Mediaboss Marketing

The 1st amendment says you can take to the streets or express controversial views, but the amendment doesn't protect you against the resulting consequences.

"You sort of check your first amendment rights at the door when you work for a private employer," said Lisa Edison-Smith.

Anyone who doesn't work for the state or federal government isn't protected by the 1st amendment and to most that's a little known fact.

"I didn't know that, that's actually quite a surprise to me," said Devon Solwold, Moorhead.

An employer can fire you if your views are fundamentally different than those of the company and one google employee learned that the hard way after getting fired for sending this memo internally, saying there are fewer women in tech because they are quote 'biologically different.'

On Tuesday employment lawyers say these cases are showing up more now than ever thanks to social media.

"There's this disconnect that people will often post and do things at a computer or an Ipad that they wouldn't say face to face to people. If it's not willing to say something face to face, don't do it in an electronic comment," said Edison-Smith.

While everyone we spoke to says it's an important right, it's one that should be used with caution and wisdom.

Employment lawyers say you can express your views outside of work without consequence unless they damage the reputation or business as a whole.

Follow this link:
The First Amendment: Freedom of speech in the workplace | WDAY - WDAY

EDITORIAL August 08. 2017 11:36PM Jeff Sessions is going to be a plumber.

The U.S. attorney general has been tasked by President Trump with stopping the leaks, which have plagued Trumps dysfunctional White House.

Sessions says that he is reviewing the Justice Departments policies on media subpoenas. This has renewed calls for a shield law to protect reporters from having to reveal the source of classified information.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government may not prevent the publication of classified information, under the doctrine of prior restraint. But that does not mean reporters are above the law.

Most of the Trump leaks are embarrassing, not illegal. But some, such as the leaked transcript of a private conversation between Trump and his Mexican counterpart, can damage national security. World leaders will be less likely to have frank conversations with future U.S. Presidents.

If reporters are given special protection under the First Amendment not available to everyone else, who gets to decide who qualifies as a real reporter? Would you trust the Trump administration to make such a decision? How about Eric Holders Justice Department?

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein says the Justice Department is after the leakers, not the journalists.

Sessions should proceed with caution. He must not harass reporters for covering the President. But he has a responsibility to track down those who compromise our national security to score political points.

Politics Editorial

See more here:
No shield needed: The First Amendment works just fine | New ... - The Union Leader

As we previously discussed in our post The Commander-in-Tweet and the First Amendment, the POTUS was criticized by the Knight First Amendment Institute for blocking certain Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account. According to the Knight First Amendment Institute, President Trumps Twitter account functions like a town hall meeting where the public can voice their views about government actions and attendees cannot be excluded based on their views under the First Amendment. Therefore, according to the Knight Institute, President Trump is violating the First Amendment by blocking users based on the content of their tweets. Subsequently, on July 11, 2017, the Knight First Amendment filed suit against President Trump and his communications team on this basis.

Recently the outcome of another case involving a government official blocking access to her social media account may foretell how the case against President Trump proceeds. Brian C. Davison, a software consultant, filed suit against the Loudon Countys Board of Supervisors and Phyllis Randall, chairman of Loudon Countys Board of Supervisors, in the Eastern District of Virginia. Davison had criticized Randall on her Facebook page and commented about alleged misconduct by her colleagues, and was subsequently blocked by Randall.

According to Davison, who appeared pro se, banning him from the Facebook page was an illegal prior restraint based solely on the content of his views. He also argued that because she posted during business hours and associated the account with her government email address, the Facebook page was meshed with her role as a government official. Randalls attorney argued that Randalls personal Facebook page should not be equated to a government account and noted that she was not using country resources to maintain the account.

After a bench trial, Judge James Cacheris found that Randall violated the First Amendment through her actions. He found that, even though she set up her Chair Phyllis J. Randall page herself and outside of the countys existing social media accounts, Randall was acting in a governmental capacity when operating her Facebook page. He also noted that Randall used her Facebook page to solicit comments from her constituents and that the about section of the page listed her as a government official, was linked to the county website and provided government contact details. Plaintiffs comment regarding alleged misconduct by County officials was obviously related to a question Defendant had fielded at a town hall earlier that evening, stated the Judge.

Judge Cacheris stated in his opinion: The First Amendment applies to speech on social media with no less force than in other types of forums. The Court cannot treat a First Amendment violation in this vital, developing forum differently than it would elsewhere simply because technology has made it easier to find alternative channels through which to disseminate ones message and The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards The Judge further opined that the Facebook page is a forum for protected, free speech under both federal and Virginia state law.

However, the Judge imposed no penalty as Randall lifted the ban against Davidson after 12 hours, and the Judge noted that the consequences of her actions were fairly minor. Judge Cacheris clarified that Randall can moderate comments on her Facebook page, and emphasized that his ruling shouldnt be read as prohibiting all public officials from blocking commenters from their social media accounts.

As this case reflects, whether actions taken by a government official regarding his or her social media account violates the First Amendment will be a highly fact-intensive inquiry. While the opinion seems to suggest that an outright ban of a commentator to the social media account may amount to a violation, reasonable moderation will likely be tolerated. How much moderation is reasonable moderation is left to be seen. A rebuttal comment to the post would likely be allowed, but what if the government official hid the negative comments from the Facebook page? Or what if Randall had maintained a Facebook page for her official position and a separate personal Facebook page where the personal page was devoid of any references to her capacity as a government official? In any event, as more and more government officials take to using social media, this area of First Amendment law is sure to further develop.

Read more from the original source:
Stumbling Blocks: When Is Social Media Moderation a First Amendment Violation? - Lexology (registration)

Liberal Students Unite Against First Amendment Rights of Conservatives on 'The Fosters' NewsBusters (press release) (blog) The August 8th episode of Freeform's The Fosters, titled Telling, perfectly illustrated how liberal students no longer accept the First Amendment rights of conservative students on campus. While on a college campus where she monitors an art class ...

More:
Liberal Students Unite Against First Amendment Rights of Conservatives on 'The Fosters' - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

ByDavid Brancaccio

August 08, 2017 | 8:58 AM

Google has fired the engineer who circulated an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity initiatives. The former employee, James Damore, argued that biological differences between men and women are responsible for tech's gender gap.

Google said he violated company policy about promoting gender stereotypes. The company did not publicly name him, but Damore later revealed his identity to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. Damore claims he has a legal right to express his views and that he's going to fight the dismissal.

Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, joined us to talk about the role the First Amendment has in cases like these and when companies can fire you.

David Brancaccio:I know you tend to focus on public employee free speech rights. But if someone works for the private sector, help us understand what the law says about our ability to say what we want in the workplace.

Lee Rowland:Well, the law doesn't say a lot about it. The First Amendment really only acts as a restraint on government. In fact, the first few words of the First Amendment are: Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press or religion. So when you work for the private sector and your employer is not the government, the Constitution gives you zero protection in terms of keeping your job based on what you say. So while it is possible that states and localities could pass laws protecting speech and a very, very tiny number of cities and localities have done so 99.9 percent of the time, there is no legal barrier to a private employer firing an employee because of their speech at or outside of the workplace.

Brancaccio: Soif you're signing up at a private employer and they hand you the code of conduct or the employee handbook with rules, you ought to take those seriously.

Rowland:That's exactly right, because they have every right to fire you should you run afoul of them. Now there is an important asterisk on this, which is employers may not use firing you because of your speech as a pretext to violate other laws that prevent discrimination. So, for example, federal laws that prevent employers from firing employees because of their religion or because of their pregnancy or their sex or their race. But, if it is solely because of their speech, there are no federal laws and no laws at the state level that I know of that give employees that kind of protection based on their speech rather than who they are.

Brancaccio:Now there is some talk in this case of the Google employee that somehow National Labor Relations Board rules might somehow apply. It's not a unionized position as far as I'm aware. Does that inform this discussion at all?

Rowland: Ishould be the first to admit I'm not a labor lawyer, so there may be some obscure contractual provision that he can take refuge in, but it certainly doesn't come from the Constitution.

Read this article:
The First Amendment won't protect you from saying something your company doesn't like - Marketplace.org