Recently I spoke at Utah Valley University about the private regulation of speech, particularly in businesses curtailing not just workplace speech but speech outside of the workplace. We have discussed such incidents where people were fired for YouTube videos or drunken scenes. This “little brother” problem falls outside of the first amendment which addresses government regulation of speech. As a result, businesses have wide latitude in punishing employees for private conduct, though some states have laws protecting some forms of speech and employment such as voting and political activities. We have a new such case involving a woman in Ontario who shot and posted a video of her berating a neighbor for flying a Mexican flag. The video caused many to be understandably angry with Tressy Capps, who didn’t seem to see how obnoxious she appeared in her own posted video. However, it has not escaped her employer, which proceeded to fire her.
The video below is incredibly insulting and intolerant in my view. Capps suggests that the family might want to move back to Mexico simply because they are flying the Mexican flag. Capps is described as a political activist and asks woman in the window
“Is that a Mexican flag in your front yard?” Capps is heard asking the homeowner, who is behind a window. You know we live in America right? This is the United States. So, why are you flying a Mexican flag in your front yard?”
The woman did not appear to understand English. Her husband Sigifredo Banuelos later told the media that he did not see what was offensive about flying the Mexican flag and that they fly both the American and Mexican flags.
Capps posted her video and not surprisingly received a harsh response. Her real estate company was not amused and fired her from an independent contactor position. For a real estate company in an area with a large Hispanic population, the decision was probably not viewed as a particularly difficult one. While the public confrontation did not involve her work, it certainly involved the clientele of her work. She made herself a liability and businesses are first to remove at-will employees who harm the bottom line.
I believe that there should be protection for private employees engaging in protected speech. However, when an employee seeks such notoriety and becomes such a liability, there is a stronger basis for the company acting to protect its business interests.
Woman Irate That Ontario Family Is Flying Mexican Flag In Their Front Yard
The prosecutors “threw the case” and Ebola and Aids are a white people conspiracy.
Jack, The prosecutors threw the case. Let’s start with jury selection. Most egregiously they didn’t object to a woman who characterized the protests as “riots” and other statements that showed serious racial bias. There was a lot of unambiguous evidence that wasn’t presented or was presented in an ambiguous ways. The prosecutors sat with their thumbs in their mouths while the defense attorneys asked improper questions, while they asked non-experts for opinions, while they asked experts to opine about what-ifs outside their area of expertise, and while they bullied a witness. They didn’t object to hearsay from defense witnesses. Earlier you claimed that Rachael was rehearsed by the prosecutors. NO. That was another of the problems. The prosecutors didn’t prepare ANY of its witnesses. The case was for the prosecutors to win or lose. They allowed white privilege to win.
bettykath – I watched the Zimmerman trial gavel to gavel and the prosecution were idiots, but they did not throw the case. They did not have a case to begin with. That was clear as the prosecution took the witnesses apart. They had the judge in their corner, almost cheerleading. They won almost everything they asked for.
“The case was for the prosecutors to win or lose. They allowed white privilege to win.”
Thank you bettykath. It sounds to me that you made a plausible argument the case could have gone the other way – under law in effect at the time.
Of course, not everybody agrees with that.
But thanks for reviewing some of the interesting aspects of this case.
DBQ,
Thanks for pointing out the typo, although it could be the result of auto-correct. 🙂
It did cause me to LOL. 🙂
Some folks can’t handle ball busting so I’ll just say the Bears sure tried their best. They just came up short. They’ll get ’em next time.
Nick – the nice thing about following college football is that it frees your Sundays up. 🙂
LOL. Key location says typo to this investigator.
@ Jack
I sure hope your post of 3:51 had a typo. Or….did you really call our host a turkey?. LOL
🙂
“Surely you can understand that I believe the verdict could have gone either way depending on the skill of the attorneys presenting ambiguous evidence”
Are you being deliberately obtuse? “Depending on the skill of the attorneys”? There is no longer any depending. Me thinks you just don’t want to answer.
I think the verdict was correctly decided. The evidence tells me that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman without sufficient provocation, and with sufficient force to permit Zimmerman to use lethal force in his own defense. All in accordance with established law.
Professor Turkey,
Since you are paying attention to this thread, it would be deeply appreciated if you could address the potential legal ramifications of the Jahi Mcmath case. I cannot recall a person being legally dead for over 9 months being declared alive again.
No rush. The case is to be heard on the 9th.
This has fallen off the rails and there is a Bears game ongoing. I’ve learned not to bust balls about the Bears.
Bigfatmike,
Contrary to your attempt to avoid giving an honest answer, there is not just one available answer. There are two. Yes or No.
“I believe the case could have gone either way depending on the skill of the lawyers in presenting ambiguous evidence.”
I don’t think you understand. The trial is over. Whatever skill the lawyers had to demonstrate has already been demonstrated. The verdict is in your hands. Guilty or not guilty, and why?
I though you were asking me if the case was properly decided under current law.
Surely you can understand that I believe the verdict could have gone either way depending on the skill of the attorneys presenting ambiguous evidence.
If you want my opinion it is what I said before, a jury could have plausibly decided either way under current law.
You seem to have an opinion. So tell us. What is your belief?
Nick and Elaine,
I have deleted your last two comments that continue the discussion of the personal attacks on this thread. Either focus on the blog topics or take a break from comments. Please.
Big Fat Mike,
You have had a comment deleted after ignoring repeated requests to stop the personal discussion on this thread. If you cannot comply with our civility rule, please refrain from commenting.
Elaine and Nick,
You have again ignored my warning to stop commenting on the personal conflict between you. If you continue, I will have to suspend you from further commentary.
Bigfatmike, the question was do you believed that the verdict was correct based on current law?”
It requires a simple Yes or No answer. You are welcome to expand your answer to support your position.
You need not concur with the jury, but I would hope you can articulate your reasoning based on what was presented at trial.
“It requires a simple Yes or No answer. You are welcome to expand your answer to support your position.”
I don’t believe there is a simple yes or no answer. I believe the case could have gone either way depending on the skill of the lawyers in presenting ambiguous evidence.
But I would be delighted to hear your argument that there is only one possible answer.
Please, continue. Enlighten us. Tells, exactly why there is one and only one possible answer.
bfm – still waiting for those racist remarks by Zimmerman to the dispatcher that you promised us. Are they coming or are you going to back down on that claim?
” still waiting for those racist remarks by Zimmerman to the dispatcher that you promised us. Are they coming or are you going to back down on that claim?”
Isn’t trying to put words in someone’s mouth beneath you, Paul. You know I did not promise you anything. Usually you make strong arguments that take at least a minute or two to refute.
My recollection is that he made racist remarks in his call to 911.
If you don’t agree with that refute it.
Why don’t you look it up. It should not be that hard to Google.
Why don’t you give us the quote?
bfm – you made the original statement. Therefore it is your job to back it up. I have refuted it without going to the tapes, but it is incumbent on you at this point to back up you statement. When you are charging someone with being a racist, you are making a serious charge.
“I have refuted it without going to the tapes,”
Don’t you mean you have disputed it without going to the tapes.
Surely, you are not trying to tell us that because you make an assertion we have to accept it as true? Or are you?
bfm – anything I say is solid gold. If I say something is refuted, it is. 😉
” If I say something is refuted, it is.”
Thanks for the clarification – just checking to be sure.
I have deleted comments from Nick and a response from Elaine and Jack to try to stop the personal attacks from resuming on this thread.
“I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell.” Harry Truman
Elaine says; “A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.”
bettykath says; “Jack, LOL, Are you focking serious? That is exactly the premise for GZ’s actions and you defend him?”
I don’t know if you’re purposefully obtuse, woefully dishonest, or just dumber than a box of rocks. Perhaps it’s just a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
It wasn’t until Martin was banging Zimmerman’s head into the ground that Zimmerman determined Martin to be an imminent threat. Anybody with two functioning brain cells knows that to be the catalyst for shooting Martin.
Nick,
your continued attacks on Elaine are tiring and disturbing.
“I believe it was a hard case due to ambiguities in the evidence. I think it plausibly could have gone either way depending on the skill of the attorneys in convincingly presenting the evidence available. ”
A trial was had. Evidence was presented. Yet, when asked if the verdict was correct, you want to defer to what might have happened if? Are you that afraid to commit to something? The trial is over. There are no more ifs.
“Since the beginning I have argued that this was a tragedy that did not have to happen.”
Way to go out on a limb! I have yet to see many scenarios where anything “has to happen”. As such, declaring that it did not have to happen is something everyone would agree on, as it would be in most cases.
” The trial is over. There are no more ifs.”
I believe your question was whether the case was correctly decided under the law.
It seems to me pointing out the case was difficult due to ambiguous evidence and could have gone either way is exactly on point.
If you want to argue there is only one possible verdict then why not show us. Make the argument. Convince us there was only one possible answer for the jury.
I will be interested in seeing what you have to add that has not already been said over the past couple of years.
It’s easy to be liberal when you live in safe, white communities. Black women walking down the street @ night encountering a black male wearing a hoodie are very wary. They live in high crime areas.
I would LOVE to have a heart monitor and video camera on Elaine Magliaro walking down the street late @ night and encountering a black male wearing a hoody obscuring his face. Just sayn’.
Jack, ? “A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.”
Elaine, Has it really gotten to the point where you need to make up an absurd premise in order to have something to contribute? I guess it has.
———————————
Jack, LOL, Are you focking serious? That is exactly the premise for GZ’s actions and you defend him?