07-25-2015, 10:15 PM
(07-25-2015, 06:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand completely. Those protections cease to exist, when a person chooses to work for an entity that establishes a company policy barring employees from certain types of speech.
Just as in public, one is not allowed to willfully induce panic or riot, thus the old "you can't yell fire, in a crowded movie theater" if there is really no fire. Or even tell someone that you're going to 'kill them' and expect to be protected by free speech.
Also, a lot of what is considered "Freedom of speech and expression" is subject to interpretation, by whomever happens to be in charge, at that moment in time.
No the protection never ceases to exist. The First Amendment just protrects you against the gpvernment. It has never protected you against your employer.
Basically you are wanting to give the government a lot MORE control over private enterprise by letting the government decide who gets fired for making insulting comments. The decision to fire Cowherd was a financial decision. He made an ass of himself on the air so he got fired. Why should the government be allowed to tell a private company that they can not fire an employee who embarrasses them?
