Free speech rights and democracy vs. Intolerance. Where are the boundaries?

[suzifrommd]

There's a story on the internet involving a teacher who was suspended for posting anti-gay opinions on her facebook page (that wasn't associated with her job).

I'm torn about this.

As a LGBT activist, I don't like seeing anti-gay opinions.

But as a free-speech advocate, I believe that the right to express unpopular opinions must be protected (providing it's not hate speech) or democracy is threatened.

And as a teacher, I don't like the idea that our jobs should be in jeopardy based on exercising our free-speech rights outside of the workplace. If someone should stumble across some of the sexuality advice (for example) I've given on these forums to distressed members, could they claim that posting details of my sex life where my students can see them violates they trust they put on me as a teacher.

What do people think? Is it OK for a school (or other employer) to take action against an employee who posts something that the employer disapproves of, even if it's in a non-work account and not during work hours?

For reference, here are the comments in question, as posted by CentralJersey.com:

[femmebutt]

First, that post looks like it was written by a barely literate person that shouldn't be in charge of educating anybody. And while discriminatory remarks and (healthy?) sexual advice both are a person's right to express, I wouldn't want a known biggot as a teacher. Period. I hope they fire her. Twice. ...use some more...ellipses...idiot...

[Beverly]

There's a story on the internet involving a teacher who was suspended for posting anti-gay opinions on her facebook page (that wasn't associated with her job).

Nobody stopped her expressing her opinions - that is free speech.

The consequences that followed are because her free speech exposed other things which concern people. She can repeat what she said as often as she likes, that is her choice. No one will stop her.

[jeni]

It is a really difficult issue. It reminds me of the debate about boycotting businesses due to the political / social opinions and activities of their owners.

It is really tempting to say "Good" and be done with it. I wouldn't be very keen that person teaching my kids. But then I remember the rules for school teachers a century or so ago. Better be single, celibate, and of good moral character or get lost... These days, most of us would probably say firing a school teacher for being seen alone with a man after dark is an unreasonable thing to do. But the prevailing mores were rather different.

The hard thing about freedom is that it's for everyone, and a lot of people hold distasteful opinions.

So ultimately, I think that as long as the activities are done on her own time, using her own resources, and not presented to imply that they are the opinions of the school, I think it's wrong for the school to take action based on them. It's reasonable to expect employees to abide by the law, so had she done something illegal, fire away... but it's not ok to demand that a teacher live his or her life by any particular code of ethics that might apply at school except when at school.

[marsh monster]

There are limitations to free speech. In the teachers case, I think since it was on her facebook where she likely has students, coworkers and such, that voicing an opinion like that could be seen as potential bullying or that she is too biased to protect any children from bullying. Voicing an opinion while just talking to someone doesn't have the permanency that putting it as your status on a social media website does either. 

[Hikari]

For me it is very simple, all rights have limits. I think lots of speech ought to be criminalized rather than just yelling fire in a theatre or telling someone you are a police officer when you aren't. If people are being harmed in a meaningful fashion such as incitement to violence or break the law in some other method, then that ought to be criminal.

[Jill F]

As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to expose yourself as an ignorant bigot as publically as you wish.  In fact, I'd wish they'd all come out like that so that we know damned well who they all are, where they live and where they work (for now  ). 

I would like to thank Patricia for coming out publically as a bigot so that she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to an out-and-proud LGBT person and that one day she can see what a horse's ass she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed hatred was for any other minority group?  If she said, "I am a proud member of the KKK." would you really want her to keep her job?

[Tysilio]

According to this news report, the school in question is a private, Catholic high school. As a private institution, the school can set any speech policy it wants; the first amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities.

It's not unusual for private entities of any kind to set standards for employee conduct which apply even they're on their own time. NFL teams, for example, regularly fine and/or suspend players for "conduct detrimental to the team," even when the conduct is legal. (The Riley Cooper incident, which also involved speech, is just one example.)

I find it refreshing and encouraging that a Catholic school would have a policy prohibiting the expression of anti-gay bigotry.

[Dee Marshall]

My feeling isn't too far off from anyone else's here. You have the right to air your views, but your employer has the responsibility to guarantee that your views don't negatively impact your job. For a teacher, being a known bigot in any area endangers students of that minority if it affects your actions towards them or knowledge of it makes it hard for students to approach you.

[suzifrommd]

I would like to thank Patricia for coming out publically as a bigot so that she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to an out-and-proud LGBT person and that one day she can see what a horse's ass she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed hatred was for any other minority group?  If she said, "I am a proud member of the KKK." would you really want her to keep her job?

Very well-thought-out and sensible, but still gives me a queasy feeling. Would you feel just as comfortable with the following statement made by a hypothetical person who came across one of my posts helping MtFs on HRT enjoy their body sexually?

I would like to thank Suzi for coming out publicly as a <insert your favorite term for a woman without sexual boundaries> so she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to a person with morals and that one day she can see what a <insert another term for loose woman> she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed sexual interest went in another direction?  If she said, "I am a proud pedophile." would you really want her to keep her job?

My point is that punishing speech that someone finds objectionable is a dangerous precedent because different people differ on what makes speech objectionable. Whose definition of objectionable matters? She gave her opinion on what's wrong the the country. I happen to think it's wrongheaded and uninformed, but if we begin deciding what prescriptions for improvement are OK to talk about and which merit termination, are we really any better than those who tried to silence early civil rights activists by threatening their livelihood?

First, that post looks like it was written by a barely literate person that shouldn't be in charge of educating anybody.

Are teachers required to make all their utterances error-free?

Well, I'm sure typos have crept into some of the 6000-odd posts I've made. If one of those comes to light, should my ability as a teacher be questioned?

[suzifrommd]

According to this news report, the school in question is a private, Catholic high school. As a private institution, the school can set any speech policy it wants; the first amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities.

It's not unusual for private entities of any kind to set standards for employee conduct which apply even they're on their own time. NFL teams, for example, regularly fine and/or suspend players for "conduct detrimental to the team," even when the conduct is legal. (The Riley Cooper incident, which also involved speech, is just one example.)

I find it refreshing and encouraging that a Catholic school would have a policy prohibiting the expression of anti-gay bigotry.

Yes, Tysilio, I agree it's refreshing. As far as private institutions setting a standard for speech, would you be comfortable with a policy among large industrial corporations that employees are not permitted to speak about unions (for example) in a positive light? If you're caught posting a pro-union message (or pro-regulation, or pro-environment) on social media, your employer would take action against you.

Can you see how that might be a blow to democracy?

[jeni]

I would like to thank Suzi for coming out publicly as a <insert your favorite term for a woman without sexual boundaries> so she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to a person with morals and that one day she can see what a <insert another term for loose woman> she really is.

This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind re: old schoolteacher rules. It's frustrating, but unless speech crosses into illegal territory, even despicable viewpoints can be aired. It's easy to defend freedom when you agree with the repressed speech, but that's not the test of your commitment to freedom.

[femmebutt]

Are teachers required to make all their utterances error-free?

Ur beeng uh devyls advukit. Stop.

Or, I guess it's your free speech right!

But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

[suzifrommd]

But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

Yes, FB. Wacko talk. I thoroughly agree.

But allowing women to vote, desegregating schools, and gay marriage, were all once considered wacko talk by the standards of the day.

My point is that punishing speech that sounds wacko to us by firing the person who speaks it is a dangerous precedent.

I've expressed an opinion, both online and IRL that preventing an LGBT child from expressing his/her sexual orientation or gender identity should be prosecuted as child abuse. It's an extreme viewpoint and the vast majority of the people who hear me say this make it clear they think it deserves some variation on the "wacko talk" label. Maybe I'm wacko. Or maybe I'm articulating a standard of conduct that will become second nature in 50 years.

Who decides?

[Devlyn]

Ur beeng uh devyls advukit. Stop.

Or, I guess it's your free speech right!

But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

-yn approves of your spelling!

[Tysilio]

Yes, Tysilio, I agree it's refreshing. As far as private institutions setting a standard for speech, would you be comfortable with a policy among large industrial corporations that employees are not permitted to speak about unions (for example) in a positive light? If you're caught posting a pro-union message (or pro-regulation, or pro-environment) on social media, your employer would take action against you.

Can you see how that might be a blow to democracy?

There are very specific laws regarding speech about labor relations, so that's not a relevant counterexample; in general, employees' right to speak about organizing unions, wages, working conditions, etc. are explicitly protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Recently, a growing body of regulations by the N.L.R.B., as well as case law, has extended these rights to social media, and rightly so. However, employers in the private sector can and do regulate other forms of speech by employees. This article in the New York Times has a good review of what is and isn't permissible.

"...[T]he agency... has found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet. <snip> [They]... affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois... [who] posted on Facebook, calling his customers "rednecks" and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the "concerted activity" aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law."

Organizations may also, of course, punish employees for speech which may violate laws against discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Given that New Jersey has rather good anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws, it's not too hard to make the case that the school's action was amply justified on those grounds.

It seems to me that it's reasonable for employers to hold teachers to a higher standard than, say, employees of a software company. Teachers have a lot of power over their students, and any teacher with a Facebook page which is accessible to them isn't posting strictly as a private person, and needs to take into account the possible effects of her posts on her students.

[suzifrommd]

There are very specific laws regarding speech about labor relations, so that's not a relevant counterexample; in general, employees' right to speak about organizing unions, wages, working conditions, etc. are explicitly protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Recently, a growing body of regulations by the N.L.R.B., as well as case law, has extended these rights to social media, and rightly so. However, employers in the private sector can and do regulate other forms of speech by employees. This article in the New York Times has a good review of what is and isn't permissible.

"...[T]he agency... has found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet. <snip> [They]... affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois... [who] posted on Facebook, calling his customers "rednecks" and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the "concerted activity" aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law."

Organizations may also, of course, punish employees for speech which may violate laws against discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Given that New Jersey has rather good anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws, it's not too hard to make the case that the school's action was amply justified on those grounds.

It seems to me that it's reasonable for employers to hold teachers to a higher standard than, say, employees of a software company. Teachers have a lot of power over their students, and any teacher with a Facebook page which is accessible to them isn't posting strictly as a private person, and needs to take into account the possible effects of her posts on her students.

You're 100% right that there's nothing illegal about what the school is doing.

I'm not disputing the legality of what has been done to the teacher. I'm asking whether it's good for society to have employers silence opinions, especially about how the country could be improved. I'm also concerned that if teachers are singled out for that sort of scrutiny, a chill may descend on other aspects of their speech, and we may be losing a valuable viewpoint on a number of topics.

I'm also nagged by a concern that our society is slowly inching toward a new sort of repression, where all our words are put under a  microscope because they achieve permanence in ways that words casually spoken never have in the past.

[Tysilio]

I'm also nagged by a concern that our society is slowly inching toward a new sort of repression, where all our words are put under a  microscope because they achieve permanence in ways that words casually spoken never have in the past.

I'm with you on that one. But when it comes to Facebook, and the internet generally, I think we're already there, given the level of government surveillance and corporate data-mining that's taking place now. I'm, for example, careful with what I joke about in emails, in the same way that I'd never make a hijacking joke in an airport.

I absolutely agree that people are entitled to their opinions. However, they also have a responsibility to support them with facts and logical reasoning -- otherwise discourse degenerates to ranting. And I don't find it difficult to distinguish between an opinion, honestly held and fact-based, and hate speech; the latter has no place in a teacher's repertoire, and to say that any group is "out to destroy civilization" is surely hateful.

[Eva Marie]

I think she has every right to express whatever opinion she wants to. Wanna be a bigot and put it out there for the world to see? Have at it.

But decisions have consequences. I have no doubt that if I was posting hateful comments publicly on the internet and my employer found out about it I might be looking for another job. It has do with violating a trust with my employer that I am an upstanding person and i'm not going to do something publicly that might reflect badly on my employer. Me expressing my bigotry might go against the policies of the employer; having me, a bigot, working for a company that has a non-discrimination policy looks bad for the company and I can easily see how doing that can lead me PDQ to the unemployment line.

So, even though you are off the clock you still need to monitor what you do.

[jeni]

So, even though you are off the clock you still need to monitor what you do.

See, that's the part I'm not comfortable with. My employer is buying my time while I'm on the clock, not my whole life. I can understand someone who has a PR-heavy role, meaning they have in part been hired due to their ability to present a positive image for the company, being subject to scrutiny like this. But for most employees, as long as they are following the rules when working, that should be the end of their employer's reasonable concern.

Teachers are sort of in a weird edge case, since they do have a role as a mouthpiece for the school. But still, if they're capable of keeping their personal beliefs contained while at school, I don't really see the problem.