Hacker News Reader

Comment by bosdev | Hacker News Reader

- There is a difference between who you vote for, and you you vocally campaign for. He spoke at the convention, he didn't just share his views.

- You have a right to say anything you want, but that doesn't mean you can't be fired for it. If Thiel agrees with Trump, and Trump is counter to the values of YC, maybe Thiel isn't right for YC. He's in a position of advising companies, probably sometimes privately, how does YC know his advice aligns with their values?

Conversely:

- We don't definitively know Trump has done anything more than be a bombastic creep, so anyone comparing supporting him to supporting Hitler or Stalin is going a little far.

View on HN

As much as I don't like trump, what I like even less are people suggesting you can or should be fired for voicing a political argument or an opinion.

You are correct that technically you can be fired for what you say, but not when it's protected speech.

You would not support some one being fired for voicing political opinions that you agree with, so this is not only illiberal but also quite likely hypocritical.

> not when it's protected speech

In some states in the US, you can't legally fire people for lawful off-duty activity, including political activity. There are some states where political activity specifically is protected. But, there are plenty of places where you can be fired for any reason.

In many cases where off-duty activity is protected, there are exceptions for when that activity conflicts, or (sometimes) is seen to conflict, with your employer's interests.

Even in cases where your political activities are protected and no conflict can reasonably be inferred, you may be in a "at will" jurisdiction that allows your employer to fire you for no reason, which then puts the onus on you to prove to a court that the real reason was because of your protected activities.

The NLRA also provides protection for certain political activity. http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580145ee5

While some states do not provide protection for political activity at the workplace it doesn't mean that discriminatory actions for political activity are legal, in some states there are also specific protections for election years.

And yeah the whole US "at will" thing is an issue on it's own, the fact that this is the law of the land is pretty absurd to me.

Just to clarify, the position you have is you should only be able to be fired for your actions, not your beliefs (however widely communicated)?

And, as an extension, the beliefs of it's members should never be taken to be the beliefs of an organization?

If you don't do anything under the immediate and direct mandate of your organization your opinions and actions are your own.

The fact that some how it can or should spill onto to your employer just shows how fixated people are about partisanship.

If I express a political opinion under a clear mandated of protected speech like during say a political rally there is nothing my employer should be able to do to me. This is something we must protect as its critical to democracy and pluralism.

Unless you are dandy with how we used to fire commies in the 60s and 70s.

It amazes me that people can consider them selves being liberal and don't understand the concept of protected speech and free speech.

Supporting a political candidate doesn't mean you support literally everything they have ever said. It only means you prefer them out of the given viable options.

Even if you support everything they say you can't be sanctioned for that by your employer.

They can require you not to do that at the office, or using any official company channels (as long as this policy applies equally) but if you comply you should be protected from any sanctions.

Without this pluralism dies and with it democracy, and this is how you get partisanship to its current levels.

Too bad people like you don't work at Mozilla, where their CEO got fired for his political donations

I think the position is (or at least mine is) that an organization should only be able to judge you for your actions on behalf of that organisation and that anything you do when not directly representing that organisation (like at a bar or posting on facebook) should have absolutely no bearing on your role at that organisation.

I agree with you, up until the point where you are a public figure. That's a grey area but once you're a public figure, which Thiel was after (if not before) his RNC speech, you should be judged on your actions and speech whether or not it was related to your role at an organization. It's like newsworthiness. It's grey, but we let the media decide what is newsworthy and what isn't and we let the market decide if they're right. A lot of things the Enquirer publishes aren't newsworthy, by common standard, until the public buys enough of their tabloids to prove us wrong.

A public figure == https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Is a teacher a public figure? Can a teacher be fired by a school board for attending a rally in support of abortion?

Should they be fired for attending a similar rally against gay marriage?

I refer you to my edit where I cite wikipedia.

Your edit involves a specific definition for a specific case of defamation suits.

I don't see how being a public figure means you don't have the right of protected speech.

But you know I'll bite; your link states that you can become a involuntary public figure, you don't seek it but you still are and you are considered as one for this case.

Let's say the teacher was picked up by a news crew and made into a public figure.

Can they be fired then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com