There was a case almost a century ago about a policeman who was fired because he engaged in certain free speech that the department didn't like. The appeal went all the way to the supreme court. Oliver Wendell Holmes said of the case, "The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." More recently, courts upheld firing policemen that were also members of the KKK because their membership in that organization undermined the legitimacy of the police department. And these are government employees, who are afforded FAR greater protection that private-sector employees.

 

Now in your second example, I have no doubt that the terminated employee would sue. And I'm sure that the EEOC would have a field day, but I really feel that case will fall under employment discrimination law and not under the first amendment.

 

In your first examples, I would mention that Justice Holmes made his ruling almost a century ago. As to the KKK references, there was a clear governmental interest in not having KKK members on the police force. I don't find either example applicable to my post.

 

As for your second response, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. The EEOC may provide a bigger hammer for the alleged victim. However, the true cause of action is his against his employer. He may pursue it in that manner. Assuming he wins, I feel sure the EEOC will then descend upon the employer.

\

By the way, are you a law student? If so, good luck.

John works for a private company. Against John's will, his employer brings him in and strip searches him believing that John has hidden company confidential documents in his underwear. The company was mistaken. John's rights under the Fourth Amendment have been violated. John will sue the company for his damages.

 

Or, use a different example. John works for a private company that initiates a new policy after John has worked there for five years stating that employees are forbidden from participating in homosexual rights rallies. John does so and is fired. John will sue his employer because his First Amendment rights to free speech and free association have been unjustly violated.

 

The Bill of Rights sets forth many, but far from all, of your rights as a citizen. These are basic rights (depending, of course, on how they are interpreted by the courts). Those rights cannot be unduly violated by the government nor can they be unduly violated by the private sector.

 

For me this is a legal issue, not a PC issue. This is based on Constitutional freedoms being neglected and therefore is an issue for the court systems. If you KNOW BEFORE you are hired into a private business that they have these guidelines then all bets are off. It would be like trying to sue Hooters for making you wear the uniform.

 

First, this is not meant to be confrontational.

 

How would the Dixie Chicks fit into this? The words of one member resulted in people to quit buying their music. Is this a form of punishment? Obviously, people that didn't like their music to begin with didn't punish, but many of those that did stopped supporting them.

 

Is this censorship? I don't see it as being much different than what Miss California said. Both stated a view that they believed in that made them unpopular with people that affected a portion of their future.

 

 

I do not see the Dixie Chicks situation as relevant in this discussion. Private citizens and businesses that disagreed with these people, decided to no longer support them. Nothing PC about it. At least I don't see it that way.

There is nothing that seems to be Politically InCorrect about bashing or calling an elected official names. As a matter of fact, for the last 8 years it was all the rage!

 

When people start using what are considered to be derogatory terms to describe other people, then you get into the world of political correctness. Miss California steps on both sides as she used her status to promote her views, but then chose the wrong subject and words. If you use the word retarded, you will get a lot of flack for your insensitivity and lack of PC.

 

I still think that we are debating to completely different issues, that does play in some grey areas where you may get a little blendage.

 

 

Miss California steps on both sides as she used her status to promote her views, but then chose the wrong subject and words.

 

I have just read the Ms. Calif. stuff. I do not see what she said so wrong. I will retract my above statemnet as Ignorance. She is certainly being beat up over her Political Incorrectness. She has the right to believe as she believes, I will contend that the pagent people who are appaulled by her comments, are secretly and subconciously in agreement with her, but their own PC virtues would not allow them to get into this debate on any other side than where they currently are.

 

But also, people also have the right to respond in a manner that is more condusive to their beliefs as well. (See Dixie Chicks). She should not be stripped of anything, (or she won't be allowed to coach cheerleading), because her beliefs do not run in line with Perez Hilton.

 

Let a sleeping dog sleep.

 

:taz:

Ironically, the gal's sister is a gay rights advocate.

First, this is not meant to be confrontational.

 

How would the Dixie Chicks fit into this? The words of one member resulted in people to quit buying their music. Is this a form of punishment? Obviously, people that didn't like their music to begin with didn't punish, but many of those that did stopped supporting them.

 

Is this censorship? I don't see it as being much different than what Miss California said. Both stated a view that they believed in that made them unpopular with people that affected a portion of their future.

 

I don't see the people who stopped buying the Dixie Chicks records as censorship. The ones who tried to get radio stations to stop playing their music certainly were trying to censor them though.

 

In this case, I don't see it as censorship that she didn't win the crown, I do see some quotes from a few people who do want to censor her.

I don't see the people who stopped buying the Dixie Chicks records as censorship. The ones who tried to get radio stations to stop playing their music certainly were trying to censor them though.

 

In this case, I don't see it as censorship that she didn't win the crown, I do see some quotes from a few people who do want to censor her.

 

We agree on all accounts. I haven't read what Hilton said about her, (and actually haven't read her answer to the question), but it seems as though Hilton made a personal attack, while all Miss Cal did was state a position.

When Bush 1st went to DC one of his first pieces of legislation was NO Child Left Behind, which was mainly written by T. Kennedy. Bush aslo invited Dems over for social time at the White House in his effort to set a new tone in DC, but backbiting started from the beginning. The division during the Bush years came from the invasion of Iraq. While there may have been true pacifist opposition to the war, Democractic leaders saw Bush as too popular. they proceeded to attack him because they wanted the White House back. The Dem leadership divided this coountry for political gain.

 

Oliver Stone??

When Bush 1st went to DC one of his first pieces of legislation was NO Child Left Behind, which was mainly written by T. Kennedy. Bush aslo invited Dems over for social time at the White House in his effort to set a new tone in DC, but backbiting started from the beginning. The division during the Bush years came from the invasion of Iraq. While there may have been true pacifist opposition to the war, Democractic leaders saw Bush as too popular. they proceeded to attack him because they wanted the White House back. The Dem leadership divided this coountry for political gain.

 

It started way before then and both sides have been equally guilty and have used the same tactics.