Freedom of Speech in the workplace

Post Reply New Topic

Do you know of any more examples of this? After I can afford it I am determined to take Wal-Mart through as many levels of the courts as necessary to ensure that Wal-Mart pays for junk like this which they have committed, and probably still are committing, against innocent people. Having more examples of this type of hard-headed refusal to think and blind following of policies regardless of actual situation would be useful in developing a more generalized legal battle against them.

Well, that's a slightly different matter.

Juan Williiams was fired from NPR at the demand of the Council for American-Islamic Relations because of what he said as a guest on a Fox news program.

I found it reprehensible that NPR rationalized it as saying he had a right to free speech but not a right to employment. Journalism is all about freedom of speech and to fire a reporter who expressed his view when not working in his capacity as a journalist (it would be defensible if he passed his personal views as "facts" in a news story, but that is not the case here) is the height of hypocrisy. Ironically, NPR's firing of Williams perfectly illustrates his comment on Fox about political correctness run amok. A real news agency would not terminate an employer because someone in the viewing audience was offended. Checking your views and opinions for fear of offending someone stifles free speech, and the journalistic profession is very adamant about not tolerating things that stifles free speech.

Now, for an ordinary person, yes, expressing a view publicly could cost you your job. Especially if doing so carries the impression that your employer embraces or endorses your viewpoint or results in hostility directed at your employer. However, there is a question as to whether your employment contract sets rules and policies of what outside behavior can be sanctioned or what rights you have to employment...violation of which would result in legal action against the employer.

No, 'keet, no such thing happened. I only removed all the emotional stuff in order to get down to the simple question of whether or not you had been restricted from speaking freely in a situation where no law even says you must be allowed to speak. I am not saying you were being treated properly, and neither am I saying you were wrong in saying the things you said. I am simply saying no personal rights were violated in any of the situations you have mentioned.

Saying that something wrong isn't illegal is not to say that it isn't wrong, just that there has not yet been a law made to address it in particular. When I take Wal-Mart to the courts I will be seeking to establish a formal ruling regarding the freedom of speech in the workplace in particular and clarifying that freedom of speech entails freedom from punishment for merely speaking things which others consider disfavorable.

Agreed, and my own posts show the same ...


Some companies do better than others in the kinds of situations you have described, and some unions make differences there ... but there is no way "the gub'ment" is ever going to make a law giving employees freedom from retribution every time an employer, manager or supervisor does not like something an employee has said.


I commend your committment there, but you will get nowhere with that unless you can show Wal-Mart has either broken an existing law or has at least treated you unfairly in relation to their own internal policies ... and then something like that would only be a civil matter the one with the deepest-filled pockets ends up winning.