Replies

I was talking bout principles, too; that was the whole point of my post to you. Don't you get it?

The PRINCIPLE behind freedom of speech isn't that people can shoot their mouths of with no consequence. The principle is that a free press and free speech keep government in check, and that the GOVERNMENT can't use prior restraint or punishment to prevent publication of ideas it doesn't like.

I saw the post about the truck, but you seem to think that folks are somehow protected by the constitution from any and all consequences of their unpopular opinions. I wouldn't murder an antiwar protestor, but I sure as hell would mock, scorn, shun and fire them.

You also seem to think that an employer canning an employee for speaking out is in violation of that priniciple. It is not. (If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize in advance, but I read all your posts , and you seemed to think this woman was denied her rights).

The PRINCIPLE behind freedom of speech isn't that people can shoot their mouths of with no consequence.

Sorry, but if you're implying that one of those "consequences" should be getting run over by a Dodge RAM pickup, you and I have to part company.

Oh, and I don't think she was denied "rights." Sometimes it isn't about "rights" but about principles that ought to be observed.

IMO, unless there are mitigating circumstances (such as that this woman has done things like this repeatedly in the past, or she offended a client/customer thus losing business, etc.) then I simply feel the employer over-reacted.

The story says that she used her private email address, and did it on her own time, but signed the name of her company. Not sure if that was a huge problem or not.

But it could have been handled a lot more easily than it was, IMO.