Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Wouldn't it be great if the fired employee was unable to find a new job and then joined the military?
It's quite easy to see why he was fired (and the firing was justified). Had he spoke out as "Joe Citizen" he would have been ok. Sure, he's still a jackass, but he would not have been fired for expressing his views outside of the function of his job. Where he went terribly wrong was while acting as a representative of a company that deals with the public. The employer would have been equally justified in keeping the employee, but that was the free decision of management.
Now, for the employees free speech right to be violated, he would have to have been arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. He just lost his job selling mattresses. I wouldn't sweat it. With his tact, talent, and great sense of timing, he'll land on his feet in no time. Meanwhile, let's get some decent mattresses out to our Soldiers in Iraq!!
The employee was completely out of line. That's an easy one. This isn't a free speech issue. That's another easy one.
But another easy one is the intense overreaction of pro-military people to this minor incident. Threatening and harassing these people is completely unsupportable.
I would have fired that employee too. What a jerk.
P.S. As for mountains and molehills, I can pretty much count on you, Rose, to get worked into a froth in an inverse proportion to the true importance of an issue.
Not a froth. Just annoyed that people can't comprehend the meaning of free speech.
"It is totally irresponsible for radio stations and bloggers to attack a person for his personal political views." -- Julie Enslow, organizer with Peace Action Wisconsin in Milwaukee
Doesn't it annoy you when people suggest the Bill of Rights doesn't include you?
"Doesn't it annoy you when people suggest the Bill of Rights doesn't include you?"
She didn't. She said it was "irresponsible...to attack a person for his personal political views". Inasmuch as anyone attacked the person (I haven't bothered to read any of this particular tempest) rather than the political view, she has a point.
As far as I can tell, this nobody organizer didn't suggest that they shouldn't be able to be "irresponsible", if they so choose.
It's quite easy to see why he was fired (and the firing was justified). Had he spoke out as "Joe Citizen" he would have been ok. Sure, he's still a jackass, but he would not have been fired for expressing his views outside of the function of his job. Where he went terribly wrong was while acting as a representative of a company that deals with the public. The employer would have been equally justified in keeping the employee, but that was the free decision of management.
Now, for the employees free speech right to be violated, he would have to have been arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. He just lost his job selling mattresses. I wouldn't sweat it. With his tact, talent, and great sense of timing, he'll land on his feet in no time. Meanwhile, let's get some decent mattresses out to our Soldiers in Iraq!!
But another easy one is the intense overreaction of pro-military people to this minor incident. Threatening and harassing these people is completely unsupportable.
Another mountain from a molehill.
"Another mountain from a molehill."
Ya think?
P.S. As for mountains and molehills, I can pretty much count on you, Rose, to get worked into a froth in an inverse proportion to the true importance of an issue.
"It is totally irresponsible for radio stations and bloggers to attack a person for his personal political views." -- Julie Enslow, organizer with Peace Action Wisconsin in Milwaukee
Doesn't it annoy you when people suggest the Bill of Rights doesn't include you?
She didn't. She said it was "irresponsible...to attack a person for his personal political views". Inasmuch as anyone attacked the person (I haven't bothered to read any of this particular tempest) rather than the political view, she has a point.
As far as I can tell, this nobody organizer didn't suggest that they shouldn't be able to be "irresponsible", if they so choose.