First amendment non existent in the work place. ( conspiracy )

submitted by Void_Start

I always find it very confusing that a work place can completely/legally ignore our rights as Americans.

http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html

http://www.mef101.org/DisciplineRights/freespeech.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-03/where-free-speech-goes-to-die-the-workplace

Why can we not speak our minds at work? "God" forbid we offend someone...

But what about MY FEELINGS?!?! I'm FUCKING offended I can not speak my mind at work.

Edit: The Bill of Rights – Full Text

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Edit edit: I don't see anything here saying it's just freedom of speech from the government...

Foralltoosee

You posted it, friend. If you want to get shitty about it all it states is that Congress can't pass a law. Guess something like a presidential decree is still on the table. If that were the point you were trying to make I'd say good on you, but it's not. As far as your interpretation of the wording goes it's like I said; sometimes the courts have agreed with you, sometimes they haven't.

Foralltoosee

Really, the first amendment just means the government can't censor your speech, private institutions have a lot more leeway to do with it what they will. Yeah, dick move, but there is nothing really preventing it. The Supreme Court sides with open speech more often than not, but only slightly and there are plenty of examples of them upholding private entities ability to restrict speech.

luckyguy

It is interesting the difference in verbiage in the first and second. The first says we can make no law pertaining to... The second says the right will not be infringed but doesn't state the party. It's just a general guarentee. I would submit that the constitution as the supreme law of the land prohibits anyone from infringing on that right where as the first amendment never says you have any rights at all. It's a negative right of the government's. It's a modifier of the government's previously authorized powers saying they no longer exist in these contexts.

Too band judges have a selective understanding of the English language and somehow use the necessary and proper clause to break the first amendment failing to see that the first amendment is a modifier to that clause and not the other way around.