Freedom of speech and employee speech in Guillen case

Many people are talking about Ozzie Guillen’s mere five day suspension as manager of the Miami Marlins for talking to the press about his affection for Fidel Castro.  Some are saying that Guillen has a right to express his political views and should not have been suspended.  But, this isn’t a case of freedom of speech, although there is growing concern about the line between company employee and private lives.

In a recent interview with Time Magazine, Guillen said that he “loves Fidel Castro”.  It is something he expressed a few years ago while working for the White Sox.  It is hard to believe that Time interviewed him because he was just another immigrant from Venezuela that made good.  If that was the case, he would have had wider discretion about his freedom of speech.  Time was interviewing him because he was a major league manager of a baseball team.  In that role, he has to put on his employee face and give the answers that support his team and the sport.  Just as any employee would if being interviewed by the magazine or talking to a customer about the products or services the company sells.

Those that follow the Supreme Court know well that the justices are always looking for the line between the issue they are judging and everything else.  At what point did the defendant cross the line?  Or, if the case that is in front of the court is a violation of constitutional rights, where does the right start and end?  In Guillen’s case, where is the line between his private life and that of manager of the Miami Marlins.

There are other situations around the country that aren’t as well known.  Here in Michigan, a teacher claims she was fired from a charter school because she was helping raise money for the Trayvon Martin family.  In another part of the country, a military man is being drilled out of the service because of his criticism of the current military policy of the military and the administration.  On a more personal level, we have all been tempted to say something at work, but have not for fear it would be something we regret.

The truth is, there isn’t a blanket right to express your personal thoughts whenever you want.  Remember, rights are not absolute.  Employees make a choice to work somewhere even in bad economic times when there are few choices.  Employers, as in the case of Guillen, have broad discretion when it comes to controlling the speech of their employees while on the job.  And, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  The only time the line between the freedom of speech and an employer’s time clock becomes blurred is when there is illegal activity or when the employee is clearly not on the clock.

But, what we all must be on guard about is when an employee isn’t on the job or when not representing the company at the time.  Corporate America would love to control our every action to assure that their image is solid.  Most companies, though, realize that it is better to take a softer line when an employee isn’t on the job out of respect for the employee’s privacy rights.  (Remember, there is a right to privacy in our legal system and community.)

Guillen, in my opinion, may end up being fired because of the outrage of the Cuban community in Florida and across the country for his remarks in support of the Cuban dictator.  No matter how good Guillen thinks Castro is, he is still a dictator.  As an employee, speaking as an employee, Guillen should have kept his mouth shut until he was off the clock. 

-----

Santorum doesn't believe in the right of privacy

Privacy is something we all take for granted.  We expect privacy in our personal affairs; our home life, in our thoughts, what we do and where we go.  The conversations that we have with our spouses, religious leaders and doctors we all expect to be private.  There are exceptions of course, as no right is absolute.

Privacy is the right to think, know, collect, research and act without the community, at will, knowing.  The only reason the community has any reasonable responsibility to violate an individual’s right of privacy; of course, any right; is by an investigation by the executive branch of the government.  If they determine that a crime has taken place, then they present the evidence to the judicial branch.  At that point, if a judge agrees, a search warrant can be issued for the search of your personal items and your person, if necessary.

But, again for clarity, privacy can be violated only after a crime is suspected and a judge has authorized the search.

The word privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Some believe that the right is implied in some passages related to other rights.  The Fourth Amendment says that the government needs a warrant authorized by a judge to search your personal items.  That would imply that you have a right to privacy, otherwise, why need a warrant?  The Constitution in the Fifth Amendment states that you can’t be a witness against yourself, otherwise that would be an invasion of what you do or think, again, a privacy issue. 

Others say that the right to privacy is in the Ninth and Tenth amendment.  Essentially, the two amendments collectively state that we didn’t give the right of privacy to the community along with a many other un-numerated rights. 

If you believe that since the word privacy is not in the Constitution and that no reading of the document can be interpreted to mean that privacy is implied then you agree with Senator Rick Santorum, the prudential candidate.  He believes that there is no right to privacy because the word itself is not mentioned.  Santorum believes that privacy is not something we hold even if it isn’t, expressed or implied, in the Constitution.

Without a right of privacy, your private life could be invaded at will, with mere legislative action.  Your confessions with your religious leader could be made public record.  All your emails could be read.  The library books you check out at the library could be reviewed by anyone, for any reason, if the legislation enacted such a law.  With no right to privacy, your personal conversations and actions with your spouse and doctor could be open to the public.

But, would any of us, including those that may think Santorum is correct, think it okay to be followed around when there is no reason that we have committed a crime?

To a specific point about privacy, in Mississippi, they want to require doctors to violate their patient’s body privacy, without a warrant or judicial review, with a vaginal probe when a woman requests a legal procedure.  If a woman is requesting an abortion and a heartbeat can’t be detected with a standard ultra-sound, the attending physician will be required by the proposed law to use a vaginal probe to search for a heartbeat.  There is no medical reason for this procedure.  The woman has a right to visit a doctor and not lose her right of privacy.  Finally, a crime is not being committed – the police haven’t investigated and a judge has not authorized a search to search her body.          

So, how is it that this can be done?  The reason is simple; it is unreasonable and Unconstitutional response to a legal act, an abortion.  This is continuing in many states.  While in this case it is Mississippi, it is an invasion of privacy, something that Santorum thinks is not in the Constitution. 

Be careful.  If you lose one right based on the bigger issue of privacy, you will begin to lose it on all your rights.

-----

Politicians need to open about their income and contributions

Jack is the owner of a diner in Pontiac. He services up good food to working class people from the neighborhood and others that work in the area.

Jack immigrated to the United States from Iraq between the wars. He has known first hand corrupt politicians and officials. He lived under a dictatorship that only held elections to appease the voters. Where money came from to run campaigns and pay people was not known. That is no way to run a government he would often say.

When he came to America, Jack just knew things would be different. He quickly adds that it wasn’t the money. It was the way the government is run. But, it hasn’t turned out like he thought.

“They are all corrupt,” he was ranting the other day. “Every politician that is elected is corrupt.”

Thinking he meant the local politicians and officials from the city, I begin to quiz him about what he was really saying. There may be a few corrupt people working in Pontiac, but for the most part they are just everyday people.

“No, I don’t mean them…” he said with a roll of his eyes. “I am talking about everyone that goes to Washington.”

He must of seen my own roll of the eyes. Seems that most people think politicians are corrupt, even though they don’t have any proof. Everyday people, just like those that come into his diner, knows it for a fact… mostly because everyone else thinks so.

“Look, every time Verizon, or GM or some other big corporation gives money to one side, they give money to the other side,” he started explaining. “If they were giving money for the right reasons, they wouldn’t give money to both sides. Do you think anyone in this restaurant right now would give money to someone if it weren’t in their best interest?”

“This was a hard working class of people, they won’t give any of the little money they do have if it wasn’t for something good,” I had to admit. “But, giving campaign contributions is legal. It isn’t corrupt if it is legal. Besides, the Supreme Court said not only can they, but they don’t have to reveal themselves to the public.”

“But, the outcome is the same,” he challenged back with a growing passion. This was clearly a subject he had strong feelings about. “If I kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it was legal, the person is still dead. It is the same here. Politicians go to Washington and even if they don’t want to, they learn how to be corrupt.”

Jack’s words were harsh and passionate. But, his comparative approach to his home country and the United States did have merit. If the contributions to a politician come from a business or organization that disagreed with his or her political positions, most politicians will still take the money. Not that they can be blamed. Even the most honest politician knows that it takes money, and lots of it, to run a campaign. Politicians that have little money because they take limited contributions from only individuals most always loses to the one with lots and lots of money.

We as individual voters, not unlike all the people that eat lunch at Jack’s, need to know where that money is coming from for campaigns. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says. If we as voters will not support a candidate, even if they take positions we agree with, unless they reveal all their sources, it would stop.

An example is Carol Moseley Braun. She is one of six candidates, including ex-White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made the cut yesterday in the run for Mayor of Chicago. She first said she wouldn’t release here income tax records. Then, changed her mind and did release them. But, now, she refuses to release details about her income.

If open government has any meaning, it means that the lives of politicians lose a lot of privacy when they run for office. Just as it should since they are suppose to be representing people, just like us, at Jack’s.

-----

Petition Drives have No Expectation of Privacy

You are in a hurry with kids in tow. As you get out of your car and walk over to the post office a woman approaches. She asks you to sign a petition for a citizen’s initiative that supports marriage. Without reading the statement as focused as you should on the official looking form, you sign your name in a rush so that your kids won’t run out in traffic.

Two weeks later, you get a call from a stranger. She asks if you signed a petition that requested the state to place a measure on the ballot demanding a roll back on domestic partner benefits. You are surprised that someone called you.

Did you think that you would have some privacy when you signed the petition?

It is hard to believe anyone’s privacy could be maintained in this situation. When you signed the petition you could see all the other names on the list. Someone could have been casually watching while you signed. The workers that earn money from every name they get on the list could have made photocopies of the petitions. This would insure that they have proof of their income. When the lists are collected for formal presentation to the state, there will be copies made. Finally, the petitions are presented to the state in an open forum.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this question April 28 in a case from Washington. Gay rights groups are asking for the names to be released on a petition for Referendum 71. It is a ballot measure aimed at rolling back domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. State law in Washington requires the release of names on petition drives. Some people in the state fear reprisals from the gay rights groups.

The names should not be kept secret because people must be able to trust a citizen’s initiative. They are started by people that would like to ask the voters of a state if they think something should be changed. If enough people think the same way, the issue gets on the ballot. The people that sign the petition must be real and registered voters along with various other requirements depending on the state. If those names on the petition can’t be challenged how does anyone know they are real people?

A similar issue to this came up in the last national election. An organization was registering people to vote. If was found, by people making challenges to the names on the list that some were not eligible. Now the organization that did that, as well as other things, no longer exists. ACORN has closed its doors, partly because of the challenge.

Responsible communities must operate in the open so that everyone can trust the process. Keeping names on a petition drive private only builds mistrust.