PDA

View Full Version : Is this a 1st Amendment issue?



Tom Montgomery
08-04-2013, 04:27 PM
,.
What do you think?


Sometimes honesty isn’t always the best policy: Shea Allen, a reporter for ABC’s affiliate WAAY in Huntsville, Alabama, has been fired for 10 confessions she posted last week on her personal blog “No Apologies: Confessions of a Red Headed Reporter”, the Huntsville Times reports. Here’s the list that has gone viral:

1. I’ve gone bra-less during a live broadcast and no one was the wiser.
2. My best sources are the ones who secretly have a crush on me.
3. I am better live when I have no script and no idea what I’m talking about.
4. I’ve mastered the ability to contort my body into a position that makes me appear much skinner in front of the camera than I actually am.
5. I hate the right side of my face.
6. I’m frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.
7. Happy, fluffy, rainbow stories about good things make me depressed.
8. I’ve taken naps in the news car.
9. If you ramble and I deem you unnecessary for my story, I’ll stop recording but let you think otherwise.
10. I’ve stolen mail and then put it back. (maybe)

While WAAY’s general manager refused to comment about “personnel” matters, Allen said she was appalled that something she did outside of the office would cause her to lose her job. As she put it to the Times:

“On the one hand, management wants you to exploit every social media site you possibly can, put as much content out there, drive to the web, drive to the web. And then on the other hand, I’ve done something in my personal time on the web, a personally designated space and I’ve been terminated for it.”

Co-workers reportedly have mixed reviews on Allen. In an article published Tuesday morning, Gawker says one called Allen a ”ticking time bomb,” while others reportedly told the Blaze that she was hard-working and trustworthy, arguing that her dismissal violated “the First Amendment rights of all journalists.” In fact, while Allen removed the controversial blog post after she was let go, she decided to re-post for the sake of “free expression.”

But it looks like Allen may be ready to get back to work. On Monday night, she tweeted, “For God’s sake I just want to tell the news.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/31/reporter-who-admitted-to-working-bra-less-is-surprised-she-got-sacked/#ixzz2b2OC7IXO


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhA6FoGyFumn_szOyB0xqQqyAL0Yot3 WU0PE2rANGFXbkA9Cea

Ian McColgin
08-04-2013, 04:32 PM
Well, it was in no way a government action so the first amendment does not come in. But her employer is clearly a dull humorless twit.

Peerie Maa
08-04-2013, 04:35 PM
Do you believe all of every story that you read in the media?






















I'll bet there is a back story that her bosses are not sharing and she wont admit to/know about.

skuthorp
08-04-2013, 04:38 PM
I don't understand the seeming need to post personal stuff on social media myself. I suppose in her job it's part of the 'look at me' process.

Willin'
08-04-2013, 04:46 PM
If it appeared on the web, it must be true, right?

She has plausible deniability, but who would be dumb enough to believe that?

Captain Intrepid
08-04-2013, 05:02 PM
I've very careful about what I post online about my job. You have freedom of speech, and if you use that to call doubt upon your integrity as an employee, you can kiss your job goodbye.

John Smith
08-04-2013, 05:10 PM
If it appeared on the web, it must be true, right?

She has plausible deniability, but who would be dumb enough to believe that?

IF SHE POSTED IT, does it matter if it's true or not. Maybe they fired her for being stupid enough to post it.

hokiefan
08-04-2013, 05:31 PM
I've very careful about what I post online about my job. You have freedom of speech, and if you use that to call doubt upon your integrity as an employee, you can kiss your job goodbye.

Well said. With freedom of speech comes freedom to accept the consequences of what you say.

Cheers,

Bobby

S.V. Airlie
08-04-2013, 05:35 PM
It's hard to be honest when so many (in the media) aren't.

John Smith
08-04-2013, 06:09 PM
Well said. With freedom of speech comes freedom to accept the consequences of what you say.

Cheers,

Bobby

I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

Captain Intrepid
08-04-2013, 06:21 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

Ridiculous. Freedom of speech is freedom from governmental strictures on speech. Everything has consequences, good and bad.

hanleyclifford
08-04-2013, 06:22 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech. Then there is no free speech: there are always consequences.

Garret
08-04-2013, 07:05 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

Horsefeathers sir!

If you post on Facebook that you cheated on your wife, you don't expect consequences? If you announce it at a dinner party?

All speech has consequences. (ETA: I see Hanley beat me to it)

hokiefan
08-04-2013, 08:05 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

You seriously misunderstand what the 1st amendment says and means.

hokiefan
08-04-2013, 08:10 PM
Besides all that argument about freedom of speech, Alabama is an at-will-employment state. They don't need any reason to fire her other than that they want to.

Cheers,

Bobby

Ian McColgin
08-04-2013, 08:12 PM
May be talking about different things. The first amendment governs government actions, not personal or corporate. So, no consequences from the government but there could be consequences such as being booed by listeners or fired by employers.

There is a boundry area that can go both ways in the case of public or semi-public employees speaking out. In general the legal system has supported their rights to speak on public issues but may support the employee being fired or sanctioned for blogging that the first selectman is a jerk or making sexual revelations or something "unprofessional" like that.

Keith Wilson
08-04-2013, 09:13 PM
It might be useful to see what the First Amendment actually says.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-04-2013, 10:46 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

Sorry old timer but there ain't nothing in the US Constitution about "consequences" except as it involves government's applications of statute law.

Glen Longino
08-04-2013, 11:17 PM
Under Texas laws, and likely other state laws, there are the concepts of "Fighting Words" and "Inciting Words" that may or may not preclude the notion of "free speech".
Policemen are taught that they may Not react with violence to Any verbal abuse regardless the degree of abusiveness.
Unfortunately, the average drunk in a biker bar has received no such teaching and will kick your arse or kill you if you tell him his mother laid up with a boar hog nine months before he was born.
Road rage is a good example of freedom of speech gone berserk.
Trouble is, if you exercise your idea of free speech under the law, and you piss off the wrong person and he shoots you in the head nine times, what have you gained?

Waddie
08-04-2013, 11:36 PM
IF SHE POSTED IT, does it matter if it's true or not. Maybe they fired her for being stupid enough to post it.

Now you're on to something !! I hope they fired her for stupidity.

regards,
Waddie

MikeWinVA
08-04-2013, 11:58 PM
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of the citizens from actions of the government. This is to primarily protect the citizens from actions by the government when the citizen expresses something about the government, i.e. you criticize a government policy or law and they cannot punish you. This does not mean that you can threaten, incite riot or foment insurrection.

The First Amendment does not protect you from the actions of private individuals about what you say. For example, you work for the Democratic National Committee and publish a tirade against against this president, they can fire you or you work for Alcoholics Anonymous and endorse a brand of whiskey, they can fire you.

PhaseLockedLoop
08-05-2013, 12:12 PM
I disagree. Freedom of speech means speech without consequence, unless it endangers others. If there is a consequence, it is not free speech.

So only inconsequential speech is protected? "It's not the heat, it's the humidity," "howsa boy?" and that sort of thing?

And anyway this doesn't have a thing to do with freedom of speech.

Flying Orca
08-05-2013, 01:53 PM
Well, it was in no way a government action so the first amendment does not come in. But her employer is clearly a dull humorless twit.

Agreed on both counts. I thought her post was kind of funny. When did employers stop allowing people to be people?

Chris Coose
08-05-2013, 04:21 PM
She's gonna make a great American politician.