https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-fired- ... 21275.html

Ah yes, an (at will state) where you can be fired for an off the job political statement. I maybe wrong, but is not the finger considered Free Speech? I hope she sues the Bastards for a violation of Free Speech. She says she has no regrets after seeing the Prez coming from or to playing golf. I wonder what the golf game count is now. Surely he must be ahead of Obama by now, or will be.

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. This women can lose her friends/jobs perfectly fine, as she chose the consequences of her actions. Free speech only means the government won't punish her for her actions.

Absolutely correct, Super80Fan. I'm a hardcore leftist, and she has absolutely no standing to sue for violation of any freedom of speech rights - there has been no violation of her rights as it pertains to the issue of freedom of speech. She exercised her rights, and her Virginia based employer, an at-will right to work state exercised its rights under the law to fire her as a consequence of her action.

Now, where she does have standing to sue is the fact that the company has inconsistently applied its social media policy, and now she's going to get a fat settlement as a result of their ham handed handling of this. Previously, a social media director at the company engaged in an argument online, from his personal social media account which contained the company information (as opposed to her personal account, which did not reference the company), commenting about "F**king libtards" and some such - the company simply made him remove the offending content. In this circumstance, they did not ask for removal of the content. If I were a lawyer, I'd be drooling over this, seeing a multi-million dollar payday over gender discrimination.

But no laws at all pertaining to freedom of speech or conduct were violated by the company. None whatsoever. Let's be very clear on that point. The company did violate a number of laws, but nothing related to freedom of speech.

Ah, loud mouth liberals complaining about free speech "violations" again. These are the same people that shut down and silence everyone that disagrees with them, but when one of their own does something stupid it's "What about free speech?!?". Outside of the government, your free speech doesn't come with protection from the consequences of your speech.

If you support such actions, I have an old saying for you. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" I still hope she levels a lawsuit, you cannot even see her face. It just shows a woman riding a bike flipping off someone. A common occurrence these days.

If she herself had not put it on her facebook page, she would have been fine. Since her employer was a govt contractor...they of course want to stay in the good graces of the administration.

Super80Fan wrote:

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. .

That is hogwash.

If someone on the right does it, then they always claim the freedom of religion argument.

Brick wrote:

Ah, loud mouth liberals complaining about free speech "violations" again. .

I'm sorry....WHOM was complaining?????????????


...and what about this?

But Briskman said what’s been particularly infuriating is that a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a fucking Libtard asshole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job.

“How is that any less ‘obscene’ than me flipping off the president?” she asked. “How is that fair?”

Again, don't post controversial things about yourself on social media....but quit trying to use a left/right argument here.

727LOVER wrote:

Brick wrote:

Ah, loud mouth liberals complaining about free speech "violations" again. .

I'm sorry....WHOM was complaining?????????????


...and what about this?

But Briskman said what’s been particularly infuriating is that a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a fucking Libtard asshole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job.

“How is that any less ‘obscene’ than me flipping off the president?” she asked. “How is that fair?”

Again, don't post controversial things about yourself on social media....but quit trying to use a left/right argument here.

One would hope the lawyers are lining up with that information which certainly smacks of a double standard in their treatment of a 52 year old woman versus a right wing man who was obscene and used the company logo without termination.

She should have simply not said anything.

Then she wouldn't have been fired.

Tugg

Siren wrote:

Absolutely correct, Super80Fan. I'm a hardcore leftist, and she has absolutely no standing to sue for violation of any freedom of speech rights - there has been no violation of her rights as it pertains to the issue of freedom of speech..

While correct, this isn´t a free speech issue, i will never understand how the hell an employer has any right whatsoever to tell you what you can and can´t do in your free time, unless they can demonstrate that objective damage ist done to their business, and that bar has to be set high. No one knows who she works for from that picture, no damage done. Here this would be one of those cases where a judge tries to tell the employer that there is just one way this can possibly end, with the company losing. Heck, even faith based employers have a hard time firing you for staring in porn movies outside of work.

Employees are apparently owned. Walmart got its ass handed to them twice here, much because they somehow suffered from the illusion that they can tell employees how to live their lives.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but only if as long as your employer wants to to be free and happy. Slavery light.

best regards
Thomas

If she had been fired after having attended a Tea Party rally with a machine gun, we all know how that would have gone...

Super80Fan wrote:

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. This women can lose her friends/jobs perfectly fine, as she chose the consequences of her actions. Free speech only means the government won't punish her for her actions.

If you try to fire some one here for things that are not connected to his/her work you will be laughed out of court.
you are paid for your work and in a limited context not for being Leibeigen.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

This is probably the most extreme employer overreaction ever. She was fired for showing the finger to the POTUS motorcade? ...only in America.
I agree though that this have nothing to do with free speech but rather an unimaginable lack of tolerance from the employer. It's almost worse then
one of them middle east dictatorships.

There are some places where you offend the king/queen at your own peril. they have laws to that effect.

tommy1808 wrote:

Siren wrote:

Absolutely correct, Super80Fan. I'm a hardcore leftist, and she has absolutely no standing to sue for violation of any freedom of speech rights - there has been no violation of her rights as it pertains to the issue of freedom of speech..

While correct, this isn´t a free speech issue, i will never understand how the hell an employer has any right whatsoever to tell you what you can and can´t do in your free time, unless they can demonstrate that objective damage ist done to their business, and that bar has to be set high. No one knows who she works for from that picture, no damage done. Here this would be one of those cases where a judge tries to tell the employer that there is just one way this can possibly end, with the company losing. Heck, even faith based employers have a hard time firing you for staring in porn movies outside of work.

Employees are apparently owned. Walmart got its ass handed to them twice here, much because they somehow suffered from the illusion that they can tell employees how to live their lives.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but only if as long as your employer wants to to be free and happy. Slavery light.

best regards
Thomas

thats' the USA. I knew a manager at a large aerospace company who admitted to having a affair with his secretary and they both got fired. He'd been at the company for over 15 years

mad99 wrote:

thats' the USA. I knew a manager at a large aerospace company who admitted to having a affair with his secretary and they both got fired. He'd been at the company for over 15 years

that is what, among selling meat that has been just relabeled with new expiration dates, snapped Walmart´´s neck in Germany. They tried that one, a Düsseldorf court rolled their rules up nicely and stuffed it up their posterior.....
That was actually one of those cases where a company has been told that they are violating the constitution directly, and not "just" a simple law.....

best regards
Thomas

I'm conflicted with this outcome BUT, being a contractor employee myself, I'll have to agree with the actions of the company and here's why:

When you work for a company that's a government contractor and government contracts form a large part of your revenue, all employees have to meet a code of conduct at all times. It will likely be stipulated that she's essentially a company representative even when she's off the clock; therefore, to put government contracts in jeopardy means she's violated a policy.

The only case she has is if there's ambiguity in the documents she signed as to social media and off the clock behavior. But I really doubt companies still retain ambiguity about their policies. It's probably the same reason that most companies with government contracts still forbid their employees from smoking marijuana (for any reason) on their own time.

That being said, I wouldn't be too concerned for her...she'll likely find lots of sympathizers who will offer her a job because of her actions.

This is no different than when folks who attended the Charlottesville rally were fired when their names and companies were revealed. In the end, companies want to retain good impressions. To have condoned the employee would have made people question: "Does this company encourage this behavior?"

In the end, it wasn't the government who fired her...it was the company she worked at. There's no Constitutional violation (from the government side, at least).

Super80Fan wrote:

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. This women can lose her friends/jobs perfectly fine, as she chose the consequences of her actions. Free speech only means the government won't punish her for her actions.

Seems the right would also benefit from learning from this statement as well. But then again, IOKIYAR. Just pray for forgiveness (which will be 100% guaranteed) and carry on.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

This is probably the most extreme employer overreaction ever. She was fired for showing the finger to the POTUS motorcade? ...only in America.
I agree though that this have nothing to do with free speech but rather an unimaginable lack of tolerance from the employer. It's almost worse then
one of them middle east dictatorships.

WIederling wrote:

There are some places where you offend the king/queen at your own peril. they have laws to that effect.

Lèse-majesté - an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.
1 Current laws
1.1.1 Denmark
1.1.2 Iceland
1.1.3 Netherlands
1.1.4 Spain

1.2.1 Kuwait
1.2.2 Jordan
1.2.3 Saudi Arabia

1.3.1 Morocco
1.3.2 Thailand
1.3.3 Malaysia

2 Former laws
2.1 Japan
2.2 Norway
2.3 United Kingdom

John Bull farts on an image of George III, 1798

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9

einsteinboricua wrote:

company representative even when she's off the clock;.

Slavery light. You are a company´s representative when you get paid, off the clock (=unpaid) you are not. If she had been holding an enormously big company sign while doing it, yeah.. maybe.

If the company wants to claim she was a company representative, then they better pay her all the overtime since she started in the company to the tune of 128 hours/week or more if she didn´t work full time.

When you work for a company that's a government contractor and government contracts form a large part of your revenue, all employees have to meet a code of conduct at all times.

Funny how that isn´t a problem in any country that doesn´t make an employee a 24/7 piece of property of their employer unless they quit.

best regards
Thomas

einsteinboricua wrote:

.......<about appearances>.....

That would only be acceptable if your job is a public service.
Like a notary?

and only for activities related to that job.
like trying to do a free wiliie in the brothel?

The strong drive to lockstep people in the USA is over the top
and completely disassociated from the "we are so free" slogan.

tommy1808 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

company representative even when she's off the clock;.

Slavery light. You are a company´s representative when you get paid, off the clock (=unpaid) you are not. If she had been holding an enormously big company sign while doing it, yeah.. maybe.

Sorry, but if you signed a contract with the company, you abide by their rules. Don't like it? Work elsewhere.

Would I like to be able to smoke pot on my own? Hell yeah. Would I like to flip off a government official I found distasteful? Possibly. But if I do, I do so with the understanding of the consequences of doing it. So essentially, because I know my company's policy also expects good behavior off hours, I refrain from doing so.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Sorry, but if you signed a contract with the company, you abide by their rules. Don't like it? Work elsewhere.

my employer, as in any country that doesn´t have slavery light, can write whatever the hell they want in the contract, outside the time they pay me for it is simply a waste of paper and toner. Null and void.

Would I like to be able to smoke pot on my own? Hell yeah. Would I like to flip off a government official I found distasteful? Possibly. But if I do, I do so with the understanding of the consequences of doing it. So essentially, because I know my company's policy also expects good behavior off hours, I refrain from doing so.

well, i guess if you see yourself as property, than all of the above it ok. This side of bronze age it ain´t.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Sorry, but if you signed a contract with the company, you abide by their rules. Don't like it? Work elsewhere.

my employer, as in any country that doesn´t have slavery light, can write whatever the hell they want in the contract, outside the time they pay me for it is simply a waste of paper and toner. Null and void.

Would I like to be able to smoke pot on my own? Hell yeah. Would I like to flip off a government official I found distasteful? Possibly. But if I do, I do so with the understanding of the consequences of doing it. So essentially, because I know my company's policy also expects good behavior off hours, I refrain from doing so.

well, i guess if you see yourself as property, than all of the above it ok. This side of bronze age it ain´t.

best regards
Thomas

At will employment can actually be much more beneficial for the employees and the companies. There are down and upsides to it just like with union or government mandated employment principles.

At will employment gives companies in the US the ability to hire marginal candidates to give them a go and see how they perform at the entry into a job. This can benefit folks that otherwise would never have been hired.

People that perform well, will keep their jobs, and those that don't may lose them.

In a good economy, one that we are entering now, the employees get a lot of power and bargaining strength for salaries, as the At Will employment goes both ways.



As for the woman fired. Do not cry for her. She was employed for 6.5 months by this company, and was not integral to their corporate structure at all.

As for the company, they may face backlash. It is doubtful as they are a government contractor, but either way, it is good or bad optics depending on the stance of purchasers within the Government under different administrations.

A question for the lefties on here, would you be posting the same thing you are now/share the same opinions if it was Hillary or Obama in that motorcade?

einsteinboricua wrote:

Sorry, but if you signed a contract with the company, you abide by their rules. Don't like it? Work elsewhere.

Sorry such conditions are "wider die guten Sitten" here. i.e. you can't place them on a contract and if you still do they are void.

Same for asking about sexual orientation, pregnancy or such. You may lie if pressured without consequences.
( US companies get slapped on a regular basis for trying.)

If you stand on a podium making a profane speech to the nation, with your name attached, if your employer doesn't like it, they can fire you. Pretty sure I would have been fired too just if I got photographed in the paper disrespecting the president using a vulgar gesture. I get that you're not necessarily a company representative in your off-time and you aren't being paid for that time. But, a journalist will write that you are such and such at Company X. And then you do represent the company. And that was the case here.

Plus, if you are salaried or any kind of executive, you are kind of paid to fulfill certain responsibilities 24/7. I think the company was within bounds to fire her.

Flighty wrote:

If you stand on a podium making a profane speech to the nation, with your name attached, if your employer doesn't like it, they can fire you. Pretty sure I would have been fired too just if I got photographed in the paper disrespecting the president using a vulgar gesture. I get that you're not necessarily a company representative in your off-time and you aren't being paid for that time. But, a journalist will write that you are such and such at Company X. And then you do represent the company. And that was the case here.

Plus, if you are salaried or any kind of executive, you are kind of paid to fulfill certain responsibilities 24/7. I think the company was within bounds to fire her.

The key stupid thing she did though was to identify herself to her company. She would not have been fired otherwise.

Tugg

In the United States, in general, if a person flips off a police officer can he or she be arrested?

dfwjim1 wrote:

In the United States, in general, if a person flips off a police officer can he or she be arrested?

No.

But as is the case anywhere in the world, you could bring attention that makes an officer take a closer look at you and what you are doing and something might arise from that. Who knows. But in general, as you put it, no flipping off the police is not a reason for arrest.

Tugg

Flighty wrote:

But, a journalist will write that you are such and such at Company X. And then you do represent the company. And that was the case here..

Well, on this side of bronze age the company fired her over being victim of a crime. I know the US doesn´t know the word "privacy", but here disclosing private information without permission can be fined or land you in jail for up to two years. That is for the journalist. Worst case for his newspaper/radio/tv station is a 10 million EUR fine. Media CEO has the same problem as the journalist.

There is a reason why something like the equifax data loss are so common place in the US and so rate here. Privacy is a human right.

best regards
Thomas

WIederling wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Sorry, but if you signed a contract with the company, you abide by their rules. Don't like it? Work elsewhere.

Sorry such conditions are "wider die guten Sitten" here. i.e. you can't place them on a contract and if you still do they are void.

Same for asking about sexual orientation, pregnancy or such. You may lie if pressured without consequences.
( US companies get slapped on a regular basis for trying.)

Your sexual orientation or being pregnant are not the same as flipping someone off. Nice try though.

tommy1808 wrote:

I know the US doesn´t know the word "privacy", but here disclosing private information without permission can be fined or land you in jail for up to two years.

Ehh? The woman disclosed the information herself. The company did not from what I have seen.

Tugg

Super80Fan wrote:

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. This women can lose her friends/jobs perfectly fine, as she chose the consequences of her actions. Free speech only means the government won't punish her for her actions.

Which is a complete 180 from those who were fired for being Nazis. Remember all of the crying and outrage when people marching in support of Nazis were fired because consequences have actions?

Flipping of the "president" is not even the same as being a Nazi. Why is anyone defending her firing for a peaceful protest?

Yes, privacy is very important, but she decided to make a public spectacle of herself on a public street. It's not illegal, but disrespecting your #1 customer, publicly, intentionally is not a good way to live successfully in a village. Even if your village is DC.

If you attack your #1 customer online and in person, publicly denouncing them, it can have employment consequences.

Tugger wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I know the US doesn´t know the word "privacy", but here disclosing private information without permission can be fined or land you in jail for up to two years.

Ehh? The woman disclosed the information herself. The company did not from what I have seen.

Tugg

There was an example in the post I replied to.

Telling someone is not the same as agreeing to public disclosure.

Flighty wrote:

Yes, privacy is very important, but she decided to make a public spectacle of herself on a public street. It's not illegal, but disrespecting your #1 customer, publicly, intentionally is not a good way to live successfully in a village. Even if your village is DC.

If you attack your #1 customer online and in person, publicly denouncing them, it can have employment consequences.

Apparently in backwater states it can. As I said, slavery light.

Best regards
Thomas

dfwjim1 wrote:

In the United States, in general, if a person flips off a police officer can he or she be arrested?

You can be arrested if the police officer doesn't like the way you look at him. It certainly won't hold up in court, and you will be released. But, that doesn't change the fact that your day will have been completely ruined, and your face and fingerprints are now in the United States criminal database computer system.

Yes, they absolutely can be arrested.

No, they cannot be charged with any crime. Not legally. But if you try it in some of the wrong Barney Fife jurisdictions, you may get locked up for a few days with charges attempted to be placed on you before you can get the issue dismissed. Either way, it's a headache you want to avoid.

Golden rule: don't agitate the police in the United States. They're just one step above brownshirts in terms of training, and one step below the SS in terms of organization and organizational racism.

seb146 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

A common misconception among the left, you have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom of consequence. This women can lose her friends/jobs perfectly fine, as she chose the consequences of her actions. Free speech only means the government won't punish her for her actions.

Which is a complete 180 from those who were fired for being Nazis. Remember all of the crying and outrage when people marching in support of Nazis were fired because consequences have actions?

Flipping of the "president" is not even the same as being a Nazi. Why is anyone defending her firing for a peaceful protest?

I wasn't crying about it, I was happy, as I am happy here. Really shows how many here are hypocrites. You are not guaranteed a job, unless you were fired for being pregnant/sick/your race/gender/religion, it is justified and completely legal. This women got what she deserved just like the Nazis did. Let's move on to a real topic now.

Super80Fan wrote:

A question for the lefties on here, would you be posting the same thing you are now/share the same opinions if it was Hillary or Obama in that motorcade?

Absolutely. Though, I think you know I'm a special case. I'm as hyperobjective and logical as it gets.

Super80Fan wrote:

Your sexual orientation or being pregnant are not the same as flipping someone off. Nice try though.

Your misunderstanding. Flippancy in your face though.

Siren wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

In the United States, in general, if a person flips off a police officer can he or she be arrested?

You can be arrested if the police officer doesn't like the way you look at him. It certainly won't hold up in court, and you will be released. But, that doesn't change the fact that your day will have been completely ruined

Or the whole weekend, as I have learned on this forum in the US a judge can't be bothered to release an unlawfully detained citizen after he went home for the weekend.....

and your face and fingerprints are now in the United States criminal database computer system.

Seriously? Is this Iran or a supposedly western country? Unbelievable. ..
Here they are required by law to remove data they don't need and automatically check if they do in intervals variing from state to state.
They have to erase them right away, if they should not have been taken in the first place, i.e. you have been arrested without a valid cause.
If you have been arrested with cause, but there isn't really a reason to keep it in the database, you can also try to have it removed with fairly good chances.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Telling someone is not the same as agreeing to public disclosure.

Yes, OK, but in this case the company did not disclose. She did. She is the one that took it public.

First she identified herself to her company. There was no need to, the picture was of an anonymous person. She voluntarily involved her company which allowed the company to review their options and they took a specific action. She then made it public that she had been fired. The company did not.

So she did "agree to public disclosure".

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So she did "agree to public disclosure".

it is a bit more involved than that:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-fired- ... 21275.html

Looking from Germany it is already overstepping to lean on how people do their personal facebook or whatnot pages.
( <social media> :: an abomination anyway, but what the heck.)

WIederling wrote:

Tugger wrote:

So she did "agree to public disclosure".

it is a bit more involved than that:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-fired- ... 21275.html

Looking from Germany it is already overstepping to lean on how people do their personal facebook or whatnot pages.
( <social media> :: an abomination anyway, but what the heck.)

Don't know what you mean. Her work contract allows review of "social media" elements. She is the one who allowed them to go looking.

And it is fine to be "looking from Germany", but it is well known and now very common practice for employers to review peoples publicly available online information. We do it during the hiring process and the same can go during employment.

Tugg

Siren wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

A question for the lefties on here, would you be posting the same thing you are now/share the same opinions if it was Hillary or Obama in that motorcade?

Absolutely. Though, I think you know I'm a special case. I'm as hyperobjective and logical as it gets.

I could give a damn less about somebody giving Hillary, or Obama or anyone else the finger. I consider it a right to express myself like that, even to a policeman of which I once was. Only the party of Trump and his acolytes would object to it. The phonies are beyond belief, the Super Americans who advocate the firing of a woman who was expressing her feelings of frustration about a bum President who was out playing or going to play golf for the umpteenth time after the Republican phonies pounded Obama about playing golf on the public's dime for years. Hypocrisy they name is Republican and Conservative.

As far as being arrested for giving a police officer the finger, I would enjoy the money after I sued them for false arrest. Trust me here in the North you would get a settlement well worth the over night in the cooler where I have also spent a night in my younger days. No cash then. The Cops never learn here and the city pays every time. We do not have slavery light as in Free Will States and the people who stand or believe in that system deserve everything they get, such as being fired without cause. We do not stand for that here, we have more intelligence than to vote for such.

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

tommy1808 wrote:

Siren wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

In the United States, in general, if a person flips off a police officer can he or she be arrested?

You can be arrested if the police officer doesn't like the way you look at him. It certainly won't hold up in court, and you will be released. But, that doesn't change the fact that your day will have been completely ruined

Or the whole weekend, as I have learned on this forum in the US a judge can't be bothered to release an unlawfully detained citizen after he went home for the weekend.....

and your face and fingerprints are now in the United States criminal database computer system.

Seriously? Is this Iran or a supposedly western country? Unbelievable. ..
Here they are required by law to remove data they don't need and automatically check if they do in intervals variing from state to state.
They have to erase them right away, if they should not have been taken in the first place, i.e. you have been arrested without a valid cause.
If you have been arrested with cause, but there isn't really a reason to keep it in the database, you can also try to have it removed with fairly good chances.

In the USA a HUGE number of people have been fingerprinted in order to be employed, work with children, etc. I see no reason why everyone should not be fingerprinted. Adding DNA to the national database would also be a good think IMHO.

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal. I defend this woman's actions to flip off Trump. That is not what this is about. You can have blown of pictures of Trump or Obama with bullet-holes in their heads on your lawn for all I care. The government can't and won't come after you, just like it should be. That doesn't mean however that your employer has to agree with you/keep you on. It is perfectly within their right to let you go for a valid reason/putting the company in a negative light, especially if you are in a "right to work" state.

Super80Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal. I defend this woman's actions to flip off Trump. That is not what this is about. You can have blown of pictures of Trump or Obama with bullet-holes in their heads on your lawn for all I care. The government can't and won't come after you, just like it should be. That doesn't mean however that your employer has to agree with you/keep you on. It is perfectly within their right to let you go for a valid reason/putting the company in a negative light, especially if you are in a "right to work" state.

Why is that? Why are corporations so special? Why can they fire you and not violate your rights in Right To Works States? Why would anyone defend Corporations when they have special protection given to them by our state governments. Are they Special? Are they above the law? They are obviously above the law in Right to Work States. Why is that, are the people dumb? The corporation has all the power and the people are afraid to Unionize, have they no backbone or are they that ignorant. I have always wondered how people can be that cowardly.

WarRI1 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal. I defend this woman's actions to flip off Trump. That is not what this is about. You can have blown of pictures of Trump or Obama with bullet-holes in their heads on your lawn for all I care. The government can't and won't come after you, just like it should be. That doesn't mean however that your employer has to agree with you/keep you on. It is perfectly within their right to let you go for a valid reason/putting the company in a negative light, especially if you are in a "right to work" state.

Why is that? Why are corporations so special? Why can they fire you and not violate your rights in Right To Works States? Why would anyone defend Corporations when they have special protection given to them by our state governments. Are they Special? Are they above the law? They are obviously above the law in Right to Work States. Why is that, are the people dumb? The corporation has all the power and the people are afraid to Unionize, have they no backbone or are they that ignorant. I have always wondered how people can be that cowardly.

What gives you the ideas that corporations are "above" state or national labor laws?

As with any other laws, if you don't like labor laws then work to have them changed.