![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As I've been pointing out to idiots online for almost 25 years, if you are speaking on someone else's property or via facilities (BBS, mailing list, or in this case, job) provided by someone else, it's not freedom of speech. It's freedom of the press.
And as such the *owner* of said press is the one who gets to say what's acceptable.
Freedom of speech says that you get to speak your mind on your property, and on public property (subject to noise ordinances, libel/slander laws, etc).
It does *not* give you the right to speak your mind on my property or using facilities belonging to me. I can allow you to. Or I can tell you that I do not tolerate that topic. And that's my exercising *my* rights as owner(publisher/editor) of the "forum".
If a paper can refuse to print your letter to the editor (much less an unsolicited article you send to them) you shouldn't be surprised if your boss can tell you "you can't say that on company time or on company property".
Enough people believe that this sort of thing violates their rights that I think it should be covered in school. As should the fact that it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters vote in favor of a referendum, it doesn't matter if it clashes with the state or federal constitution.
The constitution trumps the majority of voters *on purpose*. And it trumps the majority of legislators on purpose as well. It was designed that way because the folks who wrote it knew that there were things that should *not* be changed lightly.
Thus, to do certain things, you need to amend the constitution, which requires more than a simple majority and a lot of extra time and effort.
And as such the *owner* of said press is the one who gets to say what's acceptable.
Freedom of speech says that you get to speak your mind on your property, and on public property (subject to noise ordinances, libel/slander laws, etc).
It does *not* give you the right to speak your mind on my property or using facilities belonging to me. I can allow you to. Or I can tell you that I do not tolerate that topic. And that's my exercising *my* rights as owner(publisher/editor) of the "forum".
If a paper can refuse to print your letter to the editor (much less an unsolicited article you send to them) you shouldn't be surprised if your boss can tell you "you can't say that on company time or on company property".
Enough people believe that this sort of thing violates their rights that I think it should be covered in school. As should the fact that it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters vote in favor of a referendum, it doesn't matter if it clashes with the state or federal constitution.
The constitution trumps the majority of voters *on purpose*. And it trumps the majority of legislators on purpose as well. It was designed that way because the folks who wrote it knew that there were things that should *not* be changed lightly.
Thus, to do certain things, you need to amend the constitution, which requires more than a simple majority and a lot of extra time and effort.
