in Cambridge, Mass.; landlords, they say, fear retaliation from the federal government.

This sort of behavior is familiar to people living in Egypt, Hungary, Thailand, Turkey and Russia, where the ability to do business increasingly depends on being seen as favorable to the regime. As a result, companies in each of these countries do not hire or do business with known dissenters. And that pressure — making citizens choose between their pocketbooks and their principles — starts a downward spiral that ultimately dismantles a democracy.

Let’s call this “autocratic capture.” Autocratic capture is not new to the world, but it is new to this country, and it is up to all of us to keep it from taking root. Our democracy depends on it. As James Madison warned in the early days of the United States, the “value and efficacy” of free elections “depends” on Americans’ “equal freedom” to examine the “merits and demerits of the candidates.” But if Americans can keep their jobs only when they refrain from criticizing the president, then that freedom is lost. And once the freedom to speak is lost, then the rest of our constitutional rights will not be far behind.


Image

I thought this piece was informative and significant. With people like Donald Trump in power the threat to employers and landlords is significant. Federal employees like Andrew McCabe are not the only ones vulnerable to a vindictive government. What do you think?

Zam
#14903712
Foolish people upset they were punished for their foolishness. Trump has nothing to do with this. The same would have happened with any president. Companies do not like you upsetting their customers. Well at least until very recently when we have become so monopolized they can ignore their customers and support such childish acts.
#14903862
An idiot wrote:my boss told me that “corporate protection” dictated that he terminate me on the grounds of a social media policy that prohibits “obscene” or “inappropriate” content.

This woman is going to have a hard time finding a job if she thinks she can be rude and vulgar to people whenever she feels like it.
#14903865
AFAIK wrote:This woman is going to have a hard time finding a job if she thinks she can be rude and vulgar to people whenever she feels like it.

Indeed. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and free speech. To their credit, most Libertarians at least understand this point (e.g., Hoppe et al.). Why shouldn't employers have the right to fire their workers at will?
#14904006
Article wrote:This sort of behavior is familiar to people living in Egypt, Hungary, Thailand, Turkey and Russia, where the ability to do business increasingly depends on being seen as favorable to the regime.

I'd say in America it's important to be seen as favourable to the "resistance".
#14904023
What's the big fucking deal? Trump could have given her the Finger right back.

FFS, we had a PM who gave someone the Finger in 1982. The Salmon Arm Salute, as it was called.
Image

Why is this even a thing? This is a non-issue and I hope the woman sues their asses off. This is freedom of expression at it's highest level and you cannot even tell who is actually on the bike.

This is just a case of Trumpanzees getting upset that an American doesn't like their precious racist ring-leader. It hurts their feelings for people to do this.
#14904026
This has basically become the standard. Perhaps someone can prove me different, but the big start of this has been with liberals demanding punitive actions against conservatives. Sometimes, of course, there have been instances where people have done things that were so declasse or over the top that it was entirely appropriate that they faced consequences...

But there is an irony in the people who want to sue the pants off of Christian bakers for refusing to bake a cake now suddenly wanting immunity from consequences.
#14904030
Verv wrote: But there is an irony in the people who want to sue the pants off of Christian bakers for refusing to bake a cake now suddenly wanting immunity from consequences.
:roll: No irony. Not even comparable. Refusing service based on discrimination is not permissible nor considered freedom of expression. You're trying to conflate completely different things.

It's someone flipping off the President. You're allowed to do that in the USA. It's called freedom of expression, and is supported in the Constitution. It's that pesky 1st Amendment.

Discriminating against people in your business, because of their sexual orientation, or skin colour, however, is not acceptable as "freedom of expression", and is not considered such. You cannot refuse service based on your beliefs or opinion, if those infringe on someone else's rights. In short, keep your beliefs to yourself, and do your job.

That said, if this woman was a bike courier and she was on the job, sporting a business logo, I would understand the business firing her. She'd have been representing the company. Since with was clearly not the case, and you can only tell it's a woman(can't see face, name, etc.), the business firing her is actually infringing on her right to her freedom of expression/opinion. I doubt very much that her "Finger", would affect their business in any way, and they'll lose in court trying because of this.
#14904037
Verv wrote:the big start of this has been with liberals demanding punitive actions against conservatives.

Or perhaps you could "Prove yourself right," any references on such action by "Liberals."

Sometimes, of course, there have been instances where people have done things that were so declasse or over the top that it was entirely appropriate that they faced consequences

I'm not sure what you mean? People -fired- for expressing themselves on their own time? It would be really helpful if you provided examples when making such allegations.

But there is an irony in the people who want to sue the pants off of Christian bakers for refusing to bake a cake now suddenly wanting immunity from consequences.

What consequences? Please explain.

Godstud wrote:It's that pesky 1st Amendment...

...I doubt very much that her "Finger", would affect their business in any way, and they'll lose in court trying because of this.


I expect you are right.

Zam
Last edited by Zamuel on 08 Apr 2018 02:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14904039
AFAIK wrote:This woman is going to have a hard time finding a job if she thinks she can be rude and vulgar to people whenever she feels like it.


Sounds like she needs to get a job in construction.
#14904056
Ter wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but she got fired after she outed herself.
She was proud of what she did and thus made a political statement.

Yeah, that's what we call "Freedom of Speech." It's considered an ethical courtesy to notify any employer of a change in personal circumstances that may effect the company you work for. Prevents them being blind sided.

The company she worked for acted legally by firing her in my opinion.
I do not think she will win a court case.

Virginia evidently passed legislation protecting workers from retaliation for exercising their rights. I suspect though that you are correct about a "court case." Only a bunch of idiots wouldn't offer her a lucrative settlement to keep this case out of public court.

Zam
#14904061
/The first amendment means that you can't be prosecuted for your speech. It doesn't mean that employers can't take action. That's what happened to James Damore. He expressed a view that was not approved of by his employers. Believe it or not, you can discriminate against people in the United States in employment based on political views. You cannot do that for race, religion or national origin for example. This woman seems to have strained understanding of the first amendment. She also seems not to understand that the president also has freedom of speech--and this one uses it quite a bit to many people's chagrin.

Godstud wrote:Refusing service based on discrimination is not permissible nor considered freedom of expression. You're trying to conflate completely different things.

Freedom of religion, of association and political expression are all covered by the first amendment.

Godstud wrote:It's someone flipping off the President. You're allowed to do that in the USA. It's called freedom of expression, and is supported in the Constitution. It's that pesky 1st Amendment.

She is allowed to do that. Her employer is allowed to fire her just as Google is allowed to fire James Damore. Whether its good practice is a separate question. You were quick to defend YouTube's censorship. It's the same principle. Corporations can discriminate on the political views of their employees. Didn't you know that?

Godstud wrote:You cannot refuse service based on your beliefs or opinion, if those infringe on someone else's rights. In short, keep your beliefs to yourself, and do your job.

Publicly traded firms certainly cannot. Many anti-discrimination provisions do not apply to businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

Godstud wrote:She'd have been representing the company. Since with was clearly not the case, and you can only tell it's a woman(can't see face, name, etc.), the business firing her is actually infringing on her right to her freedom of expression/opinion.

She made it her cover art. Since she is in marketing, it's likely people know who she is. Marketing people aren't the typical back office stiffs. They are the public face of the company. If she hadn't owned the picture, made it her background and bragged about it, maybe that wouldn't have happened to her.

Godstud wrote:I doubt very much that her "Finger", would affect their business in any way, and they'll lose in court trying because of this.

If they had a policy and she signed off on it, it is part of the terms of the agreement. That's why a lot of people are upset about #metoo, because the morals clause gets triggered whether a person is guilty of an allegation or not.

Zamuel wrote:I'm not sure what you mean? People -fired- for expressing themselves on their own time? It would be really helpful if you provided examples when making such allegations.

The CEO of Mozilla was fired due to making political donations opposing same sex marriage. It happens all the time.
#14904075
blackjack21 wrote:/The first amendment means that you can't be prosecuted for your speech. It doesn't mean that employers can't take action.

Agreed.
She also seems not to understand that the president also has freedom of speech

No, I think she's well aware of that - hence, the bird ...

She is allowed to do that. Her employer is allowed to fire her just as Google is allowed to fire James Damore.

Evidently that is not so in the state of Virginia. I went looking for a law citation to see what the pertinent law actually said but haven't had any luck. I did turn up an interesting fact on the site of the law firm representing her.
a senior director of operations at Akima who clearly identifies himself with the company on his social media account — used that account to write “You’re a f----ing Libtard ---hole” on a Facebook discussion about Black Lives Matter.

That guy was allowed to delete the comment and keep his job.

Other interesting facts: This woman is 50 years old, not some flighty spring chicken. She's only sueing for around $2,500, a partial amount of severance pay the company promised but reneged on. Reportedly she has received a large number of job offers.

Zam
#14904076
Let me interject some reality. Discrimination suits do not result in large awards therefore attorneys will not take them on a commission. Discrimination in the US is determined by whether a political organization wants to financially back you or you are independently wealthy.
It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, or rights. It is all about politics and money.
If she gets political backing with lots of money, the company will probably settle.
If she doesn’t, their attorneys will destroy her in court.
#14904086
@One Degree, The only reason you think she should get fired and suffer hardship is because you are a Trump-adoring fan-boy. You'd think a Conservative would be all ab out the freedom to flip off the President, and not get fired when even your face isn't visible on the picture.

If this was against Obama, all the Republicans would be singing a different tune. Fact.
#14904092
Godstud wrote:@One Degree, The only reason you think she should get fired and suffer hardship is because you are a Trump-adoring fan-boy. You'd think a Conservative would be all ab out the freedom to flip off the President, and not get fired when even your face isn't visible on the picture.

If this was against Obama, all the Republicans would be singing a different tune. Fact.


I don’t believe I ever said she should be fired. I did say she should have expected it. Some of us separate what we believe is right from what can be realistically expected. My post above is based upon personal experience with the system, not on political bias. As I said, I was injecting reality and that was all I was trying to do. I would have made the same comment if the politics were reversed.
#14904106
Excellent point @OneDegree. I generally think things out of the scope of work should be off limits to employers too--especially unproven allegations. Voluntary verbose commentary in the public space is something I think employers get a "safe harbor." I don't even particularly like the "gotcha" type of stuff. However, that is the law. In the foregoing case, I'd pay a $2500 severance voluntarily unless legal counsel was advising otherwise in order to sustain a "for cause" position that would be undermined by paying it.

For most of the people here taking the Black Lives Matter positions on arrests, I see gross inconsistencies in positions. I do not like the politics of most black Americans at all, and I'm quite fine debating the finer points of social issues in the black community, IQ issues, and so forth. Yet, I was one of the few people here who would defend Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson when the left was trying to use black football players to make social justice points. They charged Adrian Peterson with a felony for spanking his kid with a willow switch (traditional values).
#14904109
@blackjack21
Inconsistent? Where do I begin? The same people who say a school has no control over veils, piercings, tattoos, and dress will vote to lynch you for putting black on your face.
“Illegal immigrants should be protected so they will testify to crimes of other illegal immigrants.” has to be the most logically inconsistent statement ever made.
Oh well, no sense going on.

...Which Hamas refuses and wasn't ordered by the […]

@skinster so you confess that Hamas committed ma[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]