Quote:
Originally Posted by bunkmoreland
In terms of whether corporations have too much power to restrict employees' speech/actions, sure I think they have too much power that way. I just don't see a quick way of using the Constitution or the courts to fix that problem, in a country whose courts have declared that corporations are people and have free speech rights and all other constitutional protections. If an attempt were made to try to block companies from censoring their employees, that attempt is going to be judged a violation of the corporation's First Amendment right to free speech.
|
Well, a corporation is made up of people, some of whom would be the employers or 'bosses'. In today's politically-charged atmosphere of twitter rage and adult temper tantrums, a negatively-perceived comment from one employee can reflect badly on every other person in the company. As a result, it's not surprising that some people in charge of a company will take a vested interest in the opinions of employees in order to ensure they are with the mob and not against it.
Perhaps instead of figuring out which people should be legally permitted to censor which other people, society should be figuring out how to just agree to disagree in a civil manner. No more thought policing and outrage peddling.
Food for thought: If corporations are supposed to be profit-driven, mindless machines that cannot have a conscience, then shouldn't they do away with any green initiatives, charity, or corporate social responsibility policy that goes beyond mere legal compliance? Unless that solar panel on the roof is cheaper per kW than fossil fuel, someone needs to be fired for putting their conscience ahead of profit, right?