I think that the time has come where we need to establish a clear and unambiguous line on what constitutes protected free speech. And yes I'm sure that it exists in some legal jargon already but we need something that every layperson can easily understand.
I've been thinking a lot about this because it seems like just about every week someone is getting into trouble or being warned that they will get in trouble for something they've said. Whether it's the infamous Imus "nappy-headed hoes" comment on the air or an Oregon football player losing his scholarship due to comments on Facebook or Ozzie Guillen's son "resigning" in the wake of a Twitter controversy.
Here's my question, is the only pre-requisite for considering something to be free speech that you don't get thrown in jail for it? It seems to me that if you're losing (or being threatened with) your job and/or other tangible things of value as a direct result of something you've said, then your speech is not "free".
Now of course there are some exceptions that I agree with. Obviously you're not (and shouldn't be) allowed free reign to make slanderous and libelous claims against a person or a company. And you shouldn't be permitted to use company time and resources to put out a personal message that's not in the company's interests (that's what your free time is for) and you're also not allowed to say something that can be interpreted as you speaking for a company or organization when you aren't authorized to do so.
But (setting aside the Imus example) what we're talking about here are people using their own personal accounts (whether Twitter, Facebook, or blog) to express something that's clearly just their opinion and being disciplined for it. How is that permitted?
In this age, people have almost unlimited outlets for expressing themselves and a lot of people are choosing to do just that. Things that used to be said to your close friends and/or behind closed doors are now available to a much wider audience. But why should the rules be any different? If you have the right to say something verbally to someone, you should have the right to express it in any medium you wish.
I think this is only going to become a bigger and bigger issue as this happens to more and more people. And I think the only reason it's not huge already is that you have a perfect storm of both organizations and media having their interests aligned. An organization wants to control what gets said about it, so they're not happy with any member being able to spout out to the world. And the media doesn't like the idea that people no longer need to go through them to get the word out. It's hard to get the scoop on a story when it breaks on Twitter.
So, first, can we get a list of the words that no one is allowed to say on the public air? And, most importantly, it has to be the same list for everyone. Either everyone can use "nappy-headed hoes" or no one can. Then, I want it defined when and where I can issue my opinion on any subject. Can I use this post to blast Blue Cross for doing something I don't agree with it? Can I not do it right now because I'm on my work computer? Is it ok if I do it from home on my own time? Or can I never do it as long as I'm an employee?
Now if you'll excuse me, I've just been informed that I have a meeting with HR in 10 minutes . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
First five words of the amendment John: "Congress shall make no law..."
Imus didn't go to jail, he got fired. The company decided either they didn't like his content, or that they didn't like the publicity that came from his content, or that they didn't like the drop in revenue based upon protests or boycotts that came in opposition to his content.
He is perfectly free to use 'nappy headed hoes' as much as he wants, and his company is perfectly free to fire him whenever IT wants. (Now there is some legal crap in there, iirc he argued that they paid him specifically FOR comments like that, but...)
"Congress shall make no law..."
"At will employee"
"Code of conduct"
I was outraged that UofI felt they could punish me for getting an underage drinking ticket, until they showed me the form I signed saying I would conduct myself in a manner...blah blah blah.
You can say pretty much whatever you want without fear of reprisal from the government, but that is about all you have protection from.
The difference between 20 years ago and today is technology, and the ease with which people have their private lives turned public.
With google, news aggregators, and all the other web indexing algorithms out there, anything you say online is now public, and any public information can be used against you.
In a way, technology has turned us all into politicians. You have to watch what you say at all times, not for fear of some big brother, but of your employer, clients, customers, peers, spouses all who have the power to take your speech and judge it as they see fit.
(whew, where did that come from?)
Yes! Glad you decided to blog about weighty stuff again.
Good point. Doesn't do much good that there is no criminal law banning free speech if other agencies can still deny opportunities to people they consider offenders.
It seems like most of the actions (or threatened actions) are brought by for-profit organizations, and the offenses all fit into the broad category of "causing financial losses for your organization." The punishments vary, but they range from forced apologies to dismissal to legal action. Even where a punishment is not enforced, the threat of it influences people's behavior, because what single person (other than Oprah Winfrey) has the bank account to compete against a multmillion-dollar corporation?
What makes matters worse is that, whereas 100 years ago the majority of products were goods for use or consumption, America's companies today (even those who also have a tangible product to sell) are driven to manage their own image, on which its sales depend. And with the advent of the internet, there are countless ways the image of a company-- and the marketability of their product--is diminished.
At any moment, bloggers could break that a former Pepsi executive donated to a terrorist group, or the sister of a Bulls player married her cousin, or an ABC newscaster passed a note to a waitress at dinner that said "I think Asian girls are sexy." In each case, it is less costly for the company to toss out the bad apple than publically recognize that people are free agents who do what they like... and that sometimes that stuff is bad, and it's not automatically a reflection on everyone they've ever been involved with.... who's ever been involved with... anything... else, ad inifitum.
But that part's our fault--the public. We refuse to accept ambiguity. If Oregon State hadn't been convinced that the American public's interpretation of anything but the student's dismissal would have been "Oregon = racist = reprehensible = I'll spend my $40,000 on another school," they probably would have acted differently and kept the student on. And what do we have to offer to show that we don't behave this way? We are fickle, and lazy, and brutal in our assessments of current events... mostly because we can't be bothered to be anything else.
If you'll allow me to blend in some of my own thoughts.... I've been thinking about media lately--from media conglomerates and blogs down to Twitter and even the dining room table. You know, people argue and argue about government, how big it is, how small, what's working and what's not, what's helping and what's hurting. And we should be. But where is the hand-wringing about the future of public discourse? As our identities, opinions, and actions become more and more recordable--and we each become public figures in our own right, we're going to have to deal with this. We're going to have to be more responsible. Look at direct sources, have the courage to admit the gray areas in our arguments.
And, going back to your point, John, the corporations need to take a step back, too, and realize that with great power comes great responsibility (heh, see what I did there?). In fact, maybe it's time we considered enacting laws requiring corporations over a certain size (those having, essentially, weight and strength as big as the US government) to be bound by certain restrictions on their actions toward laypeople.
Speaking of... jut saw this tonight. Another case of a random person's private thoughts being made public... and the judgment that comes down on her afterwards. Interesting analysis follows. (Link)
(That was supposed to be "just." Blech. Stupid Blogger comment platform with no spell check!)
(Get a browser with a spell check, like Firefox. But then again, 'jut' is a word, so you'd have been screwed anyway.)
And there again is an example of technology providing a false sense of privacy. Anyone who has ever gotten an email from their mother looking like:
FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Cute Kittens
Knows that emails have no sense of privacy or ownership. In that case, the person had a relative assurance of privacy at the original dining room table, and that if that story got repeated, it would be second hand and open to interpretation.
But putting her thoughts down on paper ensure that no matter how many times it was copied that she would be quoted accurately.
There are tons of times that I've written emails and then decided to delete without sending and rather talk to the person face to face so that there wouldn't be a record of what I said or the possibility that it gets passed on.
Big corporations bound by laws to protect the layperson? That makes me shudder. The ability to fire someone can be interpreted as their own free speech. (Course, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged again so am a little more pro-business than usual.)
It makes me shudder a little bit, too, but I put it out there as a reference point. As companies buy each other up and merge and affiliate themselves with each other, everything becomes part of some company's family or another. Airplanes, soap, lumber, corn syrup... they could all easily be appendages of the same massive corporation.
But, being as the individual companies span different niches, you can't technically call the conglomerates monopolies or near-monopolies... so how do you check their power? My concern is that at some point we may need to... and if so, how?
Well, there's way too much for me to comment on at once so I'll just try and hit the basics.
Weir, let's forget about Imus for the sake of the rest of this because he at least did something at his job so for the sake of argument we'll consider that fair game.
And while it's crap that U of I punished you for getting an underage ticket, at least it was punishment for breaking the law. In the end, it doesn't matter what you sign if the clause itself isn't legal. What if instead of punishing you for the ticket they had called you in and said "we're punishing you because we heard you were talking shit about the university at a party last weekend"? Would that change things? Because that's essentially what they're doing by punishing someone for a Facebook comment.
I know that "at will" employment means they can basically fire you for anything, but there are a couple very specific reasons that they can NOT fire you; namely gender, race, sexual orientation, retaliation, and age (except in extremely rare cases). I'm advocating that we carve out an additional exception for free speech.
Obviously, it will always be a grey area. If you post something on Facebook and then e-mail every local newspaper instructing them to visit your page, then there's clearly grounds that you intended something to be broadcast in the public domain. But if we're talking about a personal e-mail, letter (if anyone still writes those), a regular Facebook message, or even a blog - to me those should be unusable as grounds for discipline or dismissal. I don't think it's much more different than hearsay not being allowed in a courtroom.
And Becky I read the link you gave. I'm not offended by what she said; she's just completely wrong. I only took 1 psych class but I specifically remember that identical twins reared apart have the IQ of their environment and not of their genetics, which is exactly the opposite of what she's basing everything on.
I've been thinking about the doctor (in Florida?) who made it a policy after health care passed not to employ anyone or take any patients who voted for Obama.
His paraphrased statement was something like "Your actions have consequences, and that vote ultimately will hurt my business and I have a responsibility to protect what is mine." (Of course, he also said something after firing his internist like "Now I'll probably have to deal with hiring a foreigner.")
I like to take arguments past lines and to extremes, so when would it be acceptable to fire someone for speech? If an employee stands on the sidewalk (public property) outside your business with a sign telling customers to go to a competitor, would the employer (under some sort of free speech non-firing law) be allowed to fire that person? In a free speech non liable/slander , but ultimately damaging situation, where is the line?
And as far as online content goes, I'll quote someone who today wrote about video game content leaks:
"...and when this information is out, it can't be brought back in. There is no "delete" button on the internet."
Outside of a government subpoena that might connect you to your IP, the internet is still an anonymous place for people who want to remain anonymous. The problem is when people CHOOSE to identify themselves. Socializing online should have the same rules/consequences as socializing in real life. I've seen tons of people delete and remake facebook accounts under their middle names or pseudonyms so as to maintain the illusion of anonymity.
(I don't know where I started, and I don't know where I went, but I'm going to finish right about...here.)
Weir... I think you mean "libel".
Damn, such an easy one too.
John I can find no study to correlate your 1 psych class memory.
More than anything it seems open to debate, with more people leaning on IQ correlations in varying degree
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/tjbouc01.html
http://web.pdx.edu/~megr/inquiry_naturevsnurture.htm
Perhaps you're forgetting about this landmark study.
I don't know; I specifically remember my psych professor saying it but maybe he was wrong or maybe the fact that I was drinking 6 days a week at that point clouds my memory just a tad.
Of course, maybe it's just that I don't want that to be true. It's depressing in the same way that quantum mechanics is depressing. It means that we're basically robots and almost everything about us has been pre-determined at conception and we just have the illusion of free will. We're not even actors in the story of our lives - we're just roles.
All of which makes me wonder what part of my genetic makeup persuaded me that it was a good idea to drive to Memphis 2 days before my Psych 100 final. . .
I know this post is really old, but I'm just getting caught up and had one thing to say: you genes only predispose you to a certain intelligence. Whether you actually achieve it has a lot to do with environment. So it's not all predetermined, don't get depressed!
For example, if the child of two Nobel laureates was dropped off on a desert island at birth, the kid would probably never learn to talk, never learn to write, never learn physics. If you met him or her later in life, you'd think they were a primitive idiot.
So having the genes to be smart (or not) is not the end of the story.
Post a Comment