-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Lindsey Stone, a 30-year-old Massachusetts native, has been terminated because of the photo (shown left) she posted on her Facebook page. Lindsey worked for LIFE (Living Independent Forever), a Cape Cod-based nonprofit organization that assists adults with learning disabilities. Jamie Schuh, who took the photo, and Lindsey’s supervisor at LIFE, was also terminated.
The two were on a company-paid trip to Washington D.C. when the photo was taken. The photo shows Lindsey mocking a sign at Arlington National Cemetery. The photo went viral and over 30,000 people liked a Facebook page set up to demand her firing. The two have apologized for the gag:
We never meant any disrespect to any of the people nationwide who have served this country and defended our freedom so valiantly.
While the photo obviously mocks the sign, many apparently thought it mocked those buried at Arlington National Cemetery. A sign demanding “Silence and Respect” deserves to be mocked. The wording of the sign projects a sense of arrogance and entitlement common to institutions that view themselves as sacred cows.
Adding the word “Please” to the sign would change the command to a request, a more sensible sentiment.
H/T: Mano Singham, Gawker, Boston Herald.
Please help support our blog by going here and registering (just takes 10.3 seconds) and voting (under the News/Analysis section). Thank you.
What junctionshamus said. All the National Cemeteries, not just Arlington, are places where you are expected to behave with dignity and respect. Go back and read the Gettysburg Address to get a sense of what it means to be buried in a National Cemetery. Lincoln said it better than anyone has before or since.
@JAG – If I saw your gravatar profile correctly, you’re “into fashion” and living in Sweden? Seems that something so fleeting as fashion would be indicative of a belief in conspicuous consumption and elitism. Beginning to think you don’t really don’t have much of a dog in this fight, deflecting the primary issue to one of consumerism.
When it comes to ANC, I do have a dog in this fight, a big one. I served 10 years in our nation’s military, and to most of us, this is our primary place of worship to respect those who have either paid the ultimate price, or like my father, a POW in WWII, or other distinguished personnel.
Had Ms. Stone done this in my presence, the next photo might have been the insertion of my foot in her ass. And I wouldn’t have minded any of the ensuing consequences for exercising my opinion. Would really like to know who on this list has ever been willing to put your life on the line for the preservation of what we enjoy. If you haven’t, take one step forward. Mespo, stand fast!
While I agree that this woman was stupid to share the picture and that her employer has the right to fire her, absent a contractual restriction on the termination right of the employer, but I think this didn’t add up to a termination in my mind.
Quite simply put. In a democratic country, an employer whose speech or actions had caused public irritation pointed at his company, should simply reply: “We have free speech here. We can not impede that. You certainly DO NOT want your speech curtailed, do you?” And that would be the end of that.
Just so was it in Denmark when the cartoonist made ones which irritated muslim countries. No one spoke of curtailing speech or firing the cartoonist——in spite of Danish dairies losing millions in sales to muslim countries.
The price of free speech is so high in Denmark. Just so is it in Sweden, where an employer considers an employees deeds only in terms of it being a hinder to grant them the freedom of working with confidence as to their capability to do the work. We are not soldiers in uniform to be paraded for the honor of our company. We are solely resources and paid for that alone.
Our political leaders mirror the populace: gays, trans(?), lesbians, con men, BSers, psychopaths, small thieves, exploiters of privilege and rules for expenses, etc. But the devil take the one who interferes with the laws useage by the bureaucracy for political or private advantage. Or seeks the source of a leak.
Perfect, hell no. But blame the bad part on the climate and the darkness.
OS,
As soon as I posted it…. I thought oh these are government employees….. But traditionally….. Most government employees are free the say what they want….. The others sign contracts of employment for strict nn disclosure….. And are not suppose to bring attention or disrespect to the office….
But you are correct…..
For the employers’ honchos.
======================
The law of the land, argued very often before the Sct, concerns the right to free speech. Now what Congress is confined to doing by the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights, should apply to all agencies, both private and public. Or else why have a constitution?
Now, the Constitution, once signed, was quickly suppressed/concealed as to the rights of the individual. Rights were for the founders, not flounders like us.
Go fish.
Well, t’is time to use the Constitution as it was intended. To override all parties to safeguard such basic needs so as to achieve a democracy, in good time. Until we got unions, and what a battle that was, the employee had nothing to say as to employee rights. Was all that for naught. Should the misdeeds of a few be used to take away the rights of the many. One Meany does not make all mean. If corporations have ambitions to select Presidents, why not labor?
Shall we go back to unhealthy, unsafe working conditions? Slave wages? No compensation for work-related disease? Yes, if some have their way.
We have exported those jobs, for now, to slave labor countries. Is that an honorable solution to brag about as proof of our devotion to democracy?
This woman was unwise considering the nation’s reality. Some would criticize her choice of expressing contempt for power. But to deny that her right of free speech is nullified through employer power is silly, quite simple.
Here, in fact, a company would be embarassed to curtail a person’s speech in this fashion. I know so as I have used that right flagrantly.
And faced the hate in my American board members faces without flinching.
The concept of cooperation between employee and employer was not even a dream for them. Unions were nightmares for them.
The only real democracy in America is when free speech and good education for all is achieved. And that won’t happen soon.
I’ll give good odds that if they mocked a poster saying ‘Screw Hippies” they might be given an attaboy and a promotion.
Or maybe a sign saying “Equal rights for Palestinians”
Or “union rights should be protected”
Or “Support Occupy Wall Street”
Our totally screwed up, undiscriminating attitude of allegiance towards anything military.
AY,
I was thinking specifically of instances where the government can tell individual private citizens to STFU.
Employees of the government are no different in many respects to privately employed persons. Revealing company secrets can get you prosecuted in many instances. Bringing disrepute on your employer is an almost 100% guarantee you will be fired.
Was/is there a thread on how times change and why they do or don’t. Mikes’ I think. Well, I’ll post here as it is in tribute to a woman who spoke her mind when women were not even regarded as worth listening to. Bob Dole disdained her, as did Nixon on his China tour. He was addressing a fertilizer conference while she was part of the 30,000 member women’ s conference on the environment Appropriate place for his disparaging comment on her, she said.
I hope you are waiting for the name: Bella Abzug.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0724.html
Another women’s contribution, and a jewish one besides, to America and good reason for so many pioneering issues were tackled them in the 60’s.
Good luck, Malisha.
BUT I DO EXPECT REPERCUSSIONS. If I didn’t want repercussions, I would not be exercising my free speech rights in a deliberately provocative way.
——————————
in MY opinion the guy that made the movie Innocents Of Muslims KNEW he would incite rioting and violence…. he KNEW people’s lives would be in danger….. this is WHY he did it.. So, he could point and say… LOOK at those SAVAGES…….
now as for the photo…. when I first saw the photo without reading the article…. NEVER in a million years would I have thought that people would view it as her flipping the finger at the dead Soldiers…. as what I saw, and rather clearly… was a woman pretending to yell… while flipping off a sign that asked for quite…. or rather DEMANDED quiet and respect…..
I also, would not expect that if I posted this photo, that one of my friends would share it until it went viral……
I DID not at all see that she was trying o make a political statement…. NOR that she was dancing on graves of dead Soldiers…..
I saw it for what it was… Mocking a sign of authority…. NOTHING MORE….
I do think that the MEDIA News outlets like controversy and fanned the flames as to get viewers upset… so they would get ratings….
I think that BEFORE people saw the photo, they were TOLD they should be upset…. and followed that lead…..
I did not see this via network or cable news…. I saw an article…..
and the photo FIRST….. Therefor I saw it without somebody TELLING me what TO SEE and telling me I should be upset…..
Nobody abridged the rights of these women to say what they wanted. What private actors did about it afterwards is quite a different issue.
I plan to do some free-speechifying in 2013 that is going to make some people very angry, make them feel insulted, make them scream bloody murder that they are being slandered, etc. etc. I am going to do it for the express purpose of having them come after me with lawsuits for libel, slander and etc. I am going to be making little movies called “The innocence of [fill in the blank]” just like the idiotic movie that was blamed for causing the BenGazi attacks. I’m going to be including respected people as the targets of my free expression. I will not break any laws, stalk anybody, or do anything criminal. BUT I DO EXPECT REPERCUSSIONS. If I didn’t want repercussions, I would not be exercising my free speech rights in a deliberately provocative way.
So we should, I think, all expect to get the natural results of the things we choose to do. When we have brave people standing up to tyrannical governments and getting killed outright in the streets on a daily basis, why should we begin to think we can make any protest we like without any negative consequences?
Go to. Survey your territory, measure your risks, know the deal, admit realities, and say what the hell you mean.
Sincerely,
Malisha
OS,
Judicial employees…. Legislative….. Executive….. Oh and the FBI, Military and CIA….. All fall into an exception….. Where the Government can abridge an employees ability to do and say certain things…..
There are even government exceptions to the free speech right. For example, when a judge issues a gag order on litigants and their attorneys. Then there are legal restrictions on revealing classified information. HIPAA laws prevent your doctor or therapist from revealing what you tell them except under the most extraordinary circumstances. There are more, but those three jump out at me after only a moment of thought.
“Congress ahall make no law, that we’ll leave to the states, the employers and other big brothers to do. Better now?”
Not in the slightest. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the Constitution relates to the states and to private action. “Big Brother” as well. Orwell’s creation is a creature of state power, not a corporation. If you wish to bemoan corporate oppression, at least try to pick an appropriate artistic example.
“You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts.”
And the facts are this woman’s Constitutional rights were not violated in any way.
As for this argument:
“You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts.”
As a matter of fact, we spend a great deal of time here discussing the latest distortions of the Constitution by the Courts including Sct. So what are the facts that they use for their work?
Also a reminder that all which is not explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights are reserved to the People. Not to the employers. We’d still have slavery and indentured service if we did not have that to depend on for People Power.
GeneH,
Congress ahall make no law, that we’ll leave to the states, the employers and other big brothers to do. Better now?
To deny the effect on freedom of thinking, a necessary process preceding speech, and freedom of speech done by repression from employers, to take one of many influences, is to deny reality.
Now you juggle the legal part as you will, but reality is as I paint it I believe.
And since you address my argument using my words, you might pay me the courtesy by addressing me by moniker. But it is your option. We usually did when I grew up in Carolina, between well-brought up folks.
“I’ll summartize in one sentence. The constitution did not give us free speech to have it then taken away by employers, or other substitutes for big brother.”
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. It may or may not be that the Constitution should preclude employers from punishing employees for what they say. It is not the case that the constitution does preclude employers from punishing employees for what they say.
The Yankees built that cemetary on the grounds of Bobby Lee’s plantation. They stole his slaves, his land and planted all those dead bodies there. It is time to Occupy Arlington. Take back the plantation.
“I’ll summartize in one sentence. The constitution did not give us free speech to have it then taken away by employers, or other substitutes for big brother.”
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about your right to free speech as it pertains to contractual and employment relationships.
It says, “Congress shall make no law [. . .] abridging the freedom of speech”.
End of story.
You are free to contract for damn near about anything. There are some restrictions of course, you can’t contract to minors in most circumstances (there are exceptions), you can’t contract to do something illegal, etc., but these are all private actions. If you don’t want to abide by the terms of your employment contract? You are free to leave at any time. Every job comes with strings attached that you may not personally like. That’s the reality of the working world. That’s part of why they call it work instead of fun.
Really, the manufactured outrage over this woman’s legally rightful firing is ridiculous.
Her rights were not infringed in any way.
http://youtu.be/jA2q00caZsY