is our understanding of freedom of speech changing?

[dust1n]

(CNN) -- A Virginia sheriff's deputy has been fired for liking his boss's political opponent -- on Facebook.
Now Daniel Ray Carter Jr. is fighting back in court, arguing that a "like" should be protected by his First Amendment right to free speech. It's a case that could settle a significant question at a time when hundreds of millions of people express themselves on Facebook, sometimes merging their personal, professional and political lives in the process.
According to court documents, the case began when Sheriff B.J. Roberts of Hampton, Virginia, fired Carter and five other employees for supporting his rival in a 2009 election.
Carter's offense? Clicking the omnipresent Facebook thumbs-up to follow the page "Jim Adams For Hampton Sheriff." Roberts, of course, won re-election, leading to the firings.

Virginia deputy fights his firing over a Facebook 'like' - CNN.com

does this ultimately mean freedom of speech is literally speech and not something we can show our commitment to?

If only free speech applied to talking about unions at a workplace...

 

[dust1n]

"Your Rights as an At-Will Employee

Even if you are an at-will employee, you still cannot be fired for reasons that are illegal under state and federal law. In these situations, the government has decided to make an exception to the general rule of at-will employment.

For example, if your employer is subject to federal and state laws prohibiting job discrimination (as all but the smallest employers are), you cannot be fired because of certain characteristics, such as your race, religion, or gender. (For more information on discrimination, see Your Rights Against Discrimination and Harassment.) Similarly, you cannot be fired because you have complained about illegal activity, about discrimination or harassment, or about health and safety violations in the workplace (see Nolo's article Assert Your Safety Rights Without Fear of Retaliation). And you cannot be fired for exercising a variety of legal rights, including the right to take family and medical leave, to take leave to serve in the military, or to take time off work to vote or serve on a jury.

At-Will Agreements

To protect their right to fire at will, many employers ask job applicants and new employees to sign a written statement agreeing that they are (or will be) employed at will. Such a statement might appear in an employment application, an employment contract or offer letter that the employer asks you to sign and return, an acknowledgment form for an employee handbook, or elsewhere.

When You Should Sign an At-Will Agreement

Theoretically, you don't have to sign an at-will agreement -- but most courts have held that your employer can fire (or refuse to hire) you for failing to do so. For this reason, most applicants and employees simply grit their teeth and sign on the dotted line.

Even though you may not have much choice about signing an at-will agreement, that doesn't mean your employer will rely on it to fire you without a good reason. Savvy employers know that they have nothing to gain by firing employees arbitrarily. Instead, employers are often motivated to work through issues with you before resorting to such drastic measures.

When You Should Think Twice Before Signing an Agreement

Be wary of signing an at-will agreement if you relied on your employer's promises of continued employment when you decided to accept the job. For example, let's say that your employer promised, during the hiring process, that it would give you at least one year to learn your new job and that you would not be fired during that time. If that promise influenced your decision to take the job, you should not sign an at-will agreement contradicting the promise. Virtually every court will treat a signed at-will agreement as the final word on the subject, no matter what your employer said to you earlier."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

I'm wondering what law has ever prevented a business from firing someone simply for saying disagreeable things, unless the employment was specified otherwise...

 

[Leftimies]

I figured they were just as arbitrary as "feminists." Save feminists don't seem to erode freedom of speech, while those complaining about what feminists have to say seem more likely candidates.

Well I don't know, the pushing of 'safe spaces' on the universities, banning speakers on the universities, getting people fired from their jobs because they disagreed with feminists, telling content creators that they "need" to have more women in their stories...all of that goes against free speech and freedom of expression.

People like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christine Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia have all talked against one or more of these phenomenons, but only the latter two seem understand that it is born out of the 3rd (possibly 4th, depending on how you count) wave feminism, the 'tumbler/twitter' variety. Possibly because both Christine and Camille are part of the 'old school' feminism and know the movement.

While I think that the movement that stands in reactionary opposition to feminism actually inherited plenty of feminism's flaws, and I do not belong to either camp really, I consider the modern radical feminists a much bigger problem.

 

[Steven Kowalski]

If only the button had said "Add."

 

[MARCELLO]

Well,it should change. There is a site called stormfront which advises hatred towards almost anything rather than WASP theory. If this is called freedom of expression, than pls do not put the blame on me when my mood is on to pee in front of everyone in the food court of a shopping mall. Why I am forced to pee in toilets only? Etc...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Free speech protects you from government reprisal against dissenting speech. It doesn't protect you from at work termination especially not at will employment. Also, political standing isn't a protected class (or even a class at all) from discrimination like sex, sexuality, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion etc. This isn't even a free speech issue or a workplace discrimination issue. Wrongful termination suit sure, he can fight that, but there's no need for the defense to even concern themselves with free speech.