Your employer can refuse to spend it money on anything it likes. That is *it's* freedom of expression you see. You can be fired for saying things on your blog that you would be fired for saying on a street corner.

If you work at IBM and you stand out on the street telling people how much IBM sucks and that your boss blows chimps for fun and your boss walks by... guess what? You are fired and it is perfectly justified. Blogging is the exact same thing.

You have the freedom to say what you like and your boss has the freedom to fire your dumb ass.

 

Also it is either "Corporate America" or perhaps "Incorporated America" but the first one is the most commonly used by folks who hate organizations that make money for providing goods and services.

This is retarded.

A blog doesn't give you any special right to speech. Just like in real life, if you say something stupid there are consequences.

Live with it.

Sorry Bahu, while I do believe in the freedom of speech for Bloggers, it is only because I believe in freedom of speech. We don't have to reinvent the wheel with every societal or technological change. We aren't a protected class of citizen, we are merely folks who let our fingers do the talking... It's still just talking.

The people who run the company have every right to hone the reputation and image of their company. If an employee is tarnishing that image, then that employee has already shown that he or she isn't worth their paycheck. If there is anything inherently illegal going on in the company there are ways to address that. If an employee merely wants to use his or her freedom of speech to "stick it to the boss" well....

Freedom Works Both Ways.

Freedom of speech only protects us against the government passing laws, not corporations enacting rules. The rule for what is and is not acceptable to write or publish about your employer is this:

If you would get fired for saying it to the boss's face, then you're probably going to get fired if you post it online instead.

See, the freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you like, but it does not protect you from the consequences of your own actions. It also doesn't allow you to break any code of conduct rules you agreed to with your employer.

There are limits to any of the freedoms you listed.  People can be prosecuted for cussing in front of children in some states.  Any place of business can ask you to leave if you aren't dressed or acting appropriately.  You have the right to do these things but you also have the right to deal with the repercussions.

The flight attendant worked under an agreement that she would only use her uniform to represent the airline. When you strap it on and wear it when you are representing yourself or someone else, you imply that the company in question sanctions your actions.

The blogger who was fired was complaining about the internal policies of his company, and insulted his supervisor in a public venue that didn't allow the supervisor to defend himself. People make purchasing decisions based upon the image of a company. I don't know if he was under an NDA, but most companies now in their employment contract make you agree not to discuss their internal policies.

The problem with your angst is that both of these people would have also been fired if they had done these things in print or on tv. No protection is being violated here that is afforded to anyone else. There was no "penalty or procecution" by the government here.

"Freedom of Expression" applies to the government censoring or crushing your ability to speak your mind. It does NOT mean that you can't be fired for misrepresenting a company, dragging their name into something they don't want it dragged into, or for dragging their internal policies into the public view.

Yes, but I did mention the Justice Wendell Holmes principle that lays down a limit on Freedom of Expression. Also as scoiety is ecoming more technological and techniques of surviellence is becoming morer intrusive I think we have to define freedom of expression in more specific terms. A compony, sorry, cannot fire its employee just because he has a private opinion even on a company policy or product as long as he/she conforms in the workspot. Cyberspace is the last frontier of freedom. Let it remain that way.

"A compony, sorry, cannot fire its employee just because he has a private opinion even on a company policy or product as long as he/she conforms in the workspot."

Holmes also believed that the law was a fluid thing that was not based on concrete truths but that the "life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." The government imposing draconian, invented standards based on some inflexible ideal would certainly against the legacy of Holmes.

No matter how insistant you are, non-disclosure and conduct agreements are constitutional and valid agreements. Your statement is akin to saying rain cannot exist because you think it is illogical. People do submit to terms when they are hired for a job, and they do have to keep their agreements.

You are under the mistaken impression that the First Amendment applies to private parties. It doesn't. It applies to laws enacted by congress or acts of the government to stifle expression. In neither of the cases you cite is the government involved.

P.S. if you want to look into a REAL threat to the blogging community, you should investigate all the politicians in America that want to classify it as political advertising. There is a push now to make bloggers who write about politics to register and declare their advocacy as a campaign donation.

According to some, if I link the Bush website during an election year, I have given them free advertising and therefore I am a campaign donation. If you want to be outraged about stifling expression, look into that. If they get something like that passed before the next election, 2008 will be a very different year for JU.

you want to look into a REAL threat to the blogging community, you should investigate all the politicians in America that want to classify it as political advertising. There is a push now to make bloggers who write about politics to register and declare their advocacy as a campaign donation

I agree with you that it would be a most unfortunate development. I have always feared that when ideologically motivated politicians gain a high level of acceptability in a democratic society, there is the real danger of civil and cultural rights being eroded.

Now that the Bush regime is getting unstuck let the hope remain that this drconian provision does not pass.

"I have always feared that when ideologically motivated politicians gain a high level of acceptability in a democratic society, there is the real danger of civil and cultural rights being eroded. "

Oh, you mean like JFK, or FDR, or Clinton... or... do you mean politicians motivated by ideologies you disagree with? I think that is kind of silly, don't you? What should they be motivated by, if not ideals? Greed? Heck, that is even an ideal of sorts.

P.S. It was those who were trying to silence CONSERVATIVE bloggers that first suggested this. I think the first test case was a city/local ordinance in California.