Replies to post #379045 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[wEaReLeGiOn]

I'll take your straw man and raise you a conspiracy theory =)

[blackhawks]

Wrong again. If you were correct you would be able to cite numerous successful challenges from employees to employers for such violations. Perhaps you've confused restricting voting rights with lawful corp. rights to restrict employee speech?

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/

To be sure, free speech is an immutable right protected by the First Amendment, which provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” But the right to free speech ends where it begins: with the plain language of the Constitution which guarantees it.

The First Amendment only prohibits Congress – the legislative branch of the United States government – from abridging the right to free speech. This prohibition has since been made applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, and generally prohibits government interference with free speech rights.

The First Amendment does not prohibit private individuals, companies and employers from restricting speech. The social media platforms responsible for suspending President Trump’s accounts are privately owned and operated, and they are free to limit the content on their sites without implicating the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated in the decisions made by private social media platforms to suspend President Trump’s accounts.

Moreover, while the First Amendment prohibits government interference with speech that could be deemed hateful, it does not protect illegal and riot-inducing speech. As Justice Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated more than century ago, “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Thus, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protections do not apply to speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Employers’ Bottom Line: Because private companies are not bound by the confines of the First Amendment, private companies generally need not consider it when regulating the content of speech in the workplace or making employment-related decisions, such as discipline, based on an employee’s speech.

Private employers may advise their employees not to speak about politics in the workplace, and they may remove postings from internal and external means of communication that involve political discussion, including the Capitol riot and suspension of President Trump’s social media accounts, without violating the First Amendment.

Employers should, however, be mindful that some state and local governments have passed laws incorporating the principles of the First Amendment to prohibit even employers in the private sector from taking action based on constitutionally protected speech.

Examples include, but are not limited to, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North and South Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, D.C. and Wisconsin.

Still others prohibit employment action based on lawful off-duty conduct, and others based on use of “lawful products,” such as social media. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Act protects speech by or on behalf of a group of employees concerning their terms and conditions of employment.

That protection can be lost if the speech is egregiously offensive, which is a fact-specific determination. Thus, before an employer (especially one operating in multiple jurisdictions) restricts or takes action based on speech, it is advisable to consult an employment attorney to fully consider the implications.

[fuagf]

Da Kine 17, blackhawks here ..

Wrong again.

[...]

The First Amendment only prohibits Congress – the legislative branch of the United States government – from abridging the right to free speech. This prohibition has since been made applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, and generally prohibits government interference with free speech rights.

The First Amendment does not prohibit private individuals, companies and employers from restricting speech. The social media platforms responsible for suspending President Trump’s accounts are privately owned and operated, and they are free to limit the content on their sites without implicating the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated in the decisions made by private social media platforms to suspend President Trump’s accounts.

Moreover, while the First Amendment prohibits government interference with speech that could be deemed hateful, it does not protect illegal and riot-inducing speech. As Justice Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated more than century ago, “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Thus, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protections do not apply to speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Employers’ Bottom Line: Because private companies are not bound by the confines of the First Amendment, private companies generally need not consider it when regulating the content of speech in the workplace or making employment-related decisions, such as discipline, based on an employee’s speech.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164789303

clearly proved your "Private companies CANNOT violate a person’s civil rights.
The fact that you argue this point shows how ignorant you really are."

to be wrong on both counts. Arrogance sucks sometimes, eh. The least you could do would
be to thank him for getting you up-to-date on something you should have known years ago.

If Trump were in your shoes he wouldn't thank him either.

[sortagreen]

Do you have any idea what a fucking contract is?