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
bigfatmike,
Were the people who burglarized the neighborhood all black? To be honest, I don’t know. However, I can be sure that the residents would consider people who burglarized themselves or others were indeed a-holes.
Have you taken the time to think that your conclusion about Zimmerman has more to do with your own racism than Zimmerman’s? After all, it is evident that you concluded that all a-holes are black. Isn’t it?
” After all, it is evident that you concluded that all a-holes are black. Isn’t it?”
No I did not conclude that ‘a**holes are black. .
I concluded that Zimmerman was referring to African Americans when he used the term ‘a**holes’.
If any reader is interested, I urge you to go back and read my remarks and see which one of us is trying to make fair use of what we know about what Zimmerman said.
bfm – the area has a burglary problem. He says the a**holes always get away. Me, it think burglars. I do not think black.
However, it could be our backgrounds. The Tempe Police Department is across from one of the dorms at ASU and on of the students aimed a laser pointer at the parking lot and scared the hell out of the police who thought they were under attack. As a former teacher, I would have thought,, okay who had the damn laser pointer, not who has the damn gun with the laser point. They charged the student with endangering the cops. I called the county attorney and reamed them about what idiots they were.
“I disagree and I think a jury of his peers disagreed.”
It depends in part on how you weight facts such as Zimmerman close association with neighbor Frank Taaffe a racist who claimed the neighborhood problems were the work of African Americans, or claims by a coworker that he (the coworker) was targeted and harassed because of race, or reports of a deleted Myspace site with racist remarks owned by Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman made racist remarks at work. I could go on.
But Zimmerman’s relation to race seems complex and contradictory. I think there is more then enough to demonstrate that Zimmerman suffered from stereotypical thinking and was a racist.
@bettykath
Whatta wonderful defense you present— “Well, Trayvon didn’t beat Zimmerman up too much, only just a little bit!” Perhaps the prosecution should have emphasized that approach, you know that a little assault and battery is just peachy, as long as you’re black.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – the prosecution did try the “Well, other than beating his head on the concrete” he wasn’t doing too much harm to GZ attack to defend Trayvon.
bigfatmike,
“It seems to me that Zimmerman has fallen victim to racist stereotypes to reach the erroneous conclusion that Trayvon does not belong in the neighborhood and is up to no good.”
Again! So what? As a private individual he can employ any stereotype he wants. Falling for stereotypes doesn’t give another person the authority to use physical force against you. Period! I don’t think you get that. Or, at least, you don’t want to acknowledge it.
” Falling for stereotypes doesn’t give another person the authority to use physical force against you. Period! I don’t think you get that. Or, at least, you don’t want to acknowledge it.”
I never claimed that stereotypical though gives people the authority to use physical force against you.
If you bother to read what I said you would see that I claimed that Zimmerman’s remarks to the dispatcher might be an indicator of his state of mind shortly before he shot Trayvon.
It seems to me there is some basis to believe Zimmerman allowed racist stereotypes to warp his thinking and reach the belief that Trayvon was some kind of threat.
bfm – I think you are over-thinking what GZ said to the dispatcher. His state of mind seemed to be that he was relatively calm, he did not identify him by color at any time, although when pressed by the dispatcher, he though he might be black. There were no racist over tones in the call to the dispatcher, God knows, the prosecution tried to find them, but they were not there.
I agree your objections are plausible.
Zimmerman’s relation to race seems complex and contradictory. A little Googling brings up articles that describe Zimmerman both targeting and helping people because of race. At times he seems to reach across boundaries and at others we know he associates with acknowledged racists.
But none of that is definitive regarding the meaning of Zimmerman’s remarks.
Zimmerman is a real Rorschach man on race. I see a racist. Others may disagree.
Paul,
I never claimed that Zimmerman made any racist comments during his 911 call. You said Zimmerman didn’t identify Trayvon Martin by color. I was just providing evidence that he did.
Paul, After watching Rachel on TV, how much time would you waste trying to prep her? She was going to be a disaster on cross no matter what you did.
bigfatmike,
“It seems to me that Zimmerman has made a number of assumptions based on stereotypical thinking.”
So? People do that all the time. You claimed that he made racist remarks. a-holes is not racist. Creep-ass cracker might be, but Zimmerman is not alleged to have made that remark.
” You claimed that he made racist remarks. a-holes is not racist. ”
So after suggesting that Trayvon is high, that he had something threatening in his had, and that he is approaching Zimmerman with something other than benign intent, the remark about the ‘a**holes always getting away’, is about what?
What ‘a**holes’ is it that always get away? Could it be Irish soccer players, quire boys, stock boys at he Walmart? I would argue that the plain implication of the all the words is that Zimmerman believes Trayvon is like people who have burglarized the neighborhood – whom he believes to have been African American men.
The context suggest to me, and I think to any fair minded person, that Zimmerman is relying on racist stereotypes to reach the unwarranted belief that Travon does not belong in the neighborhood and is up to trouble.
However we now know that Trayvon had good reason to be in the neighborhood and was not causing any trouble.
Of course anyone can disagree if they choose.
Elaine – I should have worded that better. Zimmerman does not identify Martin as possibly black until asked by the dispatcher. And there is nothing racist in what he says.
Transcript of George Zimmerman’s Call to the Police
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman
bettkath,
“You obviously have a very superficial knowledge of the case.” -Bingo! That’s the problem. My knowledge of the case, or lack thereof, is what causes your comments to lack substance.
The discussion with Rachael (Ms. Dee Dee) was about a discussion with prosecutors after the overnight recess. Nothing about he discussion with prosecutors prior to getting on the stand was ever asked. –Seriously, if you think you’re smarter or have a better memory than I do, you’re gonna have to try harder.
The ME was asked about his notes in relation to the prosecutor. Not whether the prosecutor prepped him for trial. -BTW, expert witnesses usually are not prepped for trial. They already know their role.
I’m starting to get the feeling that you don’t value honesty and integrity near as much as you do winning an argument. That’s too bad. It will usually result in your looking foolish.
Paul C. Schulte
Elaine – Zimmerman did NOT identify him by color to the dispatcher.
*****
George Zimmerman 911 Call To Stanford Police Department
It seems to me that Zimmerman has fallen victim to racist stereotypes to reach the erroneous conclusion that Trayvon does not belong in the neighborhood and is up to no good.
After Zimmerman identifies Trayvon as a young black male, approaching him (Zimmerman), with something in his hand, he remarks that Trayvon turned away and ‘these a***holes always get away’.
It seems to me that Zimmerman has made a number of assumptions based on stereotypical thinking.
Elaine – you are not the one who was claiming the racist comments were made that was bfm. My problem was I should have been clearer in saying that until asked by the dispatcher, he did not identify the probable race of the person.
Jack, You obviously have a very superficial knowledge of the case.
Sorry for attributing Paul’s comment to you.
Paul, sorry for attributing your comment to Jack.
Rachael and the ME are two witnesses who said there were no discussions with the prosecutors. I can’t imagine a competent prosecutor going into a trial without prepping his/her witnesses. If they didn’t prep these two, it isn’t much of a reach to conclude that they didn’t prep any of them.
bettykath – I would not believe Rachel under any circumstances. And if I were the prosecutor she would be on the top of my list to prep. I am not against prepping, just that I think she was prepped by both the prosecution and the attorney for the Martin family. However, it is possible that if the attorney for the Martin family prepped her, the prosecutors may have felt no need to prep her.
bigfatmike,
Have you ever heard the term “the burden of proof is on the claimant”? I’m guessing no one ever splained that to you. Had they you might understand why people ask you to provide proof for your claims and why it is absurd for you to suggest they prove you wrong.
Was it wrong when you shot that teenage girl?
My recollection is that you shot that teenage girl.
If you don’t agree with that refute it.
Why don’t you look it up. It should not be that hard to Google.
bettykath,
I know you’re used to presenting commentary in an echo chamber. Fortunately, the sort of commentary you provide here does little to support any position.
“The prosecutors threw the case.” -Sounds like the opinion of a sore loser. I watched the entire trial and found that they tried extremely hard to get a conviction even though the evidence was against them.
“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.” -That would be because the “riots” had no relevance to the case. None at all. At least not in the real world. Maybe lots at Freddy’s Place.
“There was a lot of unambiguous evidence that wasn’t presented or was presented in an ambiguous ways.” -Hmm. That’s a pretty ambiguous comment. Not unexpected, however. No points there.
“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.” -As expected. More ambiguity. Nothing of substance. Can’t take a bite out of that one.
“They didn’t object to hearsay from defense witnesses.” -You mean that time or was it the other time. Do you regularly try to discuss things with others? I hope not.
“Earlier you claimed that Rachael was rehearsed by the prosecutors.” -Nope. Wasn’t me, but thanks for playing.
“The prosecutors didn’t prepare ANY of its witnesses.” -Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it was, I’m sure you’d have a Merry Christmas.
“The case was for the prosecutors to win or lose.” -Are you sure? (He says while laughing). What cases aren’t for the prosecutors to win of lose? Who has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
“They allowed white privilege to win.” -Yep. That was the outcome. That was the intent when they charged Zimmerman. Don’t ya know?
Squeeky, “Yeah, because with proper preparation, the prosecution could have gotten past poor little Trayvon’s bloody knuckles, Zimmerman’s busted nose, the back of Zimmerman’s bloody skull, and the witness who saw poor little Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him. Sure. ”
First of all, there were no marks on Trayvon’s hands except on small scratch on one finger. There was no independent evidence that GZ’s nose was broken, he refused getting the x-ray that would have proven it one way or the other. The small lacerations on the back of his head were well on their way to healing when he saw the dr. the next day, not even worth of a bandaid. btw, he went to the dr. b/c he needed a note for school (or his job, I don’t remember which), not b/c he was hurt. The witness who claims to have seen Trayvon beating GZ should have been a defense witness and the prosecution should have impeached his testimony b/c he retracted that statement and said he made a mistake about he saw. Presenting this witness was another mistake by the prosecution.
Poor GZ. Karma’s doing its job. GZ will end up in prison yet. Just hope he doesn’t kill someone else. I’m more concerned about the trash job the racists on this blog are doing to Trayvon.
bettykath – I think the trial and blowback has ruined his life. You are probably right about ending up in jail. He will be like OJ convicted and imprisoned for the wrong crime.
BTW – it was me who said that Rachel was clearly rehearsed by the prosecutors and the attorney for the Martins.
JT. Have a nice trip. I loved Florence and still hope to go back.
@bettykath
Yeah, because with proper preparation, the prosecution could have gotten past poor little Trayvon’s bloody knuckles, Zimmerman’s busted nose, the back of Zimmerman’s bloody skull, and the witness who saw poor little Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him. Sure.
Just be honest with yourself. You are just on a crusade to back up your own fantasies of racism, and don’t really give a flip if you ruin the life of some innocent white guy if helps your personal agenda. It would be a lot more fulfilling if you just came out and screamed out for blood and a lynching instead of trying to cover it up with silly rationalizations. Just let all your hate hang out!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
bfm, some of the words he used can’t be posted here.
Mango, I get it now. Ciao.