See this where I think we disagree. Our Freedom of speech, Right to bear arms, etc, can be taken from us legally by 2/3 vote of the states. They are referred to as the Bill of Rights, but they are amendments, and as such are at risk.
The 3 mentioned in the Declaration can’t be removed except by the one(God) who gave them to us.
That’s where I see the distinction between two.
I agree that the Constitution has at it’s root God’s law, beyond that I believe the founders took the 3 from the Declaration, and said let’s apply them to every day life.
You are also correct in stating that I have to run my company within the law, however even if I don’t there are remedies in place for that, and most result in the employee losing their job anyway (speaking as a small business owner).
The difference between that and what this cop did are vast.
The employee/employer agreement is a basic contract, written or verbal. I have terms, and the employee has terms. One of my terms is if you speak to the press you can’t use the company name without my permission. Imagine the opposite of what happened here, and the employee writes a letter to the editor espousing the joys of sex with animals, kids etc., and then signs it with the name of my company. I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with me firing the employee for that. Plain and simple he violated our agreement. I’m not restricting his free speech as he can that very second go to the nearest tv station and further explain his love of sheep. If he uses the name of my company at this time then I would address my grievance in civil court. However I have still not infringed upon his free speech rights except as they now violate slander statutes. At this point the court steps in with the remedy. He’s still free to preach sheep love, but not use my company name to promote the action.
The example of the letter to the editor that you gave (”sheep love”) is an extreme one.
Let’s go back to the example of the person writing about a safety issue.
In that example, he wrote to the paper, put his position and company and then was let go.
Then he spoke out some more, telling the press he was let go due to having previously written a letter to the paper about a safety issue.
So, that employee doesn’t work for the company any more- the contract, as you put it, is broken, so on what basis can the company go after him further?
That further action on the part of the company is retaliation on a whistleblower.
He was stating facts, and any retaliation for whistleblowing only makes the company look worse.
Since when is telling the truth slander?