I lost my job yesterday.
I posted on a news site that even the Muslims who don't promote violence do want a world wide caliphate and their means to get it is by out breeding non-muslims.
Facebook banned me for 24 hours.
My boss fired me.
I sell car parts for a living, or I did.
Now I have to get another job that pays a living wage and explain why I was fired.
Free speech is only for the rich.
oh, and I hit up an online lawyer brokerage center with my wrongful termination suit. Not a single one has called my number or emailed me 24 hours later.
You are dumb...seriously.
I hope you find a job so you can provide for your family, and most importantly, that you learn from this.
I hope you find a job so you can provide for your family
That's generous of you. I don't hope that at all. I think it better that they disabuse themselves of him, leaving him to his own devices.
Wow, you must get all the ladies at the party, what a charmer.
I hope he bounces back, learns from this and grows. I also hope he spills the beans to the Feds if a law has been broken. As you suggest "one will pay a price, sometimes steep,"
I would never have said what he said and I wouldn't support it, but that doesn't mean he should be branded and tossed out of a job if he did it well. Also, it doesn't mean he should not be supported in spite of his error as it were.
I hope he bounces back, learns from this and grows.
That I can and do hope come about for him. I suspect, however, that the fellow, like abusers of other rights and privileges, may need to hit bottom before the recovery process commences or can.
I also hope he spills the beans to the Feds if a law has been broken.
As well he should. I'm not even of a mind that "spilling the beans" is what I'd call it. Reporting the commission of a material crime is a duty we all have.
I would never have said what he said and I wouldn't support it, but that doesn't mean he should be branded and tossed out of a job if he did it well.
It does if his employer(s) construes that things he pens and posts on FB somehow reflect on them. Whether they are of that mind is really solely their decision. Whether they are within their rights to fire him is a matter for an arbitration committee or court to decide, and if s/he exercises his right to seek redress, it will.
Speaking as a principal in a global management consulting firm, I can say that if during the interview process we become aware of one's FB and/or Twitter IDs, we will look to see what ideas a candidate has expressed. Upon one's joining the firm, however, we don't make a practice of keeping tabs on what our personnel post on the Internet.
Though we don't go looking for "stuff," neither do we ignore things we think may place our revenue streams and/or reputation at risk. Thus, were it to come to my or any other principal's attention that an employee or partner shared their social media contact info with a client, I'd (they'd) have an administrative assistant peruse the person's postings to determine whether comments the employee posted are materially inconsistent with the firm's principles and values. Were there found to be such content there, I'd inform HR and let them handle it, unless I thought the remarks so reprehensible that termination was called for, in which case before contacting HR, I/we would reach out to the person's "supervisor" and to legal to find out what be the constraints we face in severing the firm's relationship with the employee/partner.
Some folks here may take exception with the fact that that is how my firm and others handle such things, but the reality is that nobody is going to pay someone $100K+ to be a source of undue business risk. At the end of the day, the point of a business is to, within the constraints of the law, generate maximum profits not risk profits by forbearing the vicissitudes of free speech employees and partners feel obliged to exercise.
As for what is and isn't tolerable, well, there is no set rule. We make our assessment on a case-by-case basis. A wealth of factors come into play, including but not limited to the engagements one which one works and one's role on them, what one said, how one said it, and so on.
For instance, one who's working on a project for a client that has a passion for "green" matters climate science/climate scientists is well advised to get rid of or obscure their ribald remarks berating climate science/scientists. One should do the same with regard to remarks that specifically ridicule laud any of the firm's clients because while it may seem harmless to say something positive about one firm, that firm's competitor(s) may not take kindly to one's having done so. My firm and our competitors provide services to many companies that are competitors; we couldn't build industry-specific expertise, market presence and raport if we didn't.
Anecdote:
In one industry, firms like mine are forced to choose to work with one major player and none of its direct competitors or work with the rest and not that one major player. When I sold my firm to the one to which I now belong, I lost that major player client because my current firm provides services to its competitors. It took me and my fellow partners two years to reacquire the revenue streams lost due to the acquisition. (That loss, which we all knew would happen, lowered the purchase price by several million dollars. Mind you, the deal was still quite good for us, it wouldn't have happened were it not, but less money on that order is still less money.)
The management of that major player is intolerant of outsiders, consultants who make negative remarks about it and positive sentiments about its key competitors. They are a mind that they are the best at what they do and there's not with them to be any expression to the contrary. Period. I didn't have to open agree with them, but I (and my colleagues) did have to exercise prudence and discretion in what I said or made possible for them to discover I had said. Doing so generated millions of revenue for my firm, in part, literally keeping roofs over people's head, not the least of which was my own. There's no way I'd risk that over an employee's desire to speak freely on FB, Twitter, or whatever.