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

I will address my opponent's counterpoints as well as any claims of invalidating my previous arguments. "ignorant assumptions and uneducated generalizations do not justify any form of discrimination"My opponent is failin to acknowledge that all generic statements are not discriminatory. This makes the point invalid. ". .. Similarly, as much as we have the right to free speech, we do not have the right to openly discriminate. .. "I can only assume my opponent is referring to sexism, ageism or racism. All of these 'isms' are still practiced openly. The recent case involving the police assaulting the melaninated girl at the swimming pool i an example. [1] Legal protection is supposed to be offered regarding discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc. However, there are many forms of discrimination. I can openly state, "I don't like squash - it stinks, broccoli is better", for example, that is discriminating. That makes this point invalid. discrimnate - verb : to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups : to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things [2] "As much as the employee is not constantly on call, they are constantly employed by the company. If you ask someone at a store who they work for, they won"t respond "no one at the moment, I"m not working today. "" It depends on who's asked and whos doing the asking. If a stranger walks up and asks who someone works for, they may or may not answer. The important thing is it's up to them. This point os invalid. ". .. Hiring employees who make ignorant comments on social media, viewable by millions of people, is not good for that image. .. ." What the company considers bad judgment or ignorant may not be grounds of termination. ". .. First of all, according to my opponents model, targeting a specific person on social media is unacceptable. Therefore targeting a specific government official or representative would be out of context for this debate. .. " This statement was made in response to my opponent's reference to free speech in general. I did not mention social media in that statement. My opponent has referenced or created hypotheicals regarding free speech several times dueing this debate. My statement was a clarification not a specific example on social media. This, it was not a contradiction. ". .. there is a big difference between an opinion and a generic statement. If one says "I think the Republicans aren"t looking out for the environment", that"s acceptable. Why? Because this debate is focusing on generic statements and not opinions as I have previously stated. .. " While my opponent has chosen to focus on generic statements, my assertion clearly includes opinions as it states, "Employees should be able to express their opinions without the threat of termination. " My opponent has not considered the full scope of the argument. Also, her claim of invalidation, as those made previously, is inaccurate. ""(") and the inability of most to use critical thinking skills or independent thought. " Once again, how does it make a company look if their employees are unable to use "critical thinking skills" or "independent thought"? Not good at all. This argument is also invalid. " This is a clear misinterpretation of my statement an illustrates a severe lack of comprehension. The statement is taken totally out of context. Once again, my original statement was a response to my opponent's explanation of how (in her opinion), ". .. This is some of the basic psychology associated with generic statements. We make generalizations or assumptions based on the information brought to us. .. " In this instance, the person making the generic statement would be the employee. The people interpreting or misinterpreting the generic statement would be displaying the inability to use critical thinking skills or independent thought. This is a false claim of invalidation. "Once again, how does it make a company look if their employees are unable to use "critical thinking skills" or "independent thought"? Not good at all. This argument is also invalid. " Same explanation as above. ". .. People used to be racist. These ideas are outdated and are no longer valued or accepted within our society. This argument is invalid. " There are still people who are racist. Sadly, racism is still alive and there are still people who value racism. My opponent is illustrating a post-racial harmonious society that does not yet exist. [3] [4] [5] ". .. believed to have been organized by Muslim terrorist groups. .. .Interrogation is not a form of discrimination, although it may seem racist to the person on the receiving it, we need to realize their opinion is biased and looking at the cold hard fact it is not actually a racist act. .. " As stated, governmental policy and propaganda often sets the trend for ignorant stereotypes, bias and public paranoia. It should be noted that "Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U. S. Soil". [6] Also, stop and frisk policies prove that interrogation can be a form of discrimination. [7] ". .. The difference here, is that they are not shinning a negative light on anybody. .. " Once again, my opponent is being selective about which of my statements she chooses to quote and taking them out of context. The full statement reads, "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. I gave both a negative and a positive example to exaggerate the point. Both exmples are seeped in ignorance, yet, neither would get an individual fired. In this context e statement is completely valid. As stated, these statements are just as flawed as other generalizations. ". .. This example is not pertinent with the debate. .. " Again, this debate is not only about generic statements. The debate also includes free speech. The example given dealt with free speech. "The second example is about a teacher who posted a picture the principal found inappropriate. This is a picture, not a generic statement. " My opponent seems to be under the assumption that statements have to be vocal. This is incorrect. One can even make a fashion statement. statement - n. : something that you say or write in a formal or official way : something that is stated : an opinion, attitude, etc. , that you express through the things you do, the way you dress, etc. : a document which shows amounts of money that you have received, spent, etc. : a brief record of a financial account [8] Thus, this example is valid. ". .. I would like to counter this argument with a similar example. .. " By not responding to my original example my opponent clearly agrees that it is valid. Her similar example, however, is invalid because it includes a threat. ". .. citizens of the United-States have the right to carry a concealed weapon, but not the right to openly kill someone. .. " Statements made on social media are not concealed weapons. In fact, these statements are able to be seen by many. Also, as highlighted by my opponent, the debate is not limited to U. S citizens. It may behoove my opponent and the reader to consider the definition of free speech. freedom of speech noun: freedom of speech; plural noun: freedom of speeches; noun: free speech; plural noun: free speeches the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. [9] ". .. we all have freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to openly discriminate. .. " Already discussed ". .. Our freedoms end where other"s rights begin. .. " ". .. This is true, however employers do not have the right to violate the free speech or privacy of others for making statements that do not refer to them. Those who the statement(s) relate to may have the right to seek recourse. With social media, employers are often concerned about employees posting something negative about the company, its clients or employees. So lots of social media policies try to discourage, or just outright forbid, saying bad things online. .. Some states, like California, also have laws that protect employees from being disciplined for the things they do or say off the clock. There are narrow exceptions if the conduct directly affects the company; but it has to be a pretty big deal that causes actual damage to the company. So if someone tweets that the boss is a douche bag, they generally can’t be fired if it was on their personal account while off-duty. .. Also, employers are not usually liable for what their employees do off-duty unless they are controlling it. So the more an employer tries to prevent being liable for employee actions by issuing policies, requiring disclaimers, and disciplining people for what they say and do on their personal social media accounts, the more likely the employer will end up being liable. .. "[10] I have proven all claims of invalidation made by my opponent to be false. I have also given ample evidence that certain generic statements and other forms of free speech should not be grounds for termination of an employee. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for their participation in an interesting debate. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]. http://www.amren.com... [4]. http://billmoyers.com... [5]. http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [6]. http://www.nytimes.com... [7] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [8] . https://www.google.com... [9]. http://www.hrexaminer.com... [10]