Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

". .. generic statement depends in ones experience or perspective. This is a big point in my favor. Generic statements can be taken in many different ways by may different people, especially because it is stating a "generalization", like my opponent said, or a fact rather than an opinion. .. "generalization - n. : a general statement : a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group: the act or process of forming opinions that are based on a small amount of information[1]Generalizations are not facts. They are sweeping, loose statements that are based on a small amount of information. ". .. my opponent did not set a clear house at the beginning of the debate, therefore we must consider nations outside of the United-States alone. .. . "Setting aside the first amendment, the freedom of speech or expression is a natural right. A right protected by many countries. In the countries where it is not protected or allowed, people are generally living in fear and under duress. "People in these countries are virtually isolated from the rest of the world by authoritarian rulers who muzzle the media and keep a chokehold on information through restrictive laws, fear, and intimidation,"[2] ". .. how does it make a company look when their employees post possibly insulting and poorly reasoned, or "generalized" statements, out of pure ignorance? It looks bad. .. "It may look bad, however, a statement made by a person via a personal social media account or on a social media hub does not represent the person's job. Employees are not on constant call or owned by their employers. For example, off hours or on break time they have the right to freely express themselves. If they do not directly name their place of employment or specify customers, how would an uninvolved observer know who they work for? Social media is not the news. Statements made by individuals on social media should be taken with a grain of salt so to speak. In my opinion, many of the reporters on some newscasts (i. e. Fox) should be held to a higher standard regardig their generic statements than individuals using social media because they are supposed to present a factual and unbiased account. As we know, this is not always the case. Yet, they are often allowed to spew their "opinions" as facts through the protection of free speech. ". .. I would like to point out that ignorance and freedom of speech are not sufficient grounds on which we can insult peoples. .. . "I agree with my opponent. These are not actions that I would condone or consider undertaking. Yet, what we want is a far cry from what is protected. Censoring expression would hinder individuals or the people from denouncing, admonishing or reprimanding political parties, government officials or representatives who have behaved inappropriately. Censorship also fosters a atmosphere that causes individuals to participate in group think or mob mentality out of fear of being castigated or ostracized for independent thought. It is just a fact of life that individuals will make statements that others do not agree with. ". .. This is some of the basic psychology associated with generic statements. We make generalizations or assumptions based on the information brought to us. .. "I think this phenomenon is more emblematic of the general dumbing down process that has taken place in society and the inability of most individuals to use critical thinking skillsor independent thought. I would blame the mis-education that is offered to many people and the programming that is rooted in many societies before I would censor the expression or free speech of others. There is always the chance that people will take what issaid the wrong way. ". .. if an employee makes a discriminatory generic statement, the employer can fire them. Having ignorant employees does not make a company look good, and shows the employees lack of commitment and consideration to their employer. .. "This is a case specific scenario. I do not support or advocate making discriminatory statements as they judge people on a group rather than individual basis. Yet, if one were to make a statement like, "Asians are smart" or "Overweight people always overeat", I doubt they would be fired for the remark. However these statements are just as flawed as other generalizations. ". .. Say the generic statement this time was, "Muslims are terrorists". This statement does not target or threaten a particular person. .. "Of course, being a Muslim does not automatically suggest terrorism. However, governmental policy and propaganda often sets the trend for ignorant stereotypes, bias and public paranoia. For nstance, racism was cemented into the institutions and culture of the United States by practices such as slavery Jim Crow laws and segregation. This racist history has never been properly addressed or healed. Muslims were actually targeted by governmental policy. The majority of the Muslim men I interviewed were made aware that they were on lists calling for heightened government surveillance only at the airport. When they tried to get their boarding passes for flights they had booked, they were then interrogated by a Transportation Security agent. [3] I ask, what is more dangerous - an ignorant statement made on social media or an actual govermental program that incorporates the same flawed, skweded and bigoted ideology on a national scale? ". .. That statement overlooks the vast majority of the Muslim population, as well as putting them under an extremely negative and racist light. .. "I totally agree with my opponent regarding her hypothetical generic statement. ". .. proposition might find this acceptable. .. "As stated, I do not find that statement acceptable. Here are some actual examples of individula being fired that I think were in violation of free speech:"Sister Maria was apparently asked to leave the religious order where she has resided in seclusion for 35 years because she spent too much time on the website, it has been reported. And living up to her nickname of 'Sister Internet' - a moniker given to her by her fellow nuns - the 54-year-old broke the news on her Facebook page, where she announced she had been asked to leave the convent following disagreements over the online activity. Now, an online campaign attracting thousands of supporters is under way, with fan pages springing up demanding she be allowed back into the convent. Sister Maria had almost 600 'friends' on Facebook at the time of her eviction and listed her hobbies as 'reading, music, art and making friends', according to The Telegraph. The. .. convent in Toledo, central Spain, first got a computer 10 years ago to lessen the need for nuns to enter the outside world. .. .she began digitising the convent's archives and made them accessible to the world - a move that saw her win an award and gain hundreds of friends via Facebook. " [4]The pictures were exactly what you'd expect from a European summer vacation: Cafes in Italy and Spain, the Guinness brewery in Ireland. .. a public high school English teacher in Georgia, was not prepared for what happened when her principal asked to see her in August 2009. "He just asked me, 'Do you have a Facebook page? '" Payne said. "And you know, I'm confused as to why I am being asked this, but I said, 'Yes. ' And he said, 'Do you have any pictures of yourself up there with alcohol? '". .In fact, the picture that concerned the principal - showing Payne holding a glass of wine and a mug of beer - was on her Facebook page. There was also a reference to a local trivia contest with a profanity in its title. .. .a parent of one of her students called to complain. And then, Payne says, she was given a choice: resign or be suspended. .. "He told me that I needed to make a decision before I left, or he was going to go ahead and suspend me," she said. .. She resigned. Attorney Richard Storrs is fighting to get Payne's job back. " [5]Employeese can be protected:". .. Recently, the New Jersey Federal Court offered clarification about what is public versus private in Ehling v. Monmounth-Ocean Hospital Services Corp. .. Ehling sued her former employer after she was fired for comments made on her private Facebook page, access to which was limited to her Facebook friends. One of her Facebook friends, also a coworker, showed the post to her employer. Ehling sued, contending Monmounth-Ocean Hospital Services Corp. ’s access to the page violated the Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) as it applied to social media. .. "[6]Companies or corporations should not be able to use personal opinions as grounds for termination. As stated in the article "No: It Too Often Becomes a Fishing Expedition Unrelated to Work Issues" by Lewis Maltby, "It's simply too easy to turn social-media searches into fishing expeditions. Employers are human and cannot avoid being offended by employees' private behavior that goes against their values. Experience shows that employers fire employees for reasons having nothing to do with work. People have lost jobs because of their political opinions and religious beliefs. " [7] ". .. social media is considered protected speech, according to the National Labor Relations Act. "[8]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1]. https://cpj.org... [2]. http://thesocietypages.org... [3]. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4]. http://www.cbsnews.com... [5]. http://www.bizjournals.com... [6]. http://www.wsj.com... [7]. http://www.digitaltrends.com... [8]