Teacher Loses Job After Commenting About Students, Parents on Facebook

[Valerie]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

 

[froggy]

Don't worry, Froggy...Massachusetts will now give her 99 weeks on the government cheese!

So you don't want her to have that right either.

 

[Valerie]

Don't worry, Froggy...Massachusetts will now give her 99 weeks on the government cheese!

So you don't want her to have that right either.

So you'd really like to put words in my mouth.





Don't you think the employer has rights and responsibilities too ?

 

[del]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

here's a hint.

there are none.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Don't worry, Froggy...Massachusetts will now give her 99 weeks on the government cheese!

So you don't want her to have that right either.

where is there a right to government assistance in the constitution?

 

[froggy]

Don't worry, Froggy...Massachusetts will now give her 99 weeks on the government cheese!

So you don't want her to have that right either.

where is there a right to government assistance in the constitution?

Since the Govt made it one.

 

[froggy]

Don't worry, Froggy...Massachusetts will now give her 99 weeks on the government cheese!

So you don't want her to have that right either.

So you'd really like to put words in my mouth.





Don't you think the employer has rights and responsibilities too ?

Thats just it why give one the right without giving the other the same.

 

[Valerie]

So you don't want her to have that right either.

So you'd really like to put words in my mouth.





Don't you think the employer has rights and responsibilities too ?

Thats just it why give one the right without giving the other the same.

No one violated her rights, she violated her own responsibilities and her employer asked her to resign, as was their right.
Nothing as dramatic as you seem to imagine.

 

[CurveLight]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

 

[Valerie]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

I don't equate this situation with 24/7 speech control...

 

[goldcatt]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

 

[CurveLight]

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

I don't equate this situation with 24/7 speech control...

Looks like 7/11 isn't the only one trying to capitalize on "convenience."

 

[CurveLight]

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

That would be a decent response to someone who used the 1st Amendment to argue she shouldn't have been fired.

(Now you just need to find the post that makes that argument)

 

[manifold]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks?

Why shouldn't they?

 

[goldcatt]

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

That would be a decent response to someone who used the 1st Amendment to argue she shouldn't have been fired.

(Now you just need to find the post that makes that argument)

Of course.

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

Anything else I can do for you this fine morning?

 

[CurveLight]

The fact that the remarks were employment related matters.

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

That would be a decent response to someone who used the 1st Amendment to argue she shouldn't have been fired.

(Now you just need to find the post that makes that argument)

Of course.

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

Anything else I can do for you this fine morning?

Lol.......you quoted different posts so it's a silly misunderstanding. it does raise questions regarding the 1st amendment and there have been court cases on that specific matter. I'm not saying the employer shouldn't be able to fire based solely on the 1st amendment. There are many laws regulating employment and anti-discrimination for various reasons. I'm not fixed on a position but am simply exploring the implications of being under Company Watch 24/7. I don't like the idea companies can fire people for off-time remarks or actions simply because the company disagrees. It's a borderline obscene invasion of privacy.

 

[CurveLight]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks?

Why shouldn't they?

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

 

[Missourian]

According to Obama she has every right as an American to the protection of the first amendment to freedom of religion expression...uh...I mean freedom of speech.

As to the wisdom of choosing that location...to air her opinions...he is unwilling to comment on that.

 

[uscitizen]

Making a stupid mistake does not mean a person is stupid. I would hope that the board looked at her entire career and not just an internet posting. Otherwise, that would be stupid. Maybe its time for school personnel to be offered malparactice insurance. A doctor makes a mistake; people can die. A teacher makes a mistake; someone might get insulted. Hmmmm.

Intimidation is the key word.

didn't I read that she was a disposable worker? One of the mobile work force of the 21'st century?

A contractor?

A bit different if she had been union?

 

[del]

(I understand the remarks were job related)

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

Of course.

This is a tough call because it raises the question of legal boundaries between employment and the 1st amendment. Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks? When did working for a company translate into 24/7 speech control?

Anything else I can do for you this fine morning?

Lol.......you quoted different posts so it's a silly misunderstanding. it does raise questions regarding the 1st amendment and there have been court cases on that specific matter. I'm not saying the employer shouldn't be able to fire based solely on the 1st amendment. There are many laws regulating employment and anti-discrimination for various reasons. I'm not fixed on a position but am simply exploring the implications of being under Company Watch 24/7. I don't like the idea companies can fire people for off-time remarks or actions simply because the company disagrees. It's a borderline obscene invasion of privacy.