Smallholder Approves of Political Intolerance
example of permissible political intolerance.
The poor woman complains that her rights have been violated and that her boss can't tell her how to cast her vote. She's only partly right. Since the adaptation of the Australian ballot, she can cast her vote in absolute secrecy for whomever she chooses. But her employer's decision to terminate her for displaying a Kerry sticker did not violate her rights.
I frequently hear private action censorship declared unconstitutional and unamerican.
Bovine contribution to soil fertility!
The First Amendment limited ONLY the federal government's censorship of political speech. The Cardozo Doctrine's interpretation of the 14th Amendment eventually extended most of the Bill of Rights' prohibitions to the state governments (but, alas, ML and FM, not the Second). But private individuals and organizations can still decide what happens in their private spheres.
MTV's decision not to show Madonna's "Justify Me" video was not censorship.
Boycotting the Dixie Chicks is not censorship.
Refusing to buy records by Ted Nugent is not limiting his free speech (Nugent, to his credit, wouldn't claim that a boycott of his music by PETA was wrong; unlike the Dixie Chicks he understands that he does NOT have a right to your money and adoration).
When a casino fires a third-rate lounge singer for praising Micheal Moore, it is not a violation of the principle of free speech.
When a distribution takes a pass on distributing the "Passion of the Christ," it is not an example of governmental oppression of fundamentalist Christians. It is an example of criminally stupid business practice.
Even though Dr. Dobson's e-mail exhorts me to resist the government's cancellation of "Touched by an Angel" (and by extension the massive, systemic, unrelenting, overwhelming persecution of Christianity in America), I don't start storming the barricades. I send back an essay explaining how capitalism works: Roma Downey got a pink slip because consumers didn't watch her show. I send back a copy of the Constitution.
When my kids with pierced noses complain that businesses "discriminate" against them by hiring more presentable kids to work cash registers, they are refusing to own up to the fact that the exercise of freedom comes with consequences.
A theatre owner's decision not to show Fahrenheit 911 is not censorship - he is merely exercising his own freedom to determine what product he provides to his consumers.
Having defended the factory owner's right to fire the whiney Ms. Gobbell, let me slip to the other side and call Gaddis an idiot.
If I owned a factory, I wouldn't care what you believe if you make me money. If you show up on time and do your job, you can believe that Lyndon LaRouche is the second coming - as long as you don't disturb your coworkers with your mindless drivel.
Gaddis has probably created a rather hostile workplace. While employees may not voice opposition to his open political proselytizing, I imagine that many of them do not work as hard as they could. A happy employee works harder than a bitter employee.
Ms. Gobbell appears to be a fine example of the product of a poor educational system. Not only does she have only a tenuous grasp of what the Constitution says, her lack of marketable skills has (er, I mean, had) her working at a job so unskilled and so replaceable that her boss could fire her in a fit of pique.
I have approached this from a purely "rights" point of view. The Maximum Leader, being a trained and highly knowledgeable human resources manager, once explained to me that there are all kinds of laws regulating what constitutes a offense worthy of termination. Perhaps he will weigh in on whether any such restrictions apply to Mr. Gaddis. And then I'd like him to explain how the interstate commerce clause has been elasticized to cover small intrastate businesses.
The poor woman complains that her rights have been violated and that her boss can't tell her how to cast her vote. She's only partly right. Since the adaptation of the Australian ballot, she can cast her vote in absolute secrecy for whomever she chooses. But her employer's decision to terminate her for displaying a Kerry sticker did not violate her rights.
I frequently hear private action censorship declared unconstitutional and unamerican.
Bovine contribution to soil fertility!
The First Amendment limited ONLY the federal government's censorship of political speech. The Cardozo Doctrine's interpretation of the 14th Amendment eventually extended most of the Bill of Rights' prohibitions to the state governments (but, alas, ML and FM, not the Second). But private individuals and organizations can still decide what happens in their private spheres.
MTV's decision not to show Madonna's "Justify Me" video was not censorship.
Boycotting the Dixie Chicks is not censorship.
Refusing to buy records by Ted Nugent is not limiting his free speech (Nugent, to his credit, wouldn't claim that a boycott of his music by PETA was wrong; unlike the Dixie Chicks he understands that he does NOT have a right to your money and adoration).
When a casino fires a third-rate lounge singer for praising Micheal Moore, it is not a violation of the principle of free speech.
When a distribution takes a pass on distributing the "Passion of the Christ," it is not an example of governmental oppression of fundamentalist Christians. It is an example of criminally stupid business practice.
Even though Dr. Dobson's e-mail exhorts me to resist the government's cancellation of "Touched by an Angel" (and by extension the massive, systemic, unrelenting, overwhelming persecution of Christianity in America), I don't start storming the barricades. I send back an essay explaining how capitalism works: Roma Downey got a pink slip because consumers didn't watch her show. I send back a copy of the Constitution.
When my kids with pierced noses complain that businesses "discriminate" against them by hiring more presentable kids to work cash registers, they are refusing to own up to the fact that the exercise of freedom comes with consequences.
A theatre owner's decision not to show Fahrenheit 911 is not censorship - he is merely exercising his own freedom to determine what product he provides to his consumers.
Having defended the factory owner's right to fire the whiney Ms. Gobbell, let me slip to the other side and call Gaddis an idiot.
If I owned a factory, I wouldn't care what you believe if you make me money. If you show up on time and do your job, you can believe that Lyndon LaRouche is the second coming - as long as you don't disturb your coworkers with your mindless drivel.
Gaddis has probably created a rather hostile workplace. While employees may not voice opposition to his open political proselytizing, I imagine that many of them do not work as hard as they could. A happy employee works harder than a bitter employee.
Ms. Gobbell appears to be a fine example of the product of a poor educational system. Not only does she have only a tenuous grasp of what the Constitution says, her lack of marketable skills has (er, I mean, had) her working at a job so unskilled and so replaceable that her boss could fire her in a fit of pique.
I have approached this from a purely "rights" point of view. The Maximum Leader, being a trained and highly knowledgeable human resources manager, once explained to me that there are all kinds of laws regulating what constitutes a offense worthy of termination. Perhaps he will weigh in on whether any such restrictions apply to Mr. Gaddis. And then I'd like him to explain how the interstate commerce clause has been elasticized to cover small intrastate businesses.
posted by Anonymous at 9/17/2004 01:49:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home