At 10:40 PM 12/18/97 -0500, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
Tim's analysis is nonsensical.
A government employee loses his job because of his political views. He brings a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the First Amendment, and eventually prevails in the Supreme Court.
A non-government employee who loses his job because of his political views would have no cause of action because the private employer is not bound by the First Amendment.
Therefore there should be far fewer government employees to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment.
I.e., people not working for the government have no first-amendment claims agains their employer since the *first amendment constrains only government*.
Suppose RealBig Corporation fired Umbehr for his views. Would a First Amendment issue have arisen? Of course not. In a free society, RealBig is free to hire whom it wishes, and to refuse to hire niggers, homos, perverts, Jews, whatever. And to fire anyone who wrote opinions the managers at RealBig disliked.
Substitute "fascist society" for "free society" in the paragraph above and the discussion begins to make some sense. Hell, it's even historically accurate.
Marc, you have declared how far you take freedom: you apparently believe it is proper for the government to intervene in private hiring decisions. Unfortunately many americans believe this intrusion is justified. A less statist viewpoint holds that government should not be used to control employment since both parties consent voluntarily -and therefore, an employer has the right to hire and fire at will -including for 'distasteful' reasons. The issue is confounded in the anecdote because the employer is government in this case, and we might expect government to be obligated to hire and fire only on the basis of merit. In a *free* world *employers* can fire for speech; government can't interfere in speech. In the US today, employers do not have that freedom. Government outlaws employers freedom to hire and fire ---except against recreational pharmaceutical consumers--- and the populace considers this permissible in the name of harmony. If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free, and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for their warm and fuzzy feelings. The first amendment is about what government can't do to you, not what your neighbor can or can't do. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig@otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu M-16 : Don Quixote :: PGP : Louis Freeh Let freedom ring (or screech at 28.8)