Freedom of speech is a right that American citizens are allowed to use to express their opinions, religion and beliefs. While this right allows people to express their own opinions it is not always the same when in terms of the work place. There have been many incidents where rights have been altered in the work place through state laws, rules and contracts to keep employees in line, making sure they do not reflect poorly on the job they have. The rights of employees should be extended in the work place. While some jobs allow freedoms of speech it is not the same in some cases.
In the 1968 Olympic Games, Tommie Smith and John Carlos removed their shoes wearing beads and a scarf as they approached the podium for the medal ceremony. As the anthem played, both Olympians stood while raising a fist in the air with their heads down. These actions resulted in both Olympians being asked to leave where they were later removed from the U.S. track team. Afterwards, both Olympians were asked about their actions. Tommie Smith said, “I don’t like the idea of people looking at it as a negative. There was nothing but a raised fist in the air and a bowed head, acknowledging the American flag not symbolizing a hatred for it.” (qtd. in Brown).
John Carlos also added saying, “I had a moral obligation to step up. Morality was for greater force than the rules and regulations they had.” (qtd. in Brown). Both quotes given by the Olympians express that while others felt their actions may have been disrespectful that it was not and they did it for their own person reasons that it had nothing to do against the American flag. In this case, Tommie Smith and John Carlos are dealing with two punishments: one being told to leave the Olympics, and the other being suspended from the U.S. team.
127 our experts are availableright now
While it may not have been in their contracts as a team member of the U.S. track team, to stand respectfully during the anthem, their behavior went against the rules the Olympics have set for the competitors. Not abiding by the rules set for this event they attended they were in the wrong. However, unless their contract states that it is mandatory for them to stand in a respectful manor, they should not have been kicked off the team. Without having this stated in their contract, they can utilize their freedom of speech freely.
In 1996 NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf who was of Islamic faith refused to stand for the national anthem at the beginning of games. His actions went unnoticed until he was questioned by a reporter and responded by stating “You can’t be for God and for oppression. It’s clear in the Quran, Islam is the only way,” he said at the time. “I don’t criticize those who stand, so don’t criticize me for sitting.” (Washington 8).
In this quote the NBA player is expressing that he was not against America but that he held his religion at a higher standard, this is not the first time this has been told that religion has been held on a higher pedestal. In this situation, just like in schools, standing for the pledge in the morning some choose to stand or not to participate because of religion.
This is a more personal reason to people rather than a disrespectful action towards America. The NBA has a rule stating that all players and coaches have to stand in respect for the anthem because; of the actions taken by Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf he was suspended as punishment. As a compromise the NBA allowed Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf to pray while he stood during the anthem as an alternative. In this case NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was in the wrong.
On a legal stand point the NBA had a rule stating that all NBA players and coaches are to stand for the national anthem in a respectful manor. This rule is also stated in their contracts which both the NBA and the players agree on when they are signed to play for a team. Therefore the NBA has the full right to suspend the player for actions they believe that the player may have done that went against this rule. If this situation would have happened outside of the workplace the NBA would not have a say in the matter.
Colin Kaepernick is responsible for the reason players of the NFL protest today. When asked why, Kaepernick said “he can’t look the other way in a country “that oppresses Black people and people of color” when there are “bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” (Wilder 1). Kaepernicks actions for protesting against the Flag were towards the personal reason of change, it was against the government and the actions that have been taken against a specific race. After these actions took place the president made a statement demanding that the Players should be punished for their actions with suspension.
The NFL owners and Executives replied that they supported the players; it was never written in their contract that it was mandatory for them to stand during the anthem. In this case on legal terms while the president can demand for punishments to be made for the players he does not carry the right to have his demands fulfilled, that right would be with the NFL if they chose to go that route. As for the players and the NFL itself, the players have the right to utilize their freedom of speech as their contract does not state that there is no rule that prevents the players from protesting.
The Players are in the right and president Trump would be in the wrong considering if his demand were to be carried out it would infringe on their right to use freedom of speech. In the article The Law Is on the N.F.L. Players’ Side both Benjamin Sachs and Noah Zatz state “Each of these three bodies of law — constitutional law, civil rights law and labor law — independently protects players from retaliation for anthem protests.” In this quote the article explains that even if the NFL did want to enact a punishment towards the players it would not be constitutional because the players are protected.
A bicyclist had given the finger to the president as he drove pass. Someone had taken a picture from behind of the bicyclist showing the actions that had taken place. Later on this photo had gone viral on the internet, the identity of the bicyclist was later on revealed to be a woman named Juli Briskman. Her job called her in for a meeting regarding her profile picture on her social media account.
The company she worked for explained that she had broken a rule, a rule that did not allow employees to have any type of inappropriate behavior on social media because it reflected on the company. They stated “They said, ‘We’re separating from you,‘” said Briskman. “Basically, you cannot have ‘lewd’ or ‘obscene’ things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off ‘obscene.’” (Bendery 5). While this is very common in the work place the actions taken by the company would not be fair.
During the time of the incident she was off work and it was in her personal life, Briskman had also made the effort of stating that her page had no connection to the company. In the end Juli Briskman was let go and she had to leave her job. Juli Briskman explains to her company that this was during her own personal time not while she was working and regardless of that they believed it to be a negative reflection on the company. They explained saying that in Virginia they are allowed to fire anyone for any reason.
Later on Juli Briskman mentioned that a man who also worked at her company also had the same problem, yet instead of the company firing him he was allowed to delete the inappropriate post on his account and keep his job. While this is unfair considering this situation is a very different situation from the others mentioned before this argument that the company makes is valid. Regardless of Juli Briskmans right of freedom of speech the company holds the right to fire anyone for any reason because of this law it favors their decision over Juli Briskman.
From the 1960s to present time there is more to freedom of speech in the work place than just the laws that protect the employees on legal terms. The media and society also play a role, given that some of the events are the same but take place at different times.
For example the 1968 Olympic Games, during the games the audience protested and threatened the Olympians as they stood with their first in the air. As a result of their protest they were removed from the US track team. Their contracts did not state anything about having to stand for the anthem in a respectful way. The public did not agree with how both Olympians decided to protest. The audience’s reaction truly did not favor the Olympians and did not look good on the US track them since they were a reflection on them.
The NFL players have both a positive and negative side to their situation. The public as a majority feel that it is freedom of speech and support the players. Including the NFL owners and executive they supported the player’s actions. While the players did receive backlash from the president, the public who was in support of the players outweighed the negative.
Both teams protested during the anthem yet the two Olympians were asked to leave and were suspended from the team. The NFL players were respected by their coaches and the owners encouraging them to continue. Since the times have changed the morality of society has changed and is more open to change then it was years ago. In the media there are tons of stories that discuss the protesting.
Back in the 1960s having an opinion on this type of situation was not very popular and looked down upon. The media on the 1968 Olympians were not covered in as many stories as there should have been. Considering the backlash the Olympians received from the audience it is not a surprise considering society and the media was very conservative and during that time it was a very sensitive topic to truly discuss.
Today opinions and protests are common and viewed as a great thing. The more out spoken a person is about their own opinions and supporting other the better. Such as the NFL players, kneeling in protest society supports their actions. The media today is very democratic, and is usually favoring the underdog. So when saying society and media played a role it truly did. The influence the public has on a situation involving the media weighs very heavily. When looking at the 1968 Olympians if that event had taken place today there would definitely be a change in the situation.
In both these events they legally did nothing wrong. However they did not violate their contracts it does not mean they did not go against the rules that events may have which is different. In the 1968 Olympics what got both Olympians Tommie Smith and John Carlos were attending an event and that is where the rules of the event also apply.
In conclusion while the law may be on the side that protects the player’s use of freedom of speech there are limitations. The Olympians from 1968 were at an event which had a rule against their actions. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf had a contract with the NBA which stated a rule restricting his right to use freedom of speech during the national anthem. The NFL were allowed to protest because they did not have restrictions from their contract and the NFL owners and executives supported them.
Juli Briskman her situation did not allow her to express her own opinion. While her company had a rule against her actions and she tried to explain that her account had not connection to the company they let her go and their excuse was the law the state of Virginia had for businesses. This law allows a company to fire an employee for any reason without question.
While the right to freedom of speech in the work place can carry weight on keeping a job or losing a job that is not always the case. There are many laws that protect employees from certain discriminations and being fired because of those discriminations.
Not everything is completely protected, loopholes such as contracts, laws and rules that the company may have can prevent a person from using their freedom of speech even outside the work place. In all of the examples given throughout the essay it shows that the work place takes precedence over freedom of speech, politics etc. Regardless of the first amendment when speaking of the work place the right to speak an opinion can be limited without question.
In an article A Chill Around the Water Cooler: First Amendment in the Workplace it was said that “Even government employees, who have First Amendment protection, face significant difficulty when challenging speech-based terminations.” (Cox 12). In this quote it is explained that while in society it feels as though people are restricted from using their freedom of speech so are people who work for the government as well. At the end of the day there are ways to restrict freedom of speech in the work place but there are ways to protect the workers and their freedom of speech.
Work Cited
- Bendery, Jennifer. “Woman Fired For Flipping Off Donald Trump’s Motorcade.” Huffington Post, 6 Nov. 2017. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woman-flips-off-donald-trump-fired_us. 8 Nov. 2017
- Brown, DeNeen L.. “They didn’t #TakeTheKnee: The Black Power protest salute that shook the world in 1968.” The Washington Post, 24 Sept. www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/24/they-didnt-takeaknee-the-black-power-protest-salute-that-shook-the-world-in-1968. 9 Nov. 2017
- Cox, Jeannette. “A Chill Around the Water Cooler: First Amendment in the Workplace” American Bar Association, N/A. www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/15/winter-2015/chill-around-the-water-cooler.html. 9 Nov. 2017
- Sachs, Benjamin, and Noah Zatz. “The Law Is on the N.F.L. Players’ Side.” The New York Times, 17 Oct. 2017. www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/law-nfl-protests.html. 9 Nov. 2017
- Washington, Jesse. “Still no anthem, still no regrets for Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf.” The Undefeated, 1 Sept. 2016. theundefeated.com/features/abdul-rauf-doesnt-regret-sitting-out-national-anthem/. 9 Nov. 2017
- Wilder, Charlotte. “Donald Trump says Colin Kaepernick should find a new country.” USA Today, 30 Aug. 2016. ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick. 27 Oct. 2017
