ZU Magazine is a publication of ZU Media. Below is an article from Issue 3: Freedom.
Elena Ender | Guest Writer
For some, “freedom of speech” is a broad and grandiose promise that the United States has vowed to uphold for its citizens in the First Amendment of the Constitution. There have always been gray in-betweens of morality when deciding where speech should or should not be censored, like stark political disagreements in the workplace and, more recently, online harassment.
No matter where the line is drawn, it is crucial to know that freedom to say something does not necessarily keep the communicator free from the consequences of their words.
With today’s technology contributing to instantaneous news, speech has gained a faster avenue for travel.
According to Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh’s “Common Interpretation of Freedom of Speech and the Press” on constitutioncenter.org, “the government may not jail, fine or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.” This now also includes online content.
Essentially, there aren’t any specific legal repercussions for controversial statements except with things like defamation, true threats, “fighting words,” hard-core obscenity, child pornography and commercial advertising.
Again, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any social repercussions.
According to Stone and Volokh, “The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals … such as private employers.”
In August of 2017, Google employee James Damore was fired for writing a 10-page anti-diversity manifesto about why women should not be in the tech industry. When he was fired, he believed that his freedom of speech was infringed upon.
According to Business Insider journalist Jim Edwards, “People do not have the right to use their employer’s resources to pay for their freedom of speech.” And since Damore used Google’s mailing list to distribute his proclamation, he was not protected from his employer’s response.
Azusa Pacific alumni and political reporter for the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, Gina Ender, commented on this subject saying, “Immediately firing someone is unreasonable, but if you and your employer don’t align then I think it’s in both parties’ best interest to evaluate next steps. I’d like to clarify that anything racist, sexist or homophobic is unacceptable, no matter where you work or what you do.”
Another recent instance of freedom of speech controversy is with ESPN SportsCenter host Jemele Hill who tweeted out against Trump, calling him a “white supremacist.” ESPN suspended her for two weeks.
In response, Hill released the statement: “My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional.”
While free speech can create deep divides, it can certainly also open doors for new opportunities.
In another viral illustration of anti-Trump speech, cyclist Juli Briskman was photographed flipping off Trump’s motorcade as it passed her on October 28. In response, she was fired from her U.S. government contracted job. It’s interesting to note that Briskman was later offered hundreds of thousands of job offers from those who appreciated her protest.
Darlene Ranalin, a founder of a public relations firm in Boston, offered to hire Briskman. Ranalin told Medium Corporation, “I don’t have any openings, but I’ll find a place for her anyway. I guess President Drumpf was right after all, he really is creating new jobs.”
There were several cases following the Charlottesville riots of participants who were fired from their jobs or expelled from their schools. Their employers and universities cited their hateful speech towards minorities.
One marcher who was Peter Cvjetanovic, a 20-year-old student at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). He was infamously photographed shouting and marching in a polo shirt and wielding a tiki torch.
The photo went viral and a petition spread to get him expelled from the university. Since UNR is a public institution, he was protected under the First Amendment. Of course, as the number of signatures grew, he felt it necessary to resign from his on-campus job.
While the United States may grant the privilege of independent speech to its citizens, society still reacts to words spread in person and online.