FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

Those of us who are lucky live by the 'tyranny' of the majority those less fortunate just live under the real tryanny of the minority

It's all about balancing respect for individual rights with one another in a society of ordered liberty, something you clearly don't understand. You think just because the majority thinks it's a good idea, and just because it benefits you personally, it's inherently right and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the Jews of Weimar Germany.

That would be the tyranny of the minority , ie a dictator. If the majority want you dead its time to find somewhere new to live regardless of governmental system

Hitler wasn't a dictator, he was elected Chancellor by the people of Germany who allowed him to do what he did and cooperated with him.

But the point is that if the majority votes you dead, it's too late to go somewhere else. Therefore it's far better to have a system that recognizes and protects your rights as an individual against the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the majority's ability to do just exactly whatever it wants to the individual. Besides, it's not always about life and death.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work.

In the US, that is not supposed to be true. Although, in effect, the sexual and other harassment laws do result in a curbing of speech. However, if you review court opinions on the topic, and the careful wording of laws, mere speech is not prohibited, and the First Amendment still applies in the workplace. Rather, it is INJURIOUS speech which is remedied - i.e. harassment that rises to the level of being intolerable, and causing actual, provable injury.

It's quite reasonable for an employer to say to an employee to say don't discuss politics at work.

Well, that's because if I'm an employer, what gets said on my property is my business, and if I don't want people to talk sports, they need to shut up or work somewhere else. That's not "free speech", though, since "free speech" relates to government restrictions, not whether you let people say what they want in your house or in your office.

There are some interesting European laws about a 'right to a private life' which do apply to work but I doubt this means a right to run political activites from your office just to ring home and sort out child care etc. Regarding Facebook I work for a company that supplies many government services and in my contract it very explicitely says that if I mention my employer I must be political neutral in private. I can do whatever I want politically but If I stick on Facebook I work for 'XXX' and say I believe party Y is evil I have to put a disclaimer saying this is my private opinion not my employer. The reality of course is I don't say who I work for on any public media bar my CV (resume),

The point of what I wrote was that if I don't like someone, I ought not have to hire them, and if I don't like their political belief, or the fact that they smoke, or the fact that they drink, or the fact that they just seem creepy, ought to be my prerogative. I would think that if I'm hiring a secretary, i could hire someone that I think I might enjoy being around.

So as for hiring a fascist/communist/libertarian I don't think you should be legally able to discriminate against hiring them but I think its quite reasonable to say concentrate on your job while in the workplace.

I think it's absolutely reasonable to discriminate based on fascism, communism or libertarianism. Those are not race or sex, that one is born with, and it's not a disability that one can't help. It's a manner of thinking -- a point of view - and as a small employer, I really think that if I want to be assured that the person I deal with all day every day is someone I would get along with, then I ought to have that right.

My boss is a devout Muslim he's an alright guy and he knows I'm an atheist. He doesnt go around saying I will burn in hell (not sure he actually believe that through )and I don't go around saying his religion is full of shit. Don't see why can't apply to politics as well

It can apply to politics. It's just that it need not be enforced as a matter of law. If you find a cool boss who doesn't care if you hold some radical political view, then great. But, why shouldn't a socialist be able to hire other socialists in his business, and leave the libertarians to find somewhere else to work?

[Seth]

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work.

In the US, that is not supposed to be true.

Wrong.

Although, in effect, the sexual and other harassment laws do result in a curbing of speech. However, if you review court opinions on the topic, and the careful wording of laws, mere speech is not prohibited, and the First Amendment still applies in the workplace. Rather, it is INJURIOUS speech which is remedied - i.e. harassment that rises to the level of being intolerable, and causing actual, provable injury.

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

It's quite reasonable for an employer to say to an employee to say don't discuss politics at work.

Well, that's because if I'm an employer, what gets said on my property is my business, and if I don't want people to talk sports, they need to shut up or work somewhere else. That's not "free speech", though, since "free speech" relates to government restrictions, not whether you let people say what they want in your house or in your office.

There are some interesting European laws about a 'right to a private life' which do apply to work but I doubt this means a right to run political activites from your office just to ring home and sort out child care etc. Regarding Facebook I work for a company that supplies many government services and in my contract it very explicitely says that if I mention my employer I must be political neutral in private. I can do whatever I want politically but If I stick on Facebook I work for 'XXX' and say I believe party Y is evil I have to put a disclaimer saying this is my private opinion not my employer. The reality of course is I don't say who I work for on any public media bar my CV (resume),

The point of what I wrote was that if I don't like someone, I ought not have to hire them, and if I don't like their political belief, or the fact that they smoke, or the fact that they drink, or the fact that they just seem creepy, ought to be my prerogative. I would think that if I'm hiring a secretary, i could hire someone that I think I might enjoy being around.

Exactly. Your right of freedom of (dis)association outweighs some random individual's desire (not right) to have a job.

So as for hiring a fascist/communist/libertarian I don't think you should be legally able to discriminate against hiring them but I think its quite reasonable to say concentrate on your job while in the workplace.

I think it's absolutely reasonable to discriminate based on fascism, communism or libertarianism. Those are not race or sex, that one is born with, and it's not a disability that one can't help. It's a manner of thinking -- a point of view - and as a small employer, I really think that if I want to be assured that the person I deal with all day every day is someone I would get along with, then I ought to have that right.

Yup. Moreover you have the right not to be forced to contribute your money, in the form of wages, to someone who is your political enemy.

My boss is a devout Muslim he's an alright guy and he knows I'm an atheist. He doesnt go around saying I will burn in hell (not sure he actually believe that through )and I don't go around saying his religion is full of shit. Don't see why can't apply to politics as well

It can apply to politics. It's just that it need not be enforced as a matter of law. If you find a cool boss who doesn't care if you hold some radical political view, then great. But, why shouldn't a socialist be able to hire other socialists in his business, and leave the libertarians to find somewhere else to work?

Yup, exactly. If I don't want to hire a Progressive or a Marxist because I don't want to associate with or support them or their political ideology, which is harmful to me, why should I be required to do so? They have no right to impose their presence on me or to demand that I pay them that outweighs my right to disassociate from them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

Those of us who are lucky live by the 'tyranny' of the majority those less fortunate just live under the real tryanny of the minority

It's all about balancing respect for individual rights with one another in a society of ordered liberty, something you clearly don't understand. You think just because the majority thinks it's a good idea, and just because it benefits you personally, it's inherently right and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the Jews of Weimar Germany.

That would be the tyranny of the minority , ie a dictator. If the majority want you dead its time to find somewhere new to live regardless of governmental system

Hitler wasn't a dictator, he was elected Chancellor by the people of Germany who allowed him to do what he did and cooperated with him.

He was not elected Chancellor by the people of Germany. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg. He was then given dictatorial powers by the Reichstag, under threat, and he then suspended the Constitution. Once set up as dictator, he was able to institute super-judicial courts made up mostly of SS men, whose judgments could not be appealed from, and then he authorized a procedure for detention of any German without charge.

But the point is that if the majority votes you dead, it's too late to go somewhere else. Therefore it's far better to have a system that recognizes and protects your rights as an individual against the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the majority's ability to do just exactly whatever it wants to the individual. Besides, it's not always about life and death.

That, of course, is very true, and it is the point of Constitutional government - to set forth a delegation and separation of power, preserving some areas to be the province of the individual That is an age old Anglo-Saxon concept and limitation on the power of government stretches as far back as Magna Carta (probably farther), and evolved over the time with the English Bills of Rights, and then even moreso through the Enlightenment in France and the US.

This trend among some people to think absolute democracy is a good thing. I mean, that kind of thing would allow the majority to impose a State religion. I don't get why people think that's a sound way to set up a government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work.

In the US, that is not supposed to be true.

Wrong.

Although, in effect, the sexual and other harassment laws do result in a curbing of speech. However, if you review court opinions on the topic, and the careful wording of laws, mere speech is not prohibited, and the First Amendment still applies in the workplace. Rather, it is INJURIOUS speech which is remedied - i.e. harassment that rises to the level of being intolerable, and causing actual, provable injury.

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

Please stop writing these things pretending to know what you're talking about. I'm not "wrong." I am right on the law, and you're not.

And, your comment here is just plain silly. The right of free expression is a right against the government, not a right as against the employer. I pointed out quite clearly that an employer can prescribe what speech is allowed in the workplace. The right of free expression has nothing to do with a private individual telling you to shut up.

[Seth]

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work.

In the US, that is not supposed to be true.

Wrong.

Although, in effect, the sexual and other harassment laws do result in a curbing of speech. However, if you review court opinions on the topic, and the careful wording of laws, mere speech is not prohibited, and the First Amendment still applies in the workplace. Rather, it is INJURIOUS speech which is remedied - i.e. harassment that rises to the level of being intolerable, and causing actual, provable injury.

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

Please stop writing these things pretending to know what you're talking about. I'm not "wrong." I am right on the law, and you're not.

I know you like to think so, but it ain't always the case.

And, your comment here is just plain silly. The right of free expression is a right against the government, not a right as against the employer. I pointed out quite clearly that an employer can prescribe what speech is allowed in the workplace. The right of free expression has nothing to do with a private individual telling you to shut up.

And I reiterated that. So what's your beef?

[MrJonno]

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

I would hope the point is they do it equally and fairly among employees. Say to all your employees don't spending your time talking about sport all the time and get on with the job. Threatening employee A with the sack because he spent two minutes discussing the cricket scores but ignoring the fact that everyone is spending all day long discussing football (the one with the round ball) is not remotely reasonable. It's generally not illegal to look at porn at work but may be against your contract if there is a policy on it. If there isnt a policy and someone is looking at it in their lunch time they cannot be sacked for it if its done discretely (can get them on sexual harrasment if its shown to female member of staff). I knew someone who got sacked for this and he won an unfair dismissal case for this (he was a general wanker but in legally he was in the right)

Free speech is the right to speak without any legal (civil or criminal) consequences (its nothing to do with governments) and quite obviously that does not exists anywhere in the world and no society could function if it did. Knowingly telling a foreign government all your nations secrets is free speech, shouting fire in cinema is free speech, a mafia boss saying to his underling kill someone is also free speech as is a salesman telling a customer that the product he is selling is shit. Getting a judge or philospher to say thats not free speech therefore its illegal is just redefining what free speech is so its socially convient when in fact what they really mean is not all free speech is acceptable

[Seth]

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

I would hope the point is they do it equally and fairly among employees. Say to all your employees don't spending your time talking about sport all the time and get on with the job. Threatening employee A with the sack because he spent two minutes discussing the cricket scores but ignoring the fact that everyone is spending all day long discussing football (the one with the round ball) is not remotely reasonable.

Sure it's reasonable. It's the boss's business and he can discriminate against cricket fans if he wants. He can discriminate against ugly people, people with bad teeth or breath, people who talk or laugh too loudly or in a strange manner, people who wear their hair in strange ways or dress in a manner the boss doesn't like. It's his business and the ONLY things he cannot use as a basis for discrimination are those protected classes explicitly stated in the law, which in the US includes, sex, race, creed, religion, physical disability and in some places sexual orientation. But he can damned sure fire someone who cross-dresses and wears makeup because his mode of dress is harmful to his business image.

It's generally not illegal to look at porn at work but may be against your contract if there is a policy on it.

Unless your job is looking at porn, there certainly is a law against it, it's called "fraud and theft of services." When you use company assets for private matters you are stealing from your employer just as certainly as if you dropped a box of pencils in your handbag.

If there isnt a policy and someone is looking at it in their lunch time they cannot be sacked for it if its done discretely (can get them on sexual harrasment if its shown to female member of staff). I knew someone who got sacked for this and he won an unfair dismissal case for this (he was a general wanker but in legally he was in the right)

Only in the UK, and we know they're all idiots. Around here, the Boss sees someone looking at porn on a company computer and says, "you're fired." Absent a labor contract preventing him from doing so, the entire US is an "at will" nation and the boss can fire you simply because you annoyed him.

Free speech is the right to speak without any legal (civil or criminal) consequences (its nothing to do with governments) and quite obviously that does not exists anywhere in the world and no society could function if it did. Knowingly telling a foreign government all your nations secrets is free speech, shouting fire in cinema is free speech, a mafia boss saying to his underling kill someone is also free speech as is a salesman telling a customer that the product he is selling is shit. Getting a judge or philospher to say thats not free speech therefore its illegal is just redefining what free speech is so its socially convient when in fact what they really mean is not all free speech is acceptable

Pettifoggery.

[MrJonno]

Sure it's reasonable. It's the boss's business and he can discriminate against cricket fans if he wants. He can discriminate against ugly people, people with bad teeth or breath, people who talk or laugh too loudly or in a strange manner, people who wear their hair in strange ways or dress in a manner the boss doesn't like. It's his business and the ONLY things he cannot use as a basis for discrimination are those protected classes explicitly stated in the law, which in the US includes, sex, race, creed, religion, physical disability and in some places sexual orientation. But he can damned sure fire someone who cross-dresses and wears makeup because his mode of dress is harmful to his business image

Only in planet liberarian, running a business is a priviledge not a right. You don't own your employees even when during the hours they working for you. The society says what their rights are not you. You can utterly despise the person you employ you can go home and throw darts at a photo of them, you can curse them every second of the day (in private do it in public and its harrassment) but if you want to get rid of them its either make the position redundant (you can't make a person redundant ever) or find a case of gross misconduct that will stand up in court.

Transgender status is also protected, and try say no earings for men but allow them for women , oh no you can't

[Coito ergo sum]

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work.

In the US, that is not supposed to be true.

Wrong.

Although, in effect, the sexual and other harassment laws do result in a curbing of speech. However, if you review court opinions on the topic, and the careful wording of laws, mere speech is not prohibited, and the First Amendment still applies in the workplace. Rather, it is INJURIOUS speech which is remedied - i.e. harassment that rises to the level of being intolerable, and causing actual, provable injury.

Sort of. An employer may not use harassing language about a protected class that creates a "hostile work environment," but he can berate employees over their work to his heart's content. But employees do indeed lose their right to freely express themselves when at work. They can be told not to talk to one another, and they can be fired for expressing political opinions or anything else that the boss finds disruptive to the work environment.

Please stop writing these things pretending to know what you're talking about. I'm not "wrong." I am right on the law, and you're not.

I know you like to think so, but it ain't always the case.

It most certainly is in this case.

And, your comment here is just plain silly. The right of free expression is a right against the government, not a right as against the employer. I pointed out quite clearly that an employer can prescribe what speech is allowed in the workplace. The right of free expression has nothing to do with a private individual telling you to shut up.

And I reiterated that. So what's your beef?

Because you said I was "wrong" about freedom of speech not supposed to be limited in the workplace, and then you proceeded to prove that point by explaining that a private employer can control speech in the workplace, which, of course, has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the first place.

The fact, is in the US, Constitutionally, the government is supposed to have no greater power to restrict speech in the workplace than it has to do so in the street. Thus, the First Amendment doesn't indicate a location-dependent right of free speech. Freedom of speech exists in the workplace, as much as it exists outdoors. You told me I was wrong about that. I'm not.

[Seth]

Because you said I was "wrong" about freedom of speech not supposed to be limited in the workplace, and then you proceeded to prove that point by explaining that a private employer can control speech in the workplace, which, of course, has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the first place.

MrJonno: "Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work."

CES: "In the US, that is not supposed to be true."

Seth: "Wrong."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me rephrase for clarity:

MrJonno:"Employees lose free speech rights at work."
CES:"Not in the US" (Implying that employees HAVE free speech rights at work in the US)
Seth:"Wrong" (Stating that employees DO NOT HAVE free speech rights at work in the US.)
The First Amendment prohibits government from regulating free speech, but people wrongly assume that this means they have a "right" to free speech everywhere, which they don't. They have a right not to have the government infringe on their speech unreasonably. But they have no "right" of free speech as compared to, for example, the "right" to not be discriminated against by reason of race, religion or disability in the workplace that can be enforced against the employer.

The government cannot suppress speech, but neither can the government mandate that a private employer not suppress speech in the workplace.

That's what I was saying. Sorry if there was some confusion.

The fact, is in the US, Constitutionally, the government is supposed to have no greater power to restrict speech in the workplace than it has to do so in the street. Thus, the First Amendment doesn't indicate a location-dependent right of free speech. Freedom of speech exists in the workplace, as much as it exists outdoors. You told me I was wrong about that. I'm not.

Yes, you are wrong about "freedom of speech" existing in the workplace as much as it exists outdoors. It doesn't. Outdoors, in public spaces, the only authority that can regulate speech is the government, and it is severely restricted in how and when it can lawfully do so. Therefore there is "freedom from government restraint of speech." But in the workplace, there is no "freedom of speech" because the employer has absolute control over what is spoken in his establishment. Since the term "freedom of speech" implies the words "right of" to form the phrase "right of freedom of speech" this implies some protection against an action suppressing speech which can be asserted as a right against the employer. In public, all persons have protection against GOVERNMENT suppressing speech or sanctioning it (to one extent or another...but not absolutely), in private no person has any protection whatsoever against a private business owner suppressing or sanctioning speech at all. Period.

If your boss doesn't like the way you pronounce your words or the words you choose, he can fire you, and you have no "free speech" claim against him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because you said I was "wrong" about freedom of speech not supposed to be limited in the workplace, and then you proceeded to prove that point by explaining that a private employer can control speech in the workplace, which, of course, has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the first place.

MrJonno: "Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work."

CES: "In the US, that is not supposed to be true."

Seth: "Wrong."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me rephrase for clarity:

MrJonno:"Employees lose free speech rights at work."
CES:"Not in the US" (Implying that employees HAVE free speech rights at work in the US)

Which they do.

Seth:"Wrong" (Stating that employees DO NOT HAVE free speech rights at work in the US.)

And, you are wrong about that. They do have free speech rights at work. However, free speech rights do not include the right to not be ordered off private property or fired by a private employer because of what you say.

The First Amendment prohibits government from regulating free speech, but people wrongly assume that this means they have a "right" to free speech everywhere, which they don't.

I don't care what idiots "assume." Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a person's right to be or speak while on someone else's property.

They have a right not to have the government infringe on their speech unreasonably. But they have no "right" of free speech as compared to, for example, the "right" to not be discriminated against by reason of race, religion or disability in the workplace that can be enforced against the employer.

They do have a right of free speech. They just don't have a right which takes precedence over the employer's rights, and the employer owns the property/building or leases it.

The government cannot suppress speech, but neither can the government mandate that a private employer not suppress speech in the workplace.

Who in the world stated or implied that the government could?

That's what I was saying. Sorry if there was some confusion.

The right to free speech only relates to government power. To say that an employer can control what is said by employees, or take adverse job action against an employee for saying the wrong thing, has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Just like the moderators here don't violate freedom of speech by deleting posts. We still have 100% freedom of speech.

The fact, is in the US, Constitutionally, the government is supposed to have no greater power to restrict speech in the workplace than it has to do so in the street. Thus, the First Amendment doesn't indicate a location-dependent right of free speech. Freedom of speech exists in the workplace, as much as it exists outdoors. You told me I was wrong about that. I'm not.

Yes, you are wrong about "freedom of speech" existing in the workplace as much as it exists outdoors. It doesn't. Outdoors, in public spaces, the only authority that can regulate speech is the government, and it is severely restricted in how and when it can lawfully do so. Therefore there is "freedom from government restraint of speech." But in the workplace, there is no "freedom of speech" because the employer has absolute control over what is spoken in his establishment.

You have a complete backwards notion of what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is not location dependent. It exists to the same extent everywhere, which is why the constitution doesn't mention employers, or homes, or streets. You have freedom of speech if you are in my home, but I have property rights to kick you off if I don't like what you're saying.

Since the term "freedom of speech" implies the words "right of" to form the phrase "right of freedom of speech" this implies some protection against an action suppressing speech which can be asserted as a right against the employer. In public, all persons have protection against GOVERNMENT suppressing speech or sanctioning it (to one extent or another...but not absolutely), in private no person has any protection whatsoever against a private business owner suppressing or sanctioning speech at all. Period.

An employer has no right to suppress a person's speech. the employer has a right exclude the person from the employer's property, or fire the employee. But, the employer has not right to shut the person up. That's what you're missing. The employer can exercise free speech rights, and condition presence on the employer's property on the employee only saying certain things. However, if the employee refuses to comply, the employer has no remedy that shuts the person up - the employer can escort the person off the property or call the police and have him removed. Beyond that, there is no power to shut another person up other than through force of persuasion or simply telling the person to shut up.

If your boss doesn't like the way you pronounce your words or the words you choose, he can fire you, and you have no "free speech" claim against him.

Where, exactly, do I imply or say that one would have a free speech claim against him?

The employer has freedom of speech rights too.

And, the employees have their freedom of speech rights. An employer firing a person for saying the wrong thing is not a free speech violation at all, and doesn't deprive the employee of free speech rights. It doesn't even shut the employee up, necessarily, unless the employee consents to shut up. If the employee keeps talking, the employer's recourse is to have the person removed from the employer's property - which is an exercise in property rights, not a suppression of speech. The person is free to keep talking off of the employer's property.

[MrJonno]

An employer has no right to suppress a person's speech. the employer has a right exclude the person from the employer's property, or fire the employee

Its relatively easy for an employer to exclude a person from property but firing them is a different matter.
In the UK you can't make a person redundant ever under any circumstances you can only make a role redundant (meaning you cant replace someone in that role). You can fire someone immediately for gross misconduct but may need to justify this in court/tribunal, if you want to get rid of someone for less serious but continual misconduct then there are warnings and procedures to go through.

You can basically can never get rid of someone because you don't like them or their face doesnt fit etc

[Coito ergo sum]

Never said you could.

You also can't force them to shut up. If they don't shut up, though, then that would likely become misconduct after you warned them. Then if they keep behaving insubordinately, it becomes cause for termination, even in England.

[MrJonno]

Never said you could.

You also can't force them to shut up. If they don't shut up, though, then that would likely become misconduct after you warned them. Then if they keep behaving insubordinately, it becomes cause for termination, even in England.

Agree with that,

Looked up French employment law (UK is nearer to the US than the rest of Europe), did you know a company can only make a position redundant if not to do so risks the immediate bankrupty of the company (which they have to prove). Merely wanting to make efficiency savings and make more profit isnt enough.

Interesting French , UK and US employement figures are roughly the same