comment by b

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

comment by b_b

b_b · 4726 days ago · link · · parent · post: Inside the attack on the First Amendment

Here's the tricky part of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law..." Does this preclude others from making rules, such as an employer? I'm all for an extreme version of free speech, as I think that ideas need to be protected, but I also think that an employer has some need in some cases to protect themselves from rogue employees (freedom to say, "you're fired", I suppose). Take for example a hospital who fires someone for disseminating literature about how vaccine cause autism. I think that's reasonable, because it undermines the mission of the employer. And, they're not saying "You can't say that." They're saying, "You can't say that and work for me". No law has been broken by either party.

Where I think this case is different is that this man worked for the government. I think one should have to say something pretty extreme to get shut up by the feds. (Remember the Dept. of Agriculture employee who was fired for being "reverse racist", except that her comments were out of context? That's why the gov't shouldn't fire people for words.)

markup tips · 0

kleinbl00 · 4725 days ago · link ·

What's tricky about that? It says "congress shall make no law." That means discrimination can't be written in. It's specifically written in such a way that it doesn't write it out, either; that's all handled by the fourth and tenth amendments.

The hospital in your example would have a hard time doing anything about your anti-vax guy if he didn't do it at work - and if he did it at work, their first move has to be to ask him not to do it at work. Anything he does in his private time is protected. Even stuff he does in his public time is protected - Target, for example, has a league of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and they're constitutionally protected.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4725 days ago · link ·

I say the anti-vax guy can do what he pleases on his own time. As long as it's legal, and he doesn't use the Hospital's name or authority to help his idiot cause.

As for the Target employees, I think they should be able to be fired. Should a Jain be able to work at McDonald's and refuse to serve anything but fries?