Unbelievable! woman flashing her middle finger at Arlington

[Nova]

Actually, she flipped off a sign, not the graves.

But the basic point remains: if freedom of speech doesn't cover speech we don't like, then it isn't freedom of speech. Sure, I think MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is more important than this girl's raised finger, but who am I to make that decision? If we allow courts to decide which speech is "important", then we have defeated the entire concept of freedom.

(The right of her employer to fire her is a different issue, one not covered by the first amendment.)

 

[Nova]

And what's more, Sonya, the Founding Fathers did not distinguish between "important" and "trivial" speech. They knew perfectly well that doing so would defeat the entire concept of free speech.

What they trusted was that in a marketplace of freely expressed ideas, the best ideas would prevail over the worst and the important ideas would prevail over the trivial.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Bottom line is that while Ms. Stone had every right to do what she did, every other citizen has the right to opine on it.

And I think that is a good thing. Sometimes people need the feedback of peers in order to see that their actions were obnoxious or offensive or disrespectful.

It really SHOULDN'T be the place of the government to censure the speech of it's citizens, and in fact the First Amendment insures that they do not.

But the way the public reacts to another's free speech whether it be by public criticism, or boycotting brands, or the firing of an employee for questionable behavior is a direct reflection of what our societal boundaries are. IOW, just because something is protected by legal rights does not mean society as a majority has to be accepting of it.

The government cannot dictate expectations of kindness, good manners or tact, but society can. It is what makes us civilized.

This doesn't mean that calling for this woman's deportation (or worse) is "okay", either, but it isn't against the law. But again, there will be voices condemning the intense overreaction to Ms. Stone's action. And IMO that is a good thing.

 

[FrayedKnot]

More and more people react that way to just about everybody who does something they wouldn't do or disagrees with them nowadays. Everyone's got to be outrageously dramatic about everything. Whatever happened to a shrug and, "Guess it takes all kinds"?

Ah yes, but those critics, no matter how angry or over the top they may seem are also entitled to their freedom of speech.

Granted, my personal opinion is that such backlash is ridiculous and obnoxious. My personal opinion also is that what Ms. Stone did was disrespectful and obnoxious.

And both are completely legal. But we can still say we don't like what they did/said.

 

[mmmagique]

I think it was meant to be a joke. All I ever hear from Americans is how it is a free country, and you have all these freedoms, and that is what makes it a great country, etc. etc. So how come those freedoms aren't extended to this person? If it is a free country, then she can flip the bird wherever she wants. Why should she get fired from her job?

Even if she is making some sort of anti-military statement (which I kind of wish she was!) then where in your Constitution is that prohibited? Wanting to censure someone because they don't toe the line of US politico-militarism? Ugh. No thanks.

IMO
eta the imo since I know this isn't going to be a popular pov.

The great thing about America is that everyone *is* free. She is free to do something incredibly disrespectful and stupid. Others are free to judge her on it, and her boss is free (if he so chooses) to fire her. Or not. The U.S.A. rocks! :rocker:

 

[Sonya610]

And what's more, Sonya, the Founding Fathers did not distinguish between "important" and "trivial" speech. They knew perfectly well that doing so would defeat the entire concept of free speech.

There is a sign that SAYS be respectful. If the guards had seen that they could have likely thrown her out or possibly even charged her. Last time I checked there were laws regarding indecent behavior and they likely apply to Arlington Cemetery!

Next time you get pulled over by a cop try flipping him off or cussing him out. Tell him you can say whatever you like because you have the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Or try it in a courtroom. Just tell the judge you will say whatever you fricking want to and his rules don't apply because you are have the right to freedom of speech!

Let me know how that works out.

 

[gxm]

Actually, she flipped off a sign, not the graves.

But the basic point remains: if freedom of speech doesn't cover speech we don't like, then it isn't freedom of speech. Sure, I think MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is more important than this girl's raised finger, but who am I to make that decision? If we allow courts to decide which speech is "important", then we have defeated the entire concept of freedom.

(The right of her employer to fire her is a different issue, one not covered by the first amendment.)

Her employer may have the (legal) right to fire her because a bunch of people who don't know her decided that she should be fired and made noise about it, but IMO that doesn't make it (ethically) right. I am disgusted at the couch potato nanny nation we have become. Don't like someone's personal FB joke? Create an online petition to have them fired! Good grief people, get a life already.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Her employer may have the (legal) right to fire her because a bunch of people who don't know her decided that she should be fired and made noise about it, but IMO that doesn't make it (ethically) right. I am disgusted at the couch potato nanny nation we have become. Don't like someone's personal FB joke? Create an online petition to have them fired! Good grief people, get a life already.

But it cannot be okay for her to give the finger to a sign in a National Cemetery and NOT okay for people to express their disgust at her actions.

That is the quandary of free speech. It isn't a right granted only to people with whom we agree.

Maybe it is your opinion that the folks asking for her firing are ridiculous, and luckily, you are allowed to say that, via your first amendment rights. And those folks calling for her head are protected by THEIR first amendment right, and Ms. Stone is protected by her first amendment rights....and so on and so on....

IMO, she may have the LEGAL right to be disrespectful in a National Cemetery, but was she behaving in an ethically proper manner when she shot those photos on her employer's dime?

It works both ways.

 

[katydid23]

If I were her boss i would be concerned about her lack of judgement. I would probably fire her just for that alone. She made a very stupid decision, and took pictures and posted that stupid decision. So as her boss, I would have very little faith in her ability to make good choices.

 

[FrayedKnot]

If I were her boss i would be concerned about her lack of judgement. I would probably fire her just for that alone. She made a very stupid decision, and took pictures and posted that stupid decision. So as her boss, I would have very little faith in her ability to make good choices.

Exactly!

I work for a small private school and it is an unspoken standard that as a representative of our organization, everything I do publicly reflects upon my school.

I am totally fine with that and I am very mindful of what I post on social media and how I behave in public.

Nobody has forced me at gunpoint to act a certain way, and nobody has to insure I have a job if my actions are embarrassing to my school.

Of COURSE I have been tempted to post some off-color or controversial comments on FB, but I am aware that my employer might suffer some criticism or backlash if I behave unprofessionally. So I choose to keep my social media profile as neutral and non-offensive as possible.

After all, no one is required to post their photos or comments on THE INTERWEBZ! Good gravy! How can you NOT expect people to comment when you put your junk online?

 

[Kat]

This woman's an idiot. I honestly don't think she intended to be malicious, she's just dumb as a box of hammers.

It seems she pulled this stunt at a time when she was supposed to be representing her employers. If that's true, then they had every right to fire her. However, if she had done it on her own time, in a way that did not make any public connection with her job, then IMO it would be none of her employers' business. And I agree that the lynch-mob mentality that has developed in response to this is scary.

The part of your post I bolded: yup, yup and yup.

Her stupidity cost her the job. I just think she's a knucklehead to post the picture online.

 

[Nova]

There is a sign that SAYS be respectful. If the guards had seen that they could have likely thrown her out or possibly even charged her. Last time I checked there were laws regarding indecent behavior and they likely apply to Arlington Cemetery!

Next time you get pulled over by a cop try flipping him off or cussing him out. Tell him you can say whatever you like because you have the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Or try it in a courtroom. Just tell the judge you will say whatever you fricking want to and his rules don't apply because you are have the right to freedom of speech!

Let me know how that works out.

As far as I know, police officers have no remedy if a citizen uses abusive (but non-violent) speech or gestures. If a cop retaliates because he doesn't like your language, he is abusing his authority.

On the other hand, our courts have ruled that we can be imprisoned for lying to cops, so obviously the first amendment has limits.

Judges are granted special powers to maintain decorum in a courtroom and can restrict speech in order to maintain order.

Nobody is saying there are no exceptions. But a sign saying "Be Respectful" is not one of them, as far as I know.

 

[Florida Native]

She is perfectly free to take that picture. She's not being charged with any crimes. She did suffer the consequences of other Americans with free speech to ask for her to be fired.

This! She wasn't charged with any crime so as far as I know her first amendment rights weren't violated.

As for people being outraged, I thought it was tacky and extremely classless but beyond the news bit on The Today Show hadn't given it another thought. People were in their rights to be upset about it and start a petition or whatever they wanted. I personally wouldn't bother but that's just me.

Her employer had every right to can her. She did this on work time and could potentially harm the organization.

 

[HMSHood]

She is perfectly free to take that picture. She's not being charged with any crimes. She did suffer the consequences of other Americans with free speech to ask for her to be fired.

Exactly! Free speech cuts both ways. She is free to make a fool out of herself and her employer has the right to fire her.

 

[HMSHood]

I think it was meant to be a joke. All I ever hear from Americans is how it is a free country, and you have all these freedoms, and that is what makes it a great country, etc. etc. So how come those freedoms aren't extended to this person? If it is a free country, then she can flip the bird wherever she wants. Why should she get fired from her job?

Even if she is making some sort of anti-military statement (which I kind of wish she was!) then where in your Constitution is that prohibited? Wanting to censure someone because they don't toe the line of US politico-militarism? Ugh. No thanks.

IMO
eta the imo since I know this isn't going to be a popular pov.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and duty. It is NOT absolute. She is not under arrest. Free speech cuts both ways.

 

[Nova]

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and duty. It is NOT absolute. She is not under arrest. Free speech cuts both ways.

I think your first post was phrased better. With very few exceptions, speech that comes with responsibilities and duties is NOT free. But as you point out, while we represent an employer our speech may be limited by the requirements of our job (but still not by the government, unless the government happens to be our employer).