[barleyguy]

Quote:

O.K., no problem.  No politics.
 
I would like to clear one thing up and apologize for an incorrect statement I made some posts back.  It's not political, it's strictly legal and O.T.
 
I either stated, or agreed with the statement, that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of political speech. 
IOW, I was under the impression that one of the few private entities in which First Amendment protections applied was the workplace.
It was asserted that this is true because the courts have ruled that the workplace is a form of governance and I stated that the reason political speech was protected there was it's nature.
 
All of that is 100% wrong.  There is absolutely no federal prohibition on an employer firing you, or otherwise punishing you, for your political views or speech.  
In fact, employers can legally search for forum postings or blogs you have written and fire you for the views you expressed, political or othewise, even when you expressed them outside of the workplace.
 
Four States, NY, CA, SD & CO, and DC and a handful of cities, have their own local laws regarding this, but bottom line is that the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, including private workplaces, businesses, schools or websites.
 
That is pretty much the definitive answer to the question posed by the O.P..
 
It is also a reason to seriously consider the implications of a recent statement by Facebook marketing director, Randi Zuckerberg, who stated that anonymous internet access must be eliminated and that everyone should be forced to use their real names when posting.  But that discussion is better left to a new thread.

One small point... You use the example of "schools".  If you are talking about private schools or colleges, this is correct.  But there is significant case law that holds that the bill of rights is applicable to public high schools, up to a limit called "significant disruption".  In other words, high school students have constitutional rights as long as expressing them isn't disruptive.  Admittedly, the definition of disruptive can vary, but there is at least a legal standard students can use to avoid having their rights trampled completely.
 

 

[Erus]

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with the US judicial system as I'm not from the states but "Unfortunately, we now have a Supreme Court, dominated by extremist ideologues, that has no respect for either." is that a matter of opinion or a fact? And in what way are their ideologues showing extremism?

 

[Uncle Erik]

Sorry, this is where law intersects with politics. The US Supreme Court is political.

I do have strong opinions on the matter and would like to discuss them, but that would go right into political discussion.

So while I would enjoy commenting, it would run up against the prohibition here. I'm closing this thread. Our rules are more important than what I think.