J-me Carney vs Nothstein



amit wrote:

>
> dumbass,
>
> bill and pappy fit the same profile.

Thanks for the compliment. If a person is defined by their friends and
enemies, I think I'm in pretty good company with Ken.
Bill C
 
On 08/06/2005 03:38 AM, in article
[email protected], "Bill C"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> SH wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2005 15:10:14 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> We're not all self-employed carpenters like you Bill. Those of us with
>>>> real "workforce" jobs know the value of keeping anonymity. It has more
>>>> to do with not wanting my co-workers to know that I spend my days
>>>> calling you "Dumbass" and arguing over Lance Armstrong's favorite
>>>> pharmaceutical products. Dumbass.
>>> Considering all the **** corporations etc. are doing to employees over
>>> blogs and internets postings I agree with you. Our rights to free
>>> speech and privacy are shrinking every day and that really bothers me,
>>> so in general I understand why some people are doing it. It pisses me
>>> off when people use their anonymity as a weapon to trash other people
>>> though. I'm not sure there is a good solution to it, other than deal
>>> with it on a case by case basis.
>>> Bill C

>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> "CONGRESS shall make no law...."
>>
>> You still have free speech, even if your company fires you for it.
>> Just let me know when you get thrown in jail for it. Then we'll talk
>> about an abridgement of your Consitutional rights.

>
> The ACLU seems to think there's a problem, but hey what do they know?
> http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0719-28.htm
> Bill C



So is the question, at this point, about our First Amendment rights being
abridged by the government, or by our employers?

As a First Amendment absolutist, I didn't see anything in those articles
preventing a company from firing one of their employees for using company
equipment to post to the internet or making publicly derogatory comments
about their employer.

If a person finds themselves in that situation, and they feel it was wrong,
they can pursue legal recompense.

But corporate retaliation by termination is not illegal, and it's not
prohibited by the First Amendment.

What's WAY more worrisome is that that speaking out against our own
government can be considered an act of inciting to terrorism, punishable by
life imprisonment ... Just for speaking.




--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
 
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

>
> What's WAY more worrisome is that that speaking out against our own
> government can be considered an act of inciting to terrorism, punishable by
> life imprisonment ... Just for speaking.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven L. Sheffield
> stevens at veloworks dot com
> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
> ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
> aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
> double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash


I agree completely that the real threat is coming from the government.
Unfortunately the rest of the world really seems to be going way down
the road to severely limiting speech. Granted that it has always been
this way in a lot of places, but Europe's shifting attitude on this
really bothers me since we seem to be going the same direction.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/paris.php
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W48A2109B
Unfortuanately there's plenty more examples out there and both ends of
the political spectrum here are doing their best to limit our rights
IMO. One from the PC end, and the other side from the religous
nutjob/neocons who are using fear to try and ram their agenda down our
throats. Either way we are in for a long hard fight to hang onto our
rights. What pisses me off is that both sides deny they are limiting
the right to free speech while doing everything they can to block
speech they find disagreeable. I'm with you as an absolutist on this. I
see very few cases where the government should be shutting people up no
matter how offensive what they are saying is. IMO Ward Churchill is a
pinhead, but his right to speak out needs to be protected, but that
same administation took action against faculty and students for running
an affirrmative action bake sale because it was considered racially
divise speech. When publicly funded organizations choose to protect one
form of speech, but act to silence others they should have their
funding pulled. When they allow and protect one form of demonstration,
but allow another viewpoint to have their equipment destroyed and be
driven off campus without taking any action against the violence that
they allowed to silence the speaker then That's garbage.
Anyway we're way OT.
Bill C
 
"I'm not sure what bothers me more; the right trying to prevent me from

expressing displeasure with the government because it's "unamerican" or
the
left trying ot prevent me from using an epithet because it's
"offensive"."


Son to dad: "Dad, I think we seriously need a 3rd political party"

Dad to Son: "I'd settle for two"
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
0
Views
345
T