In today’s civics lesson we will review the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
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.
Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Source: Legal Information Institute, Cornell University
So now that we have re-familiarized ourselves with the Constitution’s free speech protections, we know that Congress can pass no law infringing on of freedom of speech. We also know that the federal and state government can not deny this right to its employees.
Today’s question: What in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a PRIVATE employer from terminating an employee who exercises free speech in a manner that is considered inappropriate by the employer? For example, had CNN chosen to fire Eason Jordan for what he said at Davos, would CNN have been in violation of Jordan’s Constitutional rights?
Correct answer: NO. As several bloggers have recently learned, an employer can and will terminate an employee for the otherwise protected freedom of expression. Which is why we commonly say, free speech isn’t free. In our great nation we can say almost whatever we want, but sometimes those words will carry consequences. As long as it is not the government imposing those consequences, there is nothing illegal about it.
Thank you for your attention. Class dismissed.
The Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor, held that First Amendment protects independent contractors from termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of freedom of speech.
Affirmed and remanded.
I’ll post these as I find them. You should have realized I did my homework before making the statement.
Board of County Com’rs, Wabaunsee County, Kan. v. Umbehr 518 U.S. 668, 116 S.Ct. 2342 (U.S.Kan.,1996)
By the way you are sidestepping the real issue here. Defend your charge of treason against Jordan.
Isn’t that what John said:
“The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.”
I assume that gov’t departments that hire contractors fall under “the entire federal gov’t.”
Ok-since the post is about the 1st amendment. Check this out (under the the 1st amendment wedgie post): http://www.instapundit.com/
(I put the link to instapundit instead of the actual website so I could say “reverse-instalanche”–yeah that’s how I roll:) )
Anyway, I read the file and I don’t agree with Mr. Instapundit. What got stuck in my craw is that on the 5th page it said that the court needed to consider (1)harm to plantiff (2) harm to defendent (3)likelihood the plantiff to succeed and (4)public interest. And then it said the harm considerations were the most important where I would think that public interest should be the most important – in that, the government is there to serve us and nothing else.
I don’t know anything about the particular case – it was the language of the decision that bothered me. I get the part about people not having to comment or give reasons for their refusal to comment, but I don’t get the part about them not having to give information requested. It should be easy not hard to request unclassified information from the government. I think this ruling goes against that basic principle.
What about you guys?
… Carol – defend the charge of treason? Does accusing the military of intentionally targeting our own citizens count? Please also factor in the probability of these types of statements being held against the US, our forces, our citizens, and the Iraqi freedom effort specifically by the terrorists …
… Ashley – please clarify : “I would think that public interest should be the most important – in that, the government is there to serve us and nothing else” … but citizens from harm isn’t important / relevant? By saying “nothing else”, instead of simply most important, you indicate (to me, anyway) that harm is irrelevant … ?
/TJ
PS – Ashley, I haven’t followed the link yet, but have added it to my long list of targets for the morning :).
T.J. Jordan is not accused of saying the military intentionally targeted our own journalist. (This is one of several post on this blog on this subject. You should read all of the comments to all of the posts. But for you I will quickly rehash.) As reported by R. Abovitz, a blogger present at the conference, Jordan said the military had targeted journalists. He made this comment following a comment describing the deaths of journalist as collateral damage. He repeated his comment adding tha the knew of 12 journalist who had been targeted. Abovitz asked him if he had any proof of htis claim. Jordan told him he did not and that he didn’t personally believe it. Many Arab journalist in attendance did. There is no question but that journalist have been killed and in some cases targeted. Now whether that is due to the fact that they were Arabs or journalist or mistaken for the enemy is the dispute. This allegations are not new but have been floating overseas for some time. As Americans we get news filtered for our interest shall we say. Since these comments have been floating for some time (start of the war when we blew up the hotel housing al jezeera journalists) it is not like Jordan siad anything our “enemy” and other antiAmericans hadn’t already heard. He specifically stated he did not personally believe it. However, just because you don’t beleive something doesn’t mean you should ignore the allegation. (Abu Garib abuse went on far too long because MSM wouldn’t market the story to us when the rumors first broke.) Unless of course you are totally dead set against hearing criticism in the first place and think all criticism of the military or government (apparently that doesn’t extend to all branches- say the Post Office)is treason. The blog world is taking credit for bringing Jordan down. I say they did us all a disservice. Jordan’s allegations should be investigated. The value system that we are trying to promote throughout the Middle east, is that you do try to address the inequties or injustice where ever you find it even if its in your own backyard. An investigation would have put the rumors to bed and deprived conspiracy nuts and critics overseas the opportunity to embellish the story. We could have used the chance to find the ways and the means to make journalist safer. As it stands teh blog world has given us a black eye. Our critics overseas will see only that we hounded a man our of his job because he spoke up. They will use this as an argument that we do not live the values we preach and that spreading Democracy is merely a front for securing Middle East oil. In other words the bloggers taking credit for running Eason Jordan off have given aid to the enemy in the form of support for their argumetns agaisnt us. That is why I do not believe they have done us any favors. I asked John to defend his charge of treason because the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary does not apply in the case. I assume he was using hte term liberally and wanted to know what the criteria was for the nonlegal manner in which he used it. Treason is defined as an attempt to overthrow the government to which you owe allegiance by either making war or materially supporting its enemies. Jordan’s comment does not fit the definition. He made a similar comment months ago in Portugal I believe. Then he stated that journalist had reproted being imprisoned and tortured by the military. Again not treasonous. However, you probably never heard Jordan’s statements expresed so benignly. Nope you probably heard the doctored versions. Let’s see Captains Quarter, who picked up on Abovitz’s account, said Jordan accused the military of “assasinating” journalist even though Abovitz did not report Jordan as saying so and Abovitz was there. Later bloggers added other inflammatory words to beef up the story. The worse part of all of this is that I believe these bloggers sensationalize the Jordan event simply to attract readership. If anyone fails to see the wrongness of that then I suggest they check their moral compass. Its due for an overall.
Pingback: NIF
TJ-
by “and nothing else” I meant that was the government’s sole purpose not that public interest should be the only thing considered. Of course the defendent and plantiff are a part of the public too but I think it’s lame to say that someone’s reputation (in what I gleaned about the case in question)trumps making available unclassified gov’t information.
Hope that clears up my post.
Let’s remember the USA is a Republic not a Democracy, and every State has its own laws and interpretation of what a Democracy under a Republic is, and that Free Enterprise or Private Enterprise is not in the Public Domain, just as most politicians that make our Laws are not. Free Speech is expensive and should be looked at as a priviledge not a right when threading on private ground. Hence the revolutionary slogan of “Don’t Thread On Me.” Got to go. Time for Tea.
Pingback: buy valium