Atlanta Fire Chief Fired For Anti-Gay Book

[Burris]

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. My husband is perfectly free to blog about how some of his company's clients are vile perverts who are equal to animal rapists. The government is not going to stop him. He will not get arrested. But the consequences of doing so is that he will lose his job.

Two things:

1) If your husband were using his blog, whether during his free time or not, to violate his employer's confidentiality codes, then of course he should be fired. He wasn't merely sharing an opinion and exercising his speech: He was breaching a contract and probably engaging in libel as well.

2) Freedom of speech does indeed have a cost: To ensure that everyone gets to keep it, everyone also has to put up with those who use their freedom to say dumb things. The only compensation is that speech can be countered with more speech.

By publically saying such things about some clients he is putting his employer in a position that they very well might get sued.

He would have been breaching a contract and quite possibly breaking the law. That isn't a free speech issue.

He is free to do this, but he is not free of consequences. I think that is where we differ in our beliefs you believe it should be free speech with no consequences(at least that is how it sounds).

If that's how it sounds to you, then you've misunderstood me.

If someone freely enters into a confidentiality contract, for example, and then publicly breaks it, that is a breach of contract and not really a free speech issue at all.

If someone slanders or libels someone else, that is also an issue for the courts.

If someone counsels murder or utters threats, that is not a free speech issue either.

Free speech, as I see it, is involved with (a) expressing a general opinion and (b) accurately reporting on the facts without fear of government interference.

I take it a step further than that, however, in that I think the average individual should be prepared to put up with odious and generalized opinions; that people should not have to censor themselves, keeping their own beliefs silent, for fear of losing their livelihoods merely because someone else was offended.

[Burris]

I mean look, heres the thing: if you would own a company, and one of your employees would write a book which would have passages in it where he describes how much he condemns you and how vile and perverted you and some of your costumers are.

If he wrote a book condemning company policy and explaining his reasons for why he believes as he does, then he is exercising his freedom; and even if such a book proved somewhat detrimental to me, I would still prefer that his freedom remain intact as opposed to facing some of the potentially terrifying alternatives.

If, on the other hand, he committed libel (as well as sharing confidential information), then he breached the contract and broke the law. That goes beyond merely expressing an opinion. It goes beyond the bounds of what free speech exists to protect.

I'd fire him.

I'd sue him.

[Sundaymorning]

If he wrote a book condemning company policy and explaining his reasons for why he believes as he does, then he is exercising his freedom; and even if such a book proved somewhat detrimental to me, I would still prefer that his freedom remain intact as opposed to facing some of the potentially terrifying alternatives.

If, on the other hand, he committed libel (as well as sharing confidential information), then he breached the contract and broke the law. That goes beyond merely expressing an opinion. It goes beyond the bounds of what free speech exists to protect.

I'd fire him.

I'd sue him.

Sure, and that would be your right to keep him.

Here is how I see it:

it's the choice of an employee to write stuff like this man wrote in a book about his employers.

But it's also the choice of of his employers if they want to fire him or not.

I would probably fire such a person, you wouldn't, and in our own company, that would be our own freedom to decide what to do.

However, this man was a public employee, and so his direct boss has to act in the best interests of all of his employers, which are the citizens.

That is the difference.

[Burris]

But it's also the choice of of his employers if they want to fire him or not.

I would probably fire such a person, you wouldn't, and in our own company, that would be our own freedom to decide what to do.

Indeed you'd be free to fire him for writing a book that condemns company practices. (I'm talking about the hypothetical employee who writes a reasoned account of his problems with the company, and not about the nutcase that engages in slander.) And I would not fire for that.

But the question of whether or not to fire a dissatisfied employee is only one part of an overall situation: To what extent does the average individual have a duty, whether for moral reasons or out of self-interest, to protect the free speech of another person?

Some people would argue that because free speech is guaranteed by the government, only the government is bound to abide by it.

Other people, such as me, would argue that the defence of free speech should take place everywhere - because a time may come when such is not defended anywhere.

However, this man was a public employee, and so his direct boss has to act in the best interests of all of his employers, which are the citizens.

That is the difference.

In this case, where he abused his power to distribute the book, then I agree. Had he not done that, working and distributing only on his free time, then I would treat it as an issue of free speech.

The public shouldn't have a high degree of confidence in ranking public officials anyway: Just because they don't publish books or announce their prejudices doesn't mean those biases aren't there; that they aren't affecting these people.

[formergothardite]

Two things:

1) If your husband were using his blog, whether during his free time or not, to violate his employer's confidentiality codes, then of course he should be fired. He wasn't merely sharing an opinion and exercising his speech: He was breaching a contract and probably engaging in libel as well.

2) Freedom of speech does indeed have a cost: To ensure that everyone gets to keep it, everyone also has to put up with those who use their freedom to say dumb things. The only compensation is that speech can be countered with more speech.

He would have been breaching a contract and quite possibly breaking the law. That isn't a free speech issue.

If that's how it sounds to you, then you've misunderstood me.

If someone freely enters into a confidentiality contract, for example, and then publicly breaks it, that is a breach of contract and not really a free speech issue at all.

If someone slanders or libels someone else, that is also an issue for the courts.

If someone counsels murder or utters threats, that is not a free speech issue either.

Free speech, as I see it, is involved with (a) expressing a general opinion and (b) accurately reporting on the facts without fear of government interference.

I take it a step further than that, however, in that I think the average individual should be prepared to put up with odious and generalized opinions; that people should not have to censor themselves, keeping their own beliefs silent, for fear of losing their livelihoods merely because someone else was offended.

I'm not talking about violating confidentiality agreements, even mentioning that he works for his company or even mentioning clients by name. He starts a blog under his own name, with his picture on it. He blogs that all certain types of clients(not by name, but it could be all black clients, all white clients, all religious clients) are vile, perverts who are no different than animal rapists. Again, he mentions no one by name and does not even mention he works for this company, but one of the clients who he is saying is vile(but not by name), recognizes him, calls his employer and says that they no longer will be doing business with them because they employee people who view them as animal rapists. This get around that his company employees people who say such things publically and nobody wants to do business with them, so the company goes under. No matter how much the company says, "We don't agree with him" just by keeping him employed they will be creating an environment that makes certain types of clients feel like the company isn't trustworthy. Even though he has not violated any company policy, his actions when not on clock are putting the company at risk and creating a work environment that makes the company clients feel like the company cannot be trusted. Even if he did not mention the company at all, just being recognized by clients saying these things about certain types of people will cause his company to lose business.

By publically saying that he views gay people as vile as animal rapists, the Atlanta Fire chief opened up the city to discrimination lawsuits and, as the city mentioned, eroded trust. When a person's actions when not at work makes it so that they don't seem trustworthy while at work, then the consequences is that they will probably lose their job.

[formergothardite]

Me texting husband: Would you get in trouble at work if you published a book saying all black people are idiots and should be slaves?

Husband: WTF?!

Me: Online debate.

Husband: Yes I would most likely lose my job. We have black clients and I have black employees who work under me and even if we didn't it would reflect poorly on the company to employ public racists.

Me: Is there a specific policy saying employees can't write racists books in their free time?

Husband: I don't remember one and I'm not going to go ask if I would get in trouble for writing a racist book. It is pretty much common sense that you can't do that.

And that is our bizarre text conversation for the day. :lol:

I was thinking of Ken Alexander. If he did not own his business and instead was employed by someone else, it would create a very toxic work environment and lose the company business if it became known that he views his female employees and clients as whores of Babylon who are destroying society and I would think his employer would have every right to fire him. It would be very difficult to work under and with a guy who you know thinks that you shouldn't be working, your husband should be able to pin you against a wall, and praises women who stay with child molesters.

[Sundaymorning]

Me texting husband: Would you get in trouble at work if you published a book saying all black people are idiots and should be slaves?

Husband: WTF?!

Me: Online debate.

Husband: Yes I would most likely lose my job. We have black clients and I have black employees who work under me and even if we didn't it would reflect poorly on the company to employ public racists.

Me: Is there a specific policy saying employees can't write racists books in their free time?

Husband: I don't remember one and I'm not going to go ask if I would get in trouble for writing a racist book. It is pretty much common sense that you can't do that.

And that is our bizarre text conversation for the day. :lol:

I was thinking of Ken Alexander. If he did not own his business and instead was employed by someone else, it would create a very toxic work environment and lose the company business if it became known that he views his female employees and clients as whores of Babylon who are destroying society and I would think his employer would have every right to fire him. It would be very difficult to work under and with a guy who you know thinks that you shouldn't be working, your husband should be able to pin you against a wall, and praises women who stay with child molesters.

As an owner of the company, I would fire someone like Ken Alexander. I mean, yes, there is freedom of speach. But I as a company owner should also have the freedom to refuse to employ people who publicly call me things like "whore of Babylon".

And I'm pretty sure, Ken Alexander would fire someone from his company if he would lean that this person wrote a book or a blog about how lunatic he and his wife are.

So it's not even about if the employee was right about what he wrote (I mean, I would obviously heavily disagree with what this fire chief wrote, but I would agree if someone wrote a book or a blog about how stupid Ken and Lori are), but it's about that an employer doesn't have to put up with being publicly insulted by his employees.

Edit: of course, an employer also doesn't have to put up with employees insulting other employees or clients or really anyone in such a vile way as this man did.