Was she on the clock when she did this?
If not, I’m not a fan of her firing, despite what she did.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express opinions on your free time. Would anyone here who said rude things about Obama want to be fired for doing so?
If Colin Kaepernick were protesting cops on his own time I’d have to loathe and defend him at the same time.
No one prevented her from flipping the bird; or are you saying that the first makes you immune to any and all reactions to your words? I don’t see any government prosecution of her for her gesture; simply a company sweeping an embarrassment out the door.
Yeah, I agree. You should be able to be whatever d**k you want on your own time. It's no different than getting into a political debate at your local bar. She's kind of a dope for posting on the internet, but that seems to be a mental disease that a lot of people share these days -- oversharing.
I've always had strict rules about employees conducting themselves in a professional manner in the public eye. In this case, her offense is apparently even more egregious because she lists the name of her employer on her social media accounts. Posting a photo of yourself making an obscene gesture is a no-no for any responsible employer.
The Constitution guarantees you the right of ‘Free Speech’, but not protection from the consequences of it.
When I as working on a Navy Base back in ‘92, a woman was fired from her government job for campaigning for Perot on her own time, but in front of the main gate..................The Hatch Act..............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
The photo was taken by the official White House photographer, it was not a selfie.
She was not fired for flipping off the motorcade. She was fired for making the photo her Facebook profile picture, which her employer claimed violated their social media obscenity policy.
Not sure I agree with that reason either, but if the company does business with the government, you don't want to risk offending your client.
The First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law." So the freedom is only as against the government, not private individuals.
Not too many people believe this but an employer has a right to cut you loose for any reason at any time. Maybe she had a contract and then, yes, unless there was a due cause, she may get her agreed to terms met, but as a wage earner - just the fact that she embarrassed herself and the company publicly - (via Facebook or Twitter)
The 1st Amendment prevents the government from screwing with you when you speak. Private citizens, employers and friends can kick you to the side of the rode at their whim. The good thing, though, is that you are free to find a compatible employer and new friends without government interference!
Not quite. The first Amendment upholds your right of free speech against repercussions from the government. It has nothing to do with what private employers might do. The fact that she posted on social media, a picture of the vulgar behavior, means anybody can connect her to the event. As the owner of the company, he has every right to fire her rear end if he feels she is, or can/will become a liability.
“Was she on the clock when she did this?
If not, I’m not a fan of her firing, despite what she did.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express opinions on your free time. Would anyone here who said rude things about Obama want to be fired for doing so?
If Colin Kaepernick were protesting cops on his own time I’d have to loathe and defend him at the same time.”
She wasn’t on clock, but she posted as a banner on her Facebook and Twitter. In other words, she embraced the pic. The Contracting Company had a rule about obscene pics and language on social media.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No, the First Amendment guarantees your right to express opinions on your free time without Government interference. It does NOT make you immune from actions your employer might take because of your actions.
1st amendment not applicable to private companies.
The company did not prevent her exercising her right to free speech.
They can do what she did, and respond. Actions have consequences. She exercised her rights, now take responsibility.
Are employers free to hire and fire who they please for any reason? I’m not sure in the current oligarchy we have, but I do remember living in a free republic where employers had 100% power to do as they pleased, unions notwithstanding, of course.
“The First Amendment guarantees your right to express opinions on your free time.” That is only partially true. It addresses the government’s actions i.e., the government cannot prevent you or punish you from expressing your opinion on your free time. But, it does not guarantee you that you can express your opinion on your free time without action by your employer, especially if that expression has a negative impact on your employer’s business. It only prevents the government from taking action, not your employer. This woman can sue but she has no guarantee of winning — unless she gets a liberal judge. From her statements, she sounded like a complete idiot anyway.