First, as a suposed law-enforcement officer, I'm VERY SURPRISED that you were not aware that threatening the President of the United States is a class D felonious FEDERAL CRIME (United States Code Title 18, Section 871)! Odd that you are perfectly OK with a someone who - allegedly - committed a felony not being prosecuted for the crime.
Second, how do you know that someone else - much like you - could have just as easily ASSUMED the first women you mentioned WAS speaking for her company just as you ASSUME that she was not? It is a double edged sword and it cuts on both ends, bit just the one that you seem to care about.
Third, it is also a federal crime to produce or distribute "obscene material" on federal grounds or via interstate transmission (18 U.S.C. § 1460). While this is a much lesser crime. Again, odd that a suposed law enforcement officer would have such a relaxed position regarding law enforcement.
Bottom line in both these cases seem to be that an actual federal crime was committed. If I were the employeer of either of these women, I would fire them in a second to avoid my company - or assets of my company such as computer/communications equipment - being entangled in long legal proceedings.
Hello Bull153, I think, in the first case, after the Facebook posting went wider than she probably intended, the young woman in question gave an interview to Fox 40 News and defended her statements and actions while WEARING her Cold Stone uniform. In the front page Modesto Bee article, she is also pictured in her work uniform. If her work place had never been brought up or identified, then people most likely would have judged her words and comments solely on their lack of merit. HOWEVER, once she let herself be clearly associated with her place of employment, she became a reflection of the company and her employer's hand was pretty much forced. I can see that her offensive words and the negative publicity that they generated could have definitely adversely affected Cold Stone if the company acted as if lines were not crossed and her behavior was acceptable or an accurate representation of the caliber of their employees. She said some thoughtless, insensitive things and never expressed remorse, only shock and confusion over the critical feedback ("What did I do wrong?"). She learned a tough lesson by having to lose her job. Common sense is not always automatic but is usually invaluable. Sincerely, Karen
I was not aware that she gave the interview to Fox40 News in her work uniform. The same goes for the Modesto Bee article photo. In the only photo I saw, she was sitting on a couch (perhaps at home) and not wearing a uniform.
I am curious if the Fox40 News team ambushed her at work and how the photo in her uniform was obtained by the Modesto Bee. Did her boss provide the photo? Did she try an avoid being interviewed and Fox40 News tracked her to her work? There should have be a distinction that she was expressing her personal views and not any views of her employer. She certainly could have told the news crew that she didn't wish to be interviewed right then and arranged a neutral location. Common sense would seem to have been eclipsed by more stupidity when you allow yourself to be interviewed on a controversial topic while wearing your employer provided uniform. 20-20 hindsight is an unforgiving thing.
Given the updated information, it is hard to fault the employer firing this lady. It is a truly tough lesson to learn. As a general rule, though, I still contend that unless one clearly violates a condition of employment, like wearing a uniform while expressing opinions contrary to company policy, losing one's job should not be the result of one exercising their free speech rights.
Again, odd that a supposed former law enforcement officer finds nothing wrong with the potential felonies committed by the two individuals in question. Further odd that he seems to be defending a hypothetical situation and ignoring the facts and reality of the matter.
Hello Bull153, I watched the video clip of the interview (which I should have done, in the first place, before commenting) and for most of the time, the young woman is NOT wearing her Cold Stone uniform. There is ONE brief shot of her at work, dressed accordingly. I just wanted to correct some misinformation in my previous post. But I have seen the Modesto Bee picture. I don't know who was responsible for the pictures in uniform, but once those were out in public, I think Cold Stone management's options were few. Also, the more recent quotes (after all the negativity) show the young woman is finally backing off from some of her previous callous statements (that, while she wouldn't personally kill President Obama, she wouldn't really care if someone else did) and is insisting that she would not really want to see Obama, father of two young girls, dead. So maybe she did learn something about the power and responsibility of words from this unfortunate experience. I hope she turns her life and actions in a more positive direction. Sincerely, Karen
Thanks for the update. I'm glad the lady seems to finally 'get it' and realizes that her words and actions can have consequences.
Odd seeing as Bull153's point in the article was the words should NOT have consequences when you said "losing one's job should not be the result of one exercising their free speech rights."
Which one is it Bull153? Its easy to be right when one has zero problem taking all sides of an issue.
Also, I find it odd that a TeaParty person would find fault with an employeer for firing an employee for any reason. Very progressive thinking there Bull153 in suggesting employees have the right to keep their jobs indefinitely so long as they follow the specific rules.
Again, odd that being interviewed by the Secret Service for possible assassination attempt seems perfectly OK with a supposed law enforcement officer. It must be nice to have scruples that bend to the current situation.
Along with freedom of speech and expression comes
responsibility and often consequences
Whether the first woman was in uniform or not (and frankly that would've of been a irresponsible move) is not the whole picture here her words were thoughtless,wreckless (words far less than that have been known to incite violence) not to mention the innuendo that she was posting on a public forum she didn't mind the idea of a
sitting President being assassinated .
Maybe layer she regretted her words or maybe she was sorry she got caught irregardless the words are out there her thoughts, the company she worked for had no choice but to take action
We have the right to freedom of speech but we also must always consider how are words are going to effect others, what will be the far reaching effects.
I've seen people post things on these social media sites with apparently no hesitation of how these revelations might effect others or themselves.
Everyone has access to the internet and if you don't want things to be broadcast to the world then don't post it because it becomes available the moment you do.
I believe what both women did was very irresponsible and left their employers no other recourse, the fallout could have hurt these companies tremendously.
Words matter, that's pretty simple to understand
"Words matter, that's pretty simple to understand"
Very true. Too bad some here don't agree and find no value to words and freely talk out of both sides of the mouth or disingenuously play all sides of an issue.
Words matter. I could not agree more.
It appears that insanity is not limited solely to the 'Golden State' or Washington DC. A 19 year veteran firefighter in the 'Sunshine State' has been fired from his job for bringing a roll of toilet paper to work emblazoned with the image of Barack Obama. While not as vile as wishing harm on the President, using Presidential (and I don't mean stamped with the official seal) is very inappropriate and disgusting.
It is really hard to have any sympathy for this guy in view that he had been warned about bringing politically themed twice before and specifically ordered not to do it again. Had it been a first offense, I would have supported a warning. When you are bound and determined to be stupid - well. as Ron White would say "You just can't fix stupid".
“Everyone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.” - Unknown
Your above post is confusing. It seems to either be contradicting itself, or, contradicting both your blog and your prior comments. Could you please clarify?
“Insanity - It's difficult to comprehend how insane some people can be. Especially when you're insane.” - Larry Kersten
While Freedom of Speech does allow you to say what you want, it does not protect you from the consequences of that speech. These can range from nothing to being publicly condemmed to losing your employment. The more outlandish the speech, the more likely there will be severe consequesces. If it causes your employer problems, get your resume ready.
While you have the right to say what you want, I also have the right to point out what an idiot you are for saying it.
Very interesting you say that DLangdon. I wish more people here would heed such advice.
I would very much like to understand the author of this blogs actual position. It would seem in the actual blog he is offended the people he mentions lost their jobs sighting first amendment rights etc. , while later on, he suggest that it was the right thing for the employers to do in the situation.
Too bad we won't get a real discussion, only disingenuousness.
The right to free speech is not absolute, I agree. But I contend the venue in which the free speech is employed makes a difference. In my blog I pointed out the use of social media in these two cases, i.e. Facebook.
I contend it isn't my employer's place to police my use of social media UNLESS it directly ties into my employment. For example, if I post a you-tube video of myself taking a bath in the huge sink in my employer's fast food establishment - that happened - I should be fired. If I related on Facebook my dislike of the President, that is another thing entirely, UNLESS I am wearing my McDonald's uniform when I say it.
In the case of the fireman, that wasn't so much social media, as a direct violation of his terms of employment - having been twice warned. If this clown wants to wipe his butt with Barack Obama's image on his toilet paper, that's his business - but not in a work area he shares with other people.
You do have the right to point out idiotic actions to idiots. So do I. It is apparent that some people can't see the difference between social media and an employee's workplace. I suppose it is a case of common sense - some people just don't have any.
“Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom.” - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has” - Rene Descartes
Are you saying employers have ZERO RIGHTS to enforce buisnes standards anywhere but the actual workplace?
Make sure you think real hard before you answer that.
I know you don't want to think real hard before answering. But, could you perhaps reconsider?
Sorry Bull153, I'm just trying to clarify your rather confusing posts here as you seem to be double talking a bit ..