Bruce L.H. (2018). Kneel and You’re Fired: Freedom of speech in the workplace. Northeast Decision Sciences Institute 2018 Annual Conference. Rhode Island, USA: Providence.
The paper by Bruce L. Haller attempts to elucidate the bestowed rights among employers that allows them to sack their workers on the basis of workstation communication. The author examines these rights in the light of job security, and the secured property interest invested in a particular job position. The article assesses the extent of freedom of communication applicable in a workplace, while also revealing the legal procedures and provisions available to regulate certain discourses. He further insists that freedom of speech is very important because it makes communication effective.
Bruce explains how the employment relations concept adopted in the United States to promote the employment at will rules; allows businesses to discipline workers with on the basis of workplace communications, or sometimes with or without reason. The article indicates only workers with highly demanded skills have the privilege of negotiating the employment contract terms. This section of the article also explores various categories of employees based on legal protection privileges; while also highlighting a few exceptions to the pure engagement at will concept demonstrated by most businesses in the United States; such as the public policy exception, the inferred agreement exemption as well as the agreement of ‘good faith’ exclusion.
Concerning the freedom of speech and work, the author highlights some of the various ways through which workplace communication becomes offensive and a breach of employment terms. The article further relates a few cases of breach of speech and gives the applicable repercussions based on the employment laws. The article intends to familiarise readers with the various laws that regulates the freedom of expression and speech in various work environments. The intended audience for the paper would be the people working both in the private or public sector and those seeking employment. Similarly, the paper also finds application among individuals practising labour and employment law. Freedom of speech should therefore be embraced in all aspects and fields of work.
Professor Bruce Haller holds a Doctorate Degree in Jurisprudence from Brooklyn school of Law, together with an MBA and other Qualifications in Financial Planning from Adelphi. His expertise lies in the field of Commercial Law, Ethics as well as work laws. With over twenty-five years experience in legal practice, Bruce works as a Professor of Business at Molloy.
Bianchi, E., & Shapiro, D. (2018). Lock up, Shut up: Why Speech in Prison Matters. . John’s L. Rev., 92, 1.
The paper focuses on the importance of embracing the freedom of communication in prisons. The two authors of the article argue that promoting a communication free environment within prisons helps to promote fresh ideas while enhancing democracy rights. Additionally, with freedom to speak, fulfilment and the ‘check value’ of free discourse becomes possible. Bianchi and Shapiro reason that, limiting the participation of prisoners in public discourses only limits the range of ideas developed concerning justice and mass imprisonment. It is therefore important to consider prisoners’ freedom of expression because it creates room for exchanging ideas.
According to the article, prison restrictions promote individual discontent, and hence encourages unfair exclusion of imprisoned individuals’ personal views of matters that affects them. The authors also evaluate the provisions of the first amendment lawsuits and how it gives protection to the officials at the prisons, a consequence of ‘Turner deference’. Other hindrances that the author associates with the deprivation of the freedom to communication among the prisoners include the managerial fatigue as contained in the reform Act for prison Lawsuit as well as the non-lawful restrictions such as the inadequate training, poverty and the difficulty in accessing counsel.
The two authors conclude that speaking in prison matters and hence the existing legal provisions and standards have limited coverage. The paper aims at encouraging new legal provisions that promote participation at all levels and by all individuals; such as the involvement of prisoner’s views in the creation and implementation of prison laws.
Nussbaum, M. (2017). Why Freedom of Speech Is an Important Right and Why Animals Should Have It. Denv. L. Rev., 95, 84
With this paper, Nussbaum tries to portray the freedom of communication as an essential right not only to human beings but also animals. The author relates most of the arguments on the theory of free dialogue rights originally postulated by John StuartMill. The author argues that the modern law restricts the liberty to communicate by restricting it to language alone; while it includes other aspects of communication like ‘flag burning’. Nussbaum supports the argument raised by Mill concerning freedom as an extended defence for liberty and a prerequisite to the enhancement of a decent world. The author further employs the two arguments raised by Mill that relates to communal utility, and individual contentment and applied them to animals. Concerning the communal utility argument, the law and policy making process requires consideration of all applicable perspectives and details that concern welfare in order to maximise contentment. As such considering alternative inputs helps to maintain right decisions and regulations on course by recognizing the radical ones, and keeping honesty about individual views. It is therefore crucial to embrace freedom of speech by creating rooms for dialogue.
Concerning individual contentment, the author argues that every individual deserves an opportunity to have what suits them best for them to achieve happiness. The article supports the freedom of speech topic by allowing for consideration of alternative points of views. The paper promotes the idea that several perspectives always result to a better solution and regulation that is applicable to diverse parties. The paper finds application among key decision makers and law creators, as it encourages them to always consider alternative perspectives in the regulation creation process. Freedom of speech therefore allows everyone to air out opinions and achieve happiness.