50PoundHead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 8,521
- Reaction score
- 1,681
- Points
- 113
You've said variations of this before, and I don't understand this at all. I'm not an attorney, so perhaps you can help me figure it out.
My wife works for a large corporation. If she snagged an interview with a local news station, and promptly declared on camera that the CEO of this organization is a talentless hack, and the rest of the upper management are worthless flunkies, she would certainly be within her constitutional rights to do so. Nobody is hauling her away in handcuffs and leg irons. She won't spend a single second behind bars. She is on constitutionally safe grounds.
But she also wouldn't have a job anymore.
It's certainly my impression that team rules (see that as corporate rules) are not completely symmetrical with constitutional rules.
This has been my point all along. There is no guarantee of freedom of speech in what could be construed a contract situation. I don't know if that applies to football players on scholarships and I don't know if it applies to the current situation before the EOAA, but we surrender rights daily and one can argue that when a student enrolls at a university, they surrender some rights under the Student Code of Conduct. I know there is no unqualified right to free speech in public elementary and secondary education and there are tomes of case law backing up that perspective, most notably Tinker v. Des Moines.