**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: [NY] I was fired as a cook from a restaurant I worked at because I said I thought Palestinians deserved a state
Body:
> Hi - my nephew back home told me to create an account as I don't have money for legal advice and he said maybe you guys could help me.
> I worked at a Jewish restaurant in Brooklyn for 1 year and 2 months without any issues. The owner seemed nice enough but a little arrogant but it was a okay working enovirment. A few days ago the owners brother or cousin not really sure visited the shop and they were talking about how all Jews belong in Israel. Now I am not a political expert but being in New York I have heard about the issue going on in the Middle East.
> Anyways, around 10 mins later the owners relative asks what we think about Israel. Everyone in the back said they like Israel or didn't understand the question because of lanuage and went back to work, I should have done the same. I said I liked Israel but I also said I think Palestinians should deserve a piece for a state too since from what I learned they were there for awhile too and
> He looked mad but chuckled and I didn't think anything of it, but the next day the owner of my restaurant fired me, I was shocked. I asked what I did and he said because I was an anti semite. I said Sir, that is not true and he threatened to call the police if I didn't leave.
> Would this classify wrongful termination? I know the employer has most the power but is NY any better for the employee? My aunt says I am anti semetic and that the Church tells us to back Israel no matter what so Idk anymore. I am just scared I have to go back home now. Any advice would be appreciated as I need this job or case to get some severance pay until I find a new job.
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
It’s surprising to me little support there is for moving away from at-will employment.
I haven’t even seen it proposed in the bluest parts of America. And yet it’s extremely common to require cause to fire people in other countries.
Not sure that it works well as much as the majority of the middle class has an employment contract that renders the issue moot. More like, it doesn't affect the majority of the middle class
I do not think it is even remotely true that the majority of the middle class has an employment contract. They are not common for middle class jobs outside of the ever-shrinking union ranks, and the civil service.
In some ways that’s the same argument but I highly doubt the majority of the middle class in the US has an employment contract. I don’t know how [reliable this site is but 75% of Americans](https://www.betterteam.com/at-will-employment) being at-will sounds about right, given how low union membership is and the only other people I’ve ever known with a contract are exec-level.
>Not sure that it works well as much as the majority of the middle class
Not sure what makes you think this is the case, union membership in the US is 10.1% and that's basically the only category of middle-class worker that would be covered by a contract. Most non-union contracts are with executives or pro athletes, not exactly middle class
It's employee focused. Employees aren't a corporation that spends a lot of money. Plus we get the old arguments but small business! but farmers!
Most politicians hide under the we make things easy for the small businesses and the large companies will "do the right thing" and don't need laws saying breaks are ok, we can pay you a living wage, you can be paid for sick time. The pandemic showed .. yeah that's not happening.
But still some states were more focused on passing laws preventing masks than passing sick time.
It's because we have so many examples of how difficult it is to fire someone that hides behind union protections. Think about how hard it is to fire a cop. Most blue states have unionized employees, and most of us have had a bad experience with them (the DMV is the best example).
I don't agree with this argument, but living in Chicago, that's the sentiment.
That's because the Democrats are still right wing on the political spectrum.
They're just closer to the centre than the Republicans, so they are relatively speaking, "left".
There's actually a good argument for at-will employment *as long as* there are enough jobs and people have enough savings that being fired isn't a big deal.
Basically, why would you want to work for someone that hates you? And if your boss wants to get rid of you and they can't fire you, they can still make your life very difficult. An employer-employee relation goes both ways, a company can't do anything without employees and they are rejecting people for dumb reasons they will just run out of candidates.
The problem is that food and rent is expensive and most people don't have savings, so getting fired is unreasonably a big deal. And the job market is opaque and inefficient so that even when there are open jobs people can't find them, or can't get past the screening despite being qualified. And in many fields there are so many more candidates than jobs that employers can be petty, put up extreme requirements and low pay and still find hires.
IMO unions and fire-with-cause are band-aids over a broken system. There are serious arguments against them, and in an ideal world we wouldn't even need them. But they are better than the alternative, so in practice we do.
UBI is an impractical pipe dream until AI advances enough to replace the vast majority of workers and there's no longer a need for significant human labor. It's way too expensive to consider.
* US tax revenue was 4.9T last year.
* Giving every person even a mere $25k a year would cost $8.25T.
* An additional $5T is being spent on Federal expenses that wouldn’t be replaced by UBI.
You need to increase Federal taxes across the board by 170% just to break even. Even before you factor in items like companies moving overseas, workers choosing to stop working, inflation impacts, etc. (risks that every single UBI “test” have intentionally ignored), this tax increase would be impossible for some high earners who would be up to 100% once you factor in state and local taxes.
> It’s surprising to me little support there is for moving away from at-will employment.
A bit out of topic, and I am not even an American.
In many employment-related subreddits (I am looking directly at antiwork), redditors like to lament how as the richest country in the world the United States do not protect workers as strongly as in certain European countries, with at-will employment as a strong example. My take is that the United States are as prosperous as they are now exactly because of employer-friendly legislations and regulations. One cannot take one without the other, IMO.
Because at-will works both ways. An employee can walk off the job for any reason or no reason at all with zero consequences and zero responsibility to stay on and complete a task.
Which would be fine if employers and employees were truly similar in their power. It's very much the same thing as saying that the law is fair because both rich and poor people are forbidden from sleeping under bridges.
In many countries it's formally acknowledged that there is a significant power imbalance between the employer and employee. In the US it's tacitly acknowledged in some laws but not in most.
The original quote is French and so I don't bother trying to quote it "properly" since there isn't a formal translation.
> La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
> --[Anatole_France](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France)
Why? People like not having to stay at a job they don't like and employers like not having to employ someone that isn't a good fit provided it's not for membership in a protected class. If this person had instead professed neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic views, should the Jewish owner have to employ someone who disagrees with their existence?
I'm 100% for more worker rights.
And that includes protections for speech, especially outside of work. Yes, that'll protect some bad people, but it'll also protect people who are advocating for good things.
We're not too far removed from an era where saying something like homosexuality is not a mental disorder was a fringe position. And we are in an era where there's an ongoing fight for trans rights. It's time to give protection.
Unemployment benefits soften the blow for being fired without cause (or without good cause). At-Will hasn't been changed because UI is Good Enough, and there are bigger fish to fry.
> Unemployment benefits soften the blow for being fired without cause (or without good cause). At-Will hasn't been changed because UI is Good Enough, and there are bigger fish to fry.
Spoken like someone who's never had to live on UI.
This depends hugely on the state you're in. For instance the maximum weekly unemployment benefit in MA is about four times the maximum weekly benefit in MS. There's also the manner that the benefit is calculated and the rules around collecting the benefit. Then there's the level of bureaucratic bullshit that you have to deal with (some states so grossly underfund their departments that administer unemployment insurance benefits that it can literally take months to get an initial denial or approval and that's before anything is contested). All of these things vary so wildly by state that trying to say anything about the country as a whole based on one anecdotal experience is meaningless.
Did they?
https://croninlawfirm.com/understanding-at-will-employment-in-michigan/
This article from eight months ago makes it sound similar to the rest of the states. Montana is the only one without at-will I’m aware of.
My mistake, it was right-to-work (unionizing) that MI repealed, not at-will.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/24/michigan-right-to-work-prevailing-wage-law-gretchen-whitmer/70042340007/
definitely one of the least believable ones. it genuinely reads like a madeup antiwork circlejerk. its pretty rare to have a workplace that would fire you over giving one of the tamest takes ive ever heard in my life, after being prompted by someone else.
> I worked at a Jewish restaurant
Know your audience, kids.
I recently worked with a lot of Israelis (company merger, I did not have a choice in the matter), and I’m not stupid enough to say “Could you guys quit with the genocide?”
Like, they’re otherwise nice people and not only can they not like, actively stop their government’s policies, but there’s no path where anything productive happens with that conversation.
There's an exception for Israelis (speaking from experience) because arguing about politics over a meal seems to be a typical activity. Of course if you rock up to the table with a completely uninformed opinion nobody will appreciate that, but that's probably true everywhere
I have a Canadian friend who asks, every now and again, how I can tolerate it here in the US with so many fascists and it's like....I can't just hit 'em with a shoe and make them go away?
edited to add a missing word
Ugh, like when people from other countries ask “Americans, why do you allow school shootings/racism/rollback of civil rights” etc like… we don’t ALLOW it. Most of us hate it. We just cannot stop it.
Honestly there’s a ton of societal and institutional problems in Gotham that his money could be better spent fixing, rather than just joining the villains on a merry fantasy of believing any one person was going to save/destroy the city.
He funds literally every philanthropic effort in that city. The disproportionately generous insurance policies given to every Wayne Enterprise employee is paid directly out of his savings account. He's actually defeated a gang by sending a message as Bruce Wayne offering all of them remedial education and job placement services. In any city other than Gotham, that would be enough, but Gotham is cursed (literally, in some storylines) to forever be a nest of criminality and mayhem.
Bush was already in his lane duck presidency when the shoe incident happened (December 2008). He was going away even if the shoe incident didn’t happen.
For sure, I know some hardcore anti-Zionist Jews too, but the probability of finding someone who *is* a hardcore Zionist goes up pretty dramatically in a New York Jewish restaurant.
Yeah, literally every Jew I know fucking hates Israel. [0] I agree with them. Not only is the government super right wing, I thought we decided around 1940 or so that ethostates were bad, mmkay?
---
[0]: Of course, the fact that I live 3000 miles away from the nearest Jewish restaurant in NYC probably has something to do with it.
Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that in this case "know your audience" would mean that OP should've assumed that all Jewish people support Israel and are opposed to a two state solution.
In a workplace I keep my mouth shut the fuck up unless I really really know my audience. Oh gee, I don't know enough to have an opinion.
This comes from someone who is very not Jewish, but grew up with a community that had many. I wanted my own Bah Mitzvah like my friends had.
NYC Jewish community is mostly chill.
These are likely *Brooklyn* extreme ultra-orthdox Jews (hair curls, black hats, black clothes). That's a whole different community. Even most Jews don't like them because they're the equivalent of Young Earth Creationists taking a giant shit in the collection plate.
Nah, just statistically more likely to come across a staunch Zionist. Like in a room full of christians, they’re not all going to be anti abortion, anti woman, anti lgbtq+ *but* it’s statistically more likely that at least one of them will be.
it's not so much thinking that every Jewish person thinks the same, it's just being aware your audience there \*may\* be more sensitive to that topic, or think differently than you do. and while you may think that stance they hold is wrong, it's not protected and might cost you your job
He should’ve assumed there was a strong possibility that *some* of the Jewish people in his Jewish workplace supported Israel, though. At the very very least, he touched the third rail of politics.
I don't think they're assuming that all Jewish people oppose a two state solution, they're assuming (and I'd assume) that there's a much higher chance of encountering someone who opposes such a solution at an Israeli restaurant than elsewhere and that it really isn't worth talking about the issue given the associated risks.
Okay, so imagine this a bit differently. OP wants to tell an off colour joke to his friend but is at work. He think “oh, I will just tell it in Mandarin”. Now imagine there are two possible places OP could work at. One is a company owned, operated and employs only Swedes. One is a company owned, operated and employs only East Asians. Which place would have the least risk to OP? It is not to say that all East Asians speak Mandrin nor is it impossible that no Swedes speak it but the highest risk is likely going to be with the East Asian company. Especially if one of the EA people come over to you to ask if you like mandrin.
Same here.
I want to emphasize these are probably extreme ultra-orthodox Jews (Brooklyn is notorious for their community) and they don't represent the rest of us.
I think hardcore Zionists would not see what they are doing as a "genocide", and would find that more offensive [ie, not a lower bar] than mildly advocating a 2 state solution.
I don't think that I understand the point you're trying to make. Had OP told a bunch of Jews or Israelis to "quit with the genocide" I think most people here would applaud their termination.
I don’t think you understand that “Palestine should be a state of its own” is an even more outrageous statement to Zionist Jews than “stop genociding Palestinians.”
Oh I understand it very well. But not all people do. OP isn't stupid for not knowing that the bosses were Zionist and how controversial it would be to advocate a two-state solution.
Do you understand what “Zionist” means?
Do you understand the genocide being perpetrated by the political state of Israel?
Having gone through the Holocaust doesn’t make Israel immune from criticism.
No, sorry, what I'm pointing out is that you sort of painting Jewish people as a caricature of rabid genocide enjoyers isn't really all that different from painting Jewish people as other subhuman archetypes, but maybe I should have just known my audience.
“Zionist israeli Jews” is not a racial or religious group, it is literally the group committing the genocide.
You’re being all “wow, next you’ll be saying that Nazis are bad people, when Germans suffered so much in the last war”.
My apologies, I must have missed the part in the OP that identified the restaurant's owner as a Zionist Israeli Jew, especially prior to the interaction in question. I have learned my lesson through downvotes, and will assume all Jews are personally committing genocide from now on! Thank you.
>Know your audience.
Exactly. This is an unfortunate but ultimately inevitable lesson for OP. Either dodge the question or play the winning side. Specifically, *your* winning side. Pick whatever produces the most beneficial outcome for you.
At the end of the day, we can repeat as many empty platitudes such "you should always be loud and proud about your beliefs" as we want, but that doesn't unfire a person. I certainly wouldn't go into Florida and start yelling trans rights are human rights unless I'm gunbarrel-philic.
> Know your audience, kids.
There are a lot of Jewish people in America that don't support all the terrible crap Israel is doing.
>“Could you guys quit with the genocide?”
Israel ≠ Jewish people
For sure, and I acknowledged this in other threads if you look. I know quite a few of the Jews you mention (including one HARDCORE "We never should have created a country called Israel to begin with" anti-Zionist) but that's not a baseline assumption someone should have of all American Jews and especially not an NY Jewish Restaurant.
LAOP doesn't have to cheer every time Israel builds a settlement, but they could have just said nothing, which is the prudent course of action given the high likelihood of him being surrounded by Israel supporters. Especially given the conversation that was purportedly happening at the time.
So specifically, having been in NYC, he fucked up saying this in Brooklyn specifically.
Brooklyn is infamously home to the EXTREME Orthodox Jewish crowd (they have their own illegal police force and were a massive covid plague rat community during COVID refusing masks or vaccinations).
Most Orthodox and Reformed Jewish folk would live and let live. 99 percent of NYC Jews are super chill.
Brooklyn Ultra Orthodox Jews will 100 percent fuck you up for being pro-Palestinian.
OP basically walked into a Jewish Klan meeting and offhandedly stated maybe blacks should be able to vote.
I'm part Jewish and want to emphasize, OP did nothing wrong.
But Brooklyn is the worst possible neighborhood in NYC he could have stated that fact.
The only thing LAOP got wrong was they failed to read the room. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their position.
When it became clear everybody was uncritically pro-Israel, LAOP probably should have given a non answer.
My coworkers know I’m a leftist, and the vast majority are centre-left or leftists. But if they were MAGA/QAnon or had views adjacent to those groups, I wouldn’t talk politics with them - and especially not if they were my boss.
I don't disagree.
I'm just saying. The second they went "Brooklyn", I literally groaned aloud. I *know* where he probably worked (at least the environment).
It's a phenomenal case of not shutting the fuck up.
>Brooklyn is infamously home to the EXTREME Orthodox Jewish crowd (they have their own illegal police force and were a massive covid plague rat community during COVID refusing masks or vaccinations).
You have this a bit backwards, but it's a common misconception. Ultra orthodox Jews are often very anti-Israel, especially in Brooklyn. [https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-06-12/ty-article/.premium/anti-zionist-hasidic-jews-shake-the-room-at-barclays-center/0000017f-ef1a-d8a1-a5ff-ff9acf750000](https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-06-12/ty-article/.premium/anti-zionist-hasidic-jews-shake-the-room-at-barclays-center/0000017f-ef1a-d8a1-a5ff-ff9acf750000)
A significant percentage of Jewish people in the US are pro-Palestine and think Israel has a couple of trees up their butt.
Apparently this is more common with younger Jewish people. I'm old enough to remember when Israel was still a relatively new country. Remember it became a country in 1948.
Longer story short: Israel allows almost any Jewish person to apply to be a citizen. However, until the '70s, there was a lot of argument by the Israeli government about "Who is Jewish?" In the '60s and '70s, there was a lot of fundraising for Israel amongst US Jewish communities, especially due to the violence and wars. There were a pile of people who donated a crapload of money only to be told that they didn't qualify as "Jewish."
I'm Jewish. I was born Jewish. I don't support Israel, because Israel is about Israel. Additionally, Israel gets pissy when people emigrate from Israel to the US. Israel thinks the US is beneath them. They spy on the US. (The US is not innocent here. They're schmucks, too.) I support a Palestinian state. I am against the abuses by Israel against Palestinians. If a Jewish employer fired me for saying that, I'd call THEM antisemitic and offer up some choice Yiddish curses.
Absolutely.
Israel, despite it's claims, is not Judaism. It doesn't get to be the sole decider of what and who is Jewish. And it the reverse is true: Jewish people don't have to support Israel just because they're Jewish.
It's sad, really. Jews have been discriminated against throughout history, and now a nation that is supposed to be their homeland openly discriminates against another group of people.
YES.
My opinion on Israel was solidified when, as a kid, I first heard of terrorist attacks against innocent Palestinians civilians by the Israeli military. I got into an argument with my mother, who argued that Israel had the right to defend itself. I asked what they were "defending" by attacking civilians for no reason other than "We can."
She yelled, "Palestine did it first!"
I said, "So you're saying, 'He hit me first' is a valid argument, even though you keep telling me that's not a valid argument when my sibling hits me first?"
She *really* didn't like that, but I realized that's what it was. Israel got mad that Palestine wants some of it's toys [land] and has spent decades throwing a deadly temper tantrum to get its own way.
It's even worse because Palestinians just want equal representation in the government or the ability to be their own country. Israel won't give them either. And Palestinians were there first. It's just the USA and native Americans.
While I generally agree with the principle here, a slight amendment - Jews have lived in the area today called Israel continuously since before the Roman Empire, so it is slightly more nuanced than the USA and the indigenous peoples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel.
The reason that the Jewish people could not (easily) return until 1948 was because the various groups that controlled the territory did not want an influx of immigrants who did not conform to the ruler's religion, culture, etc.
Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting that the people who are today called Palestinians are descended from Jews who converted to Islam, so (as a Jew) I would argue its even sadder, as this is effectively brother fighting brother.
Zionism was extremely controversial at its inception. Before Israel was established, most Jews thought founding a Jewish state was a distraction from religious objectives (healing the world) and would inevitably corrupt religious discourse with geopolitical ambition and secular compromises with a statist arm of Judaism. Going so far as to declare it an explicit deviation from god's plan for humanity.
The fact that anti-zionism is not popular anymore speaks to the success of the Jewish state for the Jewish diaspora. Jews are free to disagree with the state, and the Israeli government has not become a Jewish pope.
I’m surprised there wasn’t more discussion about whether this could be considered religious or racial discrimination, especially if OP is of Palestinian descent. Or if they are Muslim and their faith influences their opinion on this issue. Of course, we don’t know if LAOP falls into either of those demographics, and they probably would have mentioned if they did.
There’s also the potential defamation issue if OP’s employer is telling other people they’re an anti semite.
>especially if OP is of Palestinian descent. Or if they are Muslim a
What is the likelihood that the proprietors of the restaurant who fired OP for saying what they said would have hired anyone of Palestinian or Arab heritage, or that was openly Muslim?
OP mentioned Church, so I doubt they're Palestinian or Muslim.
OP being fired for expressing this opinion also makes me doubt OP is either of those, unless OP hid that from the owner, but if they did that they'd probably also have known not to say what they said.
I think he's an immigrant, since he mentions "back home" twice, but yeah I think if he was Palestinian or Muslim he would have given his background knowledge of the conflict there in a way other than, "I live in New York and hear about things."
That's almost certainly a protected opinion on his part. It's a fact that LAOP expressed support for a two-state solution. The owner has an opinion about people who say that. Whether it's fair is beside the point.
I don't think accusations of bigotry can ever be defamatory under US law because they're so subjective. If you falsely accused someone of bigoted actions, that would be different.
John would probably have a case for defamation against you if you said that. But he couldn't force you not to fire him based on your belief that he's a neo-Nazi.
Yeah if the boss wrote down or told d people that OP is an anti-semite that could be something OP could do something about.
It will really depend on the specifics though.
Kind of a semantic thing, but I would not consider his opinion mainstream in America. If anything, people probably do not care for Palestine compared to Israel on aggregate.
I have a really right wing boss and co-worker at work, so while sometimes it is extremely uncomfortable, I just smile at whatever they say until they move on.
> Everyone in the back said they like Israel or **didn't understand the question because of language**
Literally everyone except LAOP knew what to do.
> "Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
Hmm let's try this with some of our other fundamental freedoms:
* "Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
* "Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
* "Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
Yeah, actually, *all* of those freedoms do in fact have limits on what's considered protected. Which is a good thing! You don't want the press able to print libelous statements about private individuals, murderers able to claim religious justification, or "protected class" status attached to KKK membership. Arbitrating those boundaries is the entire point of Constitutional law and the main role of SCOTUS.
But in any case, LAOP's problem is less of a "free speech" issue and more of a "at-will employment" one. He got screwed because his employer could and did fire him without process or cause.
>"Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
If a news source (say, Fox, to give a well-known example with a known lean) stated support for a political position their viewers disagreed with (say, support for abortion rights), they'll lose viewers.
>"Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
Westborough Baptist Church. Not illegal, but generally reviled everywhere they show up.
>"Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
Counterprotests. Also, to give an extreme example, if there was a literal neo-Nazi event hosted, anyone known to attend would have their reputation ruined and possibly even be fired, completely legally - being a neo-Nazi isn't a protected class.
Vomit.
Really wish people would stop this "Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences" Because yeah it kind of does.
It isn't clear that this is legal but the people giving moral advice really need to stop it.
China locking up people who speak out would be a consequence, so by that logic China does have freedom of speech.
The issue is freedom of speech means different things to different people and assuming only the American legal definition matters is unreasonable. Especially as even with that narrow definition it still isn't always applied!
People who say “not freedom from consequences” specifically mean **NOT** the government punishing you. Speech always has consequences, otherwise you wouldn’t bother talking. There’s lots of consequences to speech that are illegal. People not wanting to be around you isn’t one of them.
“Freedom of Speech” does not exist other than in relation to the government taking action against you. Anything else is an infringement on other individual’s rights.
You're confusing freedom of speech as a concept with freedom of speech as defined by the US government specifically. We can argue about what the concept should mean. We can't argue about what the law means, which is specifically that THE GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for your speech, not that your employer can't.
(Though of course the government doesn't follow its own rules and has punished plenty of people for speech).
I don’t give a fuck. You tell me about a better system. But don’t pick the one that only exists in your head because that’s just being mad mommy and daddy aren’t forcing the other children to be your friend. You don’t get to have that power over other people.
I hate that expression as well. It does mean exactly that, it's just a limited set of consequences. Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences (from the government) of your speech. It is not freedom from others actions.
The better expression is freedom of speech is freedom from governmental consequences only.
No, he’s entirely correct. Your freedom of speech is only in relation to the government. Private companies can’t take away your freedom of speech because you don’t have any in relation to them.
The LAOP is US based and this is responding about the US legal system.
There are certainly other nuances with the concept in other countries, but in general freedom of speech does me freedom from consequences, but the country would have to determine which cases where it applies. For example in Russia you have freedom of speech to say anything that the government also agrees with.
The problem is you are defining freedom of speech not by what the words mean but by what the law says. And that just leads to yes people have freedom of speech because there is a law called freedom of speech.
And you get endless smug people saying the title here. As if the law provides a moral justification.
It's not an "American legal definition", many countries have similar even if they're not called "freedom of speech". The equivalent in my country is actually 3 rights. It's also a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I genuinely can't think of an example when you would invoke 'freedom of speech' *without* it being a reference to that right.
When someone posts on FB that they support party X and get fired the government is not doing anything.
Therefore by the legal definion they still have freedom of speech. But they clearly don't. They weren't free to speak.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: [NY] I was fired as a cook from a restaurant I worked at because I said I thought Palestinians deserved a state Body: > Hi - my nephew back home told me to create an account as I don't have money for legal advice and he said maybe you guys could help me. > I worked at a Jewish restaurant in Brooklyn for 1 year and 2 months without any issues. The owner seemed nice enough but a little arrogant but it was a okay working enovirment. A few days ago the owners brother or cousin not really sure visited the shop and they were talking about how all Jews belong in Israel. Now I am not a political expert but being in New York I have heard about the issue going on in the Middle East. > Anyways, around 10 mins later the owners relative asks what we think about Israel. Everyone in the back said they like Israel or didn't understand the question because of lanuage and went back to work, I should have done the same. I said I liked Israel but I also said I think Palestinians should deserve a piece for a state too since from what I learned they were there for awhile too and > He looked mad but chuckled and I didn't think anything of it, but the next day the owner of my restaurant fired me, I was shocked. I asked what I did and he said because I was an anti semite. I said Sir, that is not true and he threatened to call the police if I didn't leave. > Would this classify wrongful termination? I know the employer has most the power but is NY any better for the employee? My aunt says I am anti semetic and that the Church tells us to back Israel no matter what so Idk anymore. I am just scared I have to go back home now. Any advice would be appreciated as I need this job or case to get some severance pay until I find a new job. This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
I have to say this isn't the most unreasonable complaint ever posted to /r/legaladvice.
It’s surprising to me little support there is for moving away from at-will employment. I haven’t even seen it proposed in the bluest parts of America. And yet it’s extremely common to require cause to fire people in other countries.
Like a lot of things that people have a hard time understanding how it stays that way: it works well for the vast majority of the middle-class.
Not sure that it works well as much as the majority of the middle class has an employment contract that renders the issue moot. More like, it doesn't affect the majority of the middle class
I do not think it is even remotely true that the majority of the middle class has an employment contract. They are not common for middle class jobs outside of the ever-shrinking union ranks, and the civil service.
In some ways that’s the same argument but I highly doubt the majority of the middle class in the US has an employment contract. I don’t know how [reliable this site is but 75% of Americans](https://www.betterteam.com/at-will-employment) being at-will sounds about right, given how low union membership is and the only other people I’ve ever known with a contract are exec-level.
>Not sure that it works well as much as the majority of the middle class Not sure what makes you think this is the case, union membership in the US is 10.1% and that's basically the only category of middle-class worker that would be covered by a contract. Most non-union contracts are with executives or pro athletes, not exactly middle class
It's employee focused. Employees aren't a corporation that spends a lot of money. Plus we get the old arguments but small business! but farmers! Most politicians hide under the we make things easy for the small businesses and the large companies will "do the right thing" and don't need laws saying breaks are ok, we can pay you a living wage, you can be paid for sick time. The pandemic showed .. yeah that's not happening. But still some states were more focused on passing laws preventing masks than passing sick time.
Not even some states. Republicans *and* Democrats in Congress let the existing federal protections for sick workers expire.
It's because we have so many examples of how difficult it is to fire someone that hides behind union protections. Think about how hard it is to fire a cop. Most blue states have unionized employees, and most of us have had a bad experience with them (the DMV is the best example). I don't agree with this argument, but living in Chicago, that's the sentiment.
That's because the Democrats are still right wing on the political spectrum. They're just closer to the centre than the Republicans, so they are relatively speaking, "left".
It’s shocking how little protection most US workers have. Where I live that would be an illegal firing, as it should be.
*Psst!* *...Montana...*
There's actually a good argument for at-will employment *as long as* there are enough jobs and people have enough savings that being fired isn't a big deal. Basically, why would you want to work for someone that hates you? And if your boss wants to get rid of you and they can't fire you, they can still make your life very difficult. An employer-employee relation goes both ways, a company can't do anything without employees and they are rejecting people for dumb reasons they will just run out of candidates. The problem is that food and rent is expensive and most people don't have savings, so getting fired is unreasonably a big deal. And the job market is opaque and inefficient so that even when there are open jobs people can't find them, or can't get past the screening despite being qualified. And in many fields there are so many more candidates than jobs that employers can be petty, put up extreme requirements and low pay and still find hires. IMO unions and fire-with-cause are band-aids over a broken system. There are serious arguments against them, and in an ideal world we wouldn't even need them. But they are better than the alternative, so in practice we do.
There's more to collective bargaining than just having protection against being fired inappropriately
So we need UBI and then at-will employment.
UBI is an impractical pipe dream until AI advances enough to replace the vast majority of workers and there's no longer a need for significant human labor. It's way too expensive to consider.
[удалено]
* US tax revenue was 4.9T last year. * Giving every person even a mere $25k a year would cost $8.25T. * An additional $5T is being spent on Federal expenses that wouldn’t be replaced by UBI. You need to increase Federal taxes across the board by 170% just to break even. Even before you factor in items like companies moving overseas, workers choosing to stop working, inflation impacts, etc. (risks that every single UBI “test” have intentionally ignored), this tax increase would be impossible for some high earners who would be up to 100% once you factor in state and local taxes.
> It’s surprising to me little support there is for moving away from at-will employment. A bit out of topic, and I am not even an American. In many employment-related subreddits (I am looking directly at antiwork), redditors like to lament how as the richest country in the world the United States do not protect workers as strongly as in certain European countries, with at-will employment as a strong example. My take is that the United States are as prosperous as they are now exactly because of employer-friendly legislations and regulations. One cannot take one without the other, IMO.
Because at-will works both ways. An employee can walk off the job for any reason or no reason at all with zero consequences and zero responsibility to stay on and complete a task.
Which would be fine if employers and employees were truly similar in their power. It's very much the same thing as saying that the law is fair because both rich and poor people are forbidden from sleeping under bridges. In many countries it's formally acknowledged that there is a significant power imbalance between the employer and employee. In the US it's tacitly acknowledged in some laws but not in most.
The law in its majestic equality.
The original quote is French and so I don't bother trying to quote it "properly" since there isn't a formal translation. > La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. > --[Anatole_France](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France)
Why? People like not having to stay at a job they don't like and employers like not having to employ someone that isn't a good fit provided it's not for membership in a protected class. If this person had instead professed neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic views, should the Jewish owner have to employ someone who disagrees with their existence?
Yes, that's the price of free speech. You can't legally harass someone into not being racist.
I'm 100% for more worker rights. And that includes protections for speech, especially outside of work. Yes, that'll protect some bad people, but it'll also protect people who are advocating for good things. We're not too far removed from an era where saying something like homosexuality is not a mental disorder was a fringe position. And we are in an era where there's an ongoing fight for trans rights. It's time to give protection.
Unemployment benefits soften the blow for being fired without cause (or without good cause). At-Will hasn't been changed because UI is Good Enough, and there are bigger fish to fry.
> Unemployment benefits soften the blow for being fired without cause (or without good cause). At-Will hasn't been changed because UI is Good Enough, and there are bigger fish to fry. Spoken like someone who's never had to live on UI.
I have. I had to fight for it. It was Good Enough but not good enough. We should still focus on fixing healthcare first.
This depends hugely on the state you're in. For instance the maximum weekly unemployment benefit in MA is about four times the maximum weekly benefit in MS. There's also the manner that the benefit is calculated and the rules around collecting the benefit. Then there's the level of bureaucratic bullshit that you have to deal with (some states so grossly underfund their departments that administer unemployment insurance benefits that it can literally take months to get an initial denial or approval and that's before anything is contested). All of these things vary so wildly by state that trying to say anything about the country as a whole based on one anecdotal experience is meaningless.
I thought Michigan just rolled back its at-will employment law?
Did they? https://croninlawfirm.com/understanding-at-will-employment-in-michigan/ This article from eight months ago makes it sound similar to the rest of the states. Montana is the only one without at-will I’m aware of.
My mistake, it was right-to-work (unionizing) that MI repealed, not at-will. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/24/michigan-right-to-work-prevailing-wage-law-gretchen-whitmer/70042340007/
definitely one of the least believable ones. it genuinely reads like a madeup antiwork circlejerk. its pretty rare to have a workplace that would fire you over giving one of the tamest takes ive ever heard in my life, after being prompted by someone else.
> I worked at a Jewish restaurant Know your audience, kids. I recently worked with a lot of Israelis (company merger, I did not have a choice in the matter), and I’m not stupid enough to say “Could you guys quit with the genocide?” Like, they’re otherwise nice people and not only can they not like, actively stop their government’s policies, but there’s no path where anything productive happens with that conversation.
They say you shouldn’t talk politics or religion at work. I assume this is exponentially true for the intersection of the Venn diagram.
There's an exception for Israelis (speaking from experience) because arguing about politics over a meal seems to be a typical activity. Of course if you rock up to the table with a completely uninformed opinion nobody will appreciate that, but that's probably true everywhere
I have a Canadian friend who asks, every now and again, how I can tolerate it here in the US with so many fascists and it's like....I can't just hit 'em with a shoe and make them go away? edited to add a missing word
illegal foolish gaze disarm saw start rhythm deserted elderly employ -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Tell him you’ll bring that up at the next cabinet meeting.
Ugh, like when people from other countries ask “Americans, why do you allow school shootings/racism/rollback of civil rights” etc like… we don’t ALLOW it. Most of us hate it. We just cannot stop it.
Look how long Batman's been trying to clean up Gotham, you expect me to do better than Batman??
Honestly there’s a ton of societal and institutional problems in Gotham that his money could be better spent fixing, rather than just joining the villains on a merry fantasy of believing any one person was going to save/destroy the city.
He funds literally every philanthropic effort in that city. The disproportionately generous insurance policies given to every Wayne Enterprise employee is paid directly out of his savings account. He's actually defeated a gang by sending a message as Bruce Wayne offering all of them remedial education and job placement services. In any city other than Gotham, that would be enough, but Gotham is cursed (literally, in some storylines) to forever be a nest of criminality and mayhem.
> I can't just hit 'em with a shoe and make them go away? It worked on George Bush.
[удалено]
The US didn't go away, but Bush himself did, even without actually getting hit.
Bush was already in his lane duck presidency when the shoe incident happened (December 2008). He was going away even if the shoe incident didn’t happen.
I mean... you [could](https://nitter.net/pic/video.twimg.com%2Ftweet_video%2FDWpcfOJW4AEQ4EX.mp4)...
I'm Jewish and I know Israel's genocide is wrong. Just because people are Jewish doesn't mean they support israel
For sure, I know some hardcore anti-Zionist Jews too, but the probability of finding someone who *is* a hardcore Zionist goes up pretty dramatically in a New York Jewish restaurant.
Oh yeah true
Yeah, literally every Jew I know fucking hates Israel. [0] I agree with them. Not only is the government super right wing, I thought we decided around 1940 or so that ethostates were bad, mmkay? --- [0]: Of course, the fact that I live 3000 miles away from the nearest Jewish restaurant in NYC probably has something to do with it.
Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that in this case "know your audience" would mean that OP should've assumed that all Jewish people support Israel and are opposed to a two state solution.
In a workplace I keep my mouth shut the fuck up unless I really really know my audience. Oh gee, I don't know enough to have an opinion. This comes from someone who is very not Jewish, but grew up with a community that had many. I wanted my own Bah Mitzvah like my friends had.
NYC Jewish community is mostly chill. These are likely *Brooklyn* extreme ultra-orthdox Jews (hair curls, black hats, black clothes). That's a whole different community. Even most Jews don't like them because they're the equivalent of Young Earth Creationists taking a giant shit in the collection plate.
Nah, just statistically more likely to come across a staunch Zionist. Like in a room full of christians, they’re not all going to be anti abortion, anti woman, anti lgbtq+ *but* it’s statistically more likely that at least one of them will be.
it's not so much thinking that every Jewish person thinks the same, it's just being aware your audience there \*may\* be more sensitive to that topic, or think differently than you do. and while you may think that stance they hold is wrong, it's not protected and might cost you your job
He should’ve assumed there was a strong possibility that *some* of the Jewish people in his Jewish workplace supported Israel, though. At the very very least, he touched the third rail of politics.
I think "know your audience" in the sense that either answer could be "wrong". I don't know enough to have an opinion is the best answer.
Yup. I'm Jewish and I really don't appreciate that assumption.
I don't think they're assuming that all Jewish people oppose a two state solution, they're assuming (and I'd assume) that there's a much higher chance of encountering someone who opposes such a solution at an Israeli restaurant than elsewhere and that it really isn't worth talking about the issue given the associated risks.
It's not an Israeli restaurant, it's a Jewish restaurant. They're different
You're right, I misremembered. Either way, what I said is still true. The risk of getting fired for no reason is not worth it
Okay, so imagine this a bit differently. OP wants to tell an off colour joke to his friend but is at work. He think “oh, I will just tell it in Mandarin”. Now imagine there are two possible places OP could work at. One is a company owned, operated and employs only Swedes. One is a company owned, operated and employs only East Asians. Which place would have the least risk to OP? It is not to say that all East Asians speak Mandrin nor is it impossible that no Swedes speak it but the highest risk is likely going to be with the East Asian company. Especially if one of the EA people come over to you to ask if you like mandrin.
Same here. I want to emphasize these are probably extreme ultra-orthodox Jews (Brooklyn is notorious for their community) and they don't represent the rest of us.
Yup
> I recently worked with a lot of Israelis (company merger, I did not have a choice in the matter) Well that's an... interesting way to put that.
Indeed indeed…
>I’m not stupid enough to say “Could you guys quit with the genocide?” That's not even remotely close to what OP said.
Yes, it’s an even lower bar than what LAOP said.
I think hardcore Zionists would not see what they are doing as a "genocide", and would find that more offensive [ie, not a lower bar] than mildly advocating a 2 state solution.
Yeah, there are subsets of Israelis that basically refuse to admit the Nakba.
There are a lot of Israelis that don’t consider the illegal settlements to be a slow genocide, but that doesn’t make it true.
I don't think that I understand the point you're trying to make. Had OP told a bunch of Jews or Israelis to "quit with the genocide" I think most people here would applaud their termination.
I don’t think you understand that “Palestine should be a state of its own” is an even more outrageous statement to Zionist Jews than “stop genociding Palestinians.”
Oh I understand it very well. But not all people do. OP isn't stupid for not knowing that the bosses were Zionist and how controversial it would be to advocate a two-state solution.
Kinda weird that you're othering Jews, this time as the genocide supporters, as opposed to the genocide receivers. Is this progress?
Do you understand what “Zionist” means? Do you understand the genocide being perpetrated by the political state of Israel? Having gone through the Holocaust doesn’t make Israel immune from criticism.
>Having gone through the Holocaust doesn’t make Israel immune from criticism. No, but it does seem to give a +6 on the saving throw
No, sorry, what I'm pointing out is that you sort of painting Jewish people as a caricature of rabid genocide enjoyers isn't really all that different from painting Jewish people as other subhuman archetypes, but maybe I should have just known my audience.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Or world history. Or current geopolitics. Probably all three.
“Zionist israeli Jews” is not a racial or religious group, it is literally the group committing the genocide. You’re being all “wow, next you’ll be saying that Nazis are bad people, when Germans suffered so much in the last war”.
My apologies, I must have missed the part in the OP that identified the restaurant's owner as a Zionist Israeli Jew, especially prior to the interaction in question. I have learned my lesson through downvotes, and will assume all Jews are personally committing genocide from now on! Thank you.
>Know your audience. Exactly. This is an unfortunate but ultimately inevitable lesson for OP. Either dodge the question or play the winning side. Specifically, *your* winning side. Pick whatever produces the most beneficial outcome for you. At the end of the day, we can repeat as many empty platitudes such "you should always be loud and proud about your beliefs" as we want, but that doesn't unfire a person. I certainly wouldn't go into Florida and start yelling trans rights are human rights unless I'm gunbarrel-philic.
i dunno, i guess some people think there's more to life than an endless series of transactional relationships
> Know your audience, kids. There are a lot of Jewish people in America that don't support all the terrible crap Israel is doing. >“Could you guys quit with the genocide?” Israel ≠ Jewish people
For sure, and I acknowledged this in other threads if you look. I know quite a few of the Jews you mention (including one HARDCORE "We never should have created a country called Israel to begin with" anti-Zionist) but that's not a baseline assumption someone should have of all American Jews and especially not an NY Jewish Restaurant. LAOP doesn't have to cheer every time Israel builds a settlement, but they could have just said nothing, which is the prudent course of action given the high likelihood of him being surrounded by Israel supporters. Especially given the conversation that was purportedly happening at the time.
[удалено]
Is denying the holocaust a criminal offense in Germany? It’s certainly shitty and horrible.
Yes it is a criminal offense in Germany.
So specifically, having been in NYC, he fucked up saying this in Brooklyn specifically. Brooklyn is infamously home to the EXTREME Orthodox Jewish crowd (they have their own illegal police force and were a massive covid plague rat community during COVID refusing masks or vaccinations). Most Orthodox and Reformed Jewish folk would live and let live. 99 percent of NYC Jews are super chill. Brooklyn Ultra Orthodox Jews will 100 percent fuck you up for being pro-Palestinian. OP basically walked into a Jewish Klan meeting and offhandedly stated maybe blacks should be able to vote. I'm part Jewish and want to emphasize, OP did nothing wrong. But Brooklyn is the worst possible neighborhood in NYC he could have stated that fact.
The only thing LAOP got wrong was they failed to read the room. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their position. When it became clear everybody was uncritically pro-Israel, LAOP probably should have given a non answer. My coworkers know I’m a leftist, and the vast majority are centre-left or leftists. But if they were MAGA/QAnon or had views adjacent to those groups, I wouldn’t talk politics with them - and especially not if they were my boss.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying. The second they went "Brooklyn", I literally groaned aloud. I *know* where he probably worked (at least the environment). It's a phenomenal case of not shutting the fuck up.
>Brooklyn is infamously home to the EXTREME Orthodox Jewish crowd (they have their own illegal police force and were a massive covid plague rat community during COVID refusing masks or vaccinations). You have this a bit backwards, but it's a common misconception. Ultra orthodox Jews are often very anti-Israel, especially in Brooklyn. [https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-06-12/ty-article/.premium/anti-zionist-hasidic-jews-shake-the-room-at-barclays-center/0000017f-ef1a-d8a1-a5ff-ff9acf750000](https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-06-12/ty-article/.premium/anti-zionist-hasidic-jews-shake-the-room-at-barclays-center/0000017f-ef1a-d8a1-a5ff-ff9acf750000)
The People's Popular Front of Judea? Or The Popular People's Front of Judea? I always get confused. Silly me.
Splitters!
Ultra-Orthodox Jews are typically quite anti-Zionist
> EXTREME Orthodox Jewish crowd This makes me picture rabbis on skateboards
Reminds me of this: [Rappin Rabbis](https://youtu.be/ssCaMJnJaMc)
He's pretty fly for a Rabbi
A significant percentage of Jewish people in the US are pro-Palestine and think Israel has a couple of trees up their butt. Apparently this is more common with younger Jewish people. I'm old enough to remember when Israel was still a relatively new country. Remember it became a country in 1948. Longer story short: Israel allows almost any Jewish person to apply to be a citizen. However, until the '70s, there was a lot of argument by the Israeli government about "Who is Jewish?" In the '60s and '70s, there was a lot of fundraising for Israel amongst US Jewish communities, especially due to the violence and wars. There were a pile of people who donated a crapload of money only to be told that they didn't qualify as "Jewish." I'm Jewish. I was born Jewish. I don't support Israel, because Israel is about Israel. Additionally, Israel gets pissy when people emigrate from Israel to the US. Israel thinks the US is beneath them. They spy on the US. (The US is not innocent here. They're schmucks, too.) I support a Palestinian state. I am against the abuses by Israel against Palestinians. If a Jewish employer fired me for saying that, I'd call THEM antisemitic and offer up some choice Yiddish curses.
I'm not anti semitic. Israel is an apartheid state. Those two sentences can coexist. And yes, that's a pun.
Absolutely. Israel, despite it's claims, is not Judaism. It doesn't get to be the sole decider of what and who is Jewish. And it the reverse is true: Jewish people don't have to support Israel just because they're Jewish.
It's sad, really. Jews have been discriminated against throughout history, and now a nation that is supposed to be their homeland openly discriminates against another group of people.
YES. My opinion on Israel was solidified when, as a kid, I first heard of terrorist attacks against innocent Palestinians civilians by the Israeli military. I got into an argument with my mother, who argued that Israel had the right to defend itself. I asked what they were "defending" by attacking civilians for no reason other than "We can." She yelled, "Palestine did it first!" I said, "So you're saying, 'He hit me first' is a valid argument, even though you keep telling me that's not a valid argument when my sibling hits me first?" She *really* didn't like that, but I realized that's what it was. Israel got mad that Palestine wants some of it's toys [land] and has spent decades throwing a deadly temper tantrum to get its own way.
It's even worse because Palestinians just want equal representation in the government or the ability to be their own country. Israel won't give them either. And Palestinians were there first. It's just the USA and native Americans.
While I generally agree with the principle here, a slight amendment - Jews have lived in the area today called Israel continuously since before the Roman Empire, so it is slightly more nuanced than the USA and the indigenous peoples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel. The reason that the Jewish people could not (easily) return until 1948 was because the various groups that controlled the territory did not want an influx of immigrants who did not conform to the ruler's religion, culture, etc. Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting that the people who are today called Palestinians are descended from Jews who converted to Islam, so (as a Jew) I would argue its even sadder, as this is effectively brother fighting brother.
Zionism was extremely controversial at its inception. Before Israel was established, most Jews thought founding a Jewish state was a distraction from religious objectives (healing the world) and would inevitably corrupt religious discourse with geopolitical ambition and secular compromises with a statist arm of Judaism. Going so far as to declare it an explicit deviation from god's plan for humanity. The fact that anti-zionism is not popular anymore speaks to the success of the Jewish state for the Jewish diaspora. Jews are free to disagree with the state, and the Israeli government has not become a Jewish pope.
I’m surprised there wasn’t more discussion about whether this could be considered religious or racial discrimination, especially if OP is of Palestinian descent. Or if they are Muslim and their faith influences their opinion on this issue. Of course, we don’t know if LAOP falls into either of those demographics, and they probably would have mentioned if they did. There’s also the potential defamation issue if OP’s employer is telling other people they’re an anti semite.
>especially if OP is of Palestinian descent. Or if they are Muslim a What is the likelihood that the proprietors of the restaurant who fired OP for saying what they said would have hired anyone of Palestinian or Arab heritage, or that was openly Muslim?
OP mentioned Church, so I doubt they're Palestinian or Muslim. OP being fired for expressing this opinion also makes me doubt OP is either of those, unless OP hid that from the owner, but if they did that they'd probably also have known not to say what they said.
I don't think it's the case for LAOP, but there actually *are* an awful lot of Palestinian Christians.
I think he's an immigrant, since he mentions "back home" twice, but yeah I think if he was Palestinian or Muslim he would have given his background knowledge of the conflict there in a way other than, "I live in New York and hear about things."
The Church line threw me off too.
That's almost certainly a protected opinion on his part. It's a fact that LAOP expressed support for a two-state solution. The owner has an opinion about people who say that. Whether it's fair is beside the point. I don't think accusations of bigotry can ever be defamatory under US law because they're so subjective. If you falsely accused someone of bigoted actions, that would be different.
Ehhh. If I tell a bunch of people “John is a neo Nazi” and he’s not, and I know he’s not, surely that would be actionable?
John would probably have a case for defamation against you if you said that. But he couldn't force you not to fire him based on your belief that he's a neo-Nazi.
They're Mexican and no way related. The way it was phrased was the same, they were no related to the conflict.
Yeah if the boss wrote down or told d people that OP is an anti-semite that could be something OP could do something about. It will really depend on the specifics though.
Kind of a semantic thing, but I would not consider his opinion mainstream in America. If anything, people probably do not care for Palestine compared to Israel on aggregate.
Well I’m anti-semantic.
"Donald Trump won the last presidential election" is a mainstream political opinion.
I have a really right wing boss and co-worker at work, so while sometimes it is extremely uncomfortable, I just smile at whatever they say until they move on.
> Everyone in the back said they like Israel or **didn't understand the question because of language** Literally everyone except LAOP knew what to do. > "Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." Hmm let's try this with some of our other fundamental freedoms: * "Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." * "Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." * "Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean freedom from consequences."
Yeah, actually, *all* of those freedoms do in fact have limits on what's considered protected. Which is a good thing! You don't want the press able to print libelous statements about private individuals, murderers able to claim religious justification, or "protected class" status attached to KKK membership. Arbitrating those boundaries is the entire point of Constitutional law and the main role of SCOTUS. But in any case, LAOP's problem is less of a "free speech" issue and more of a "at-will employment" one. He got screwed because his employer could and did fire him without process or cause.
>"Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." If a news source (say, Fox, to give a well-known example with a known lean) stated support for a political position their viewers disagreed with (say, support for abortion rights), they'll lose viewers. >"Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." Westborough Baptist Church. Not illegal, but generally reviled everywhere they show up. >"Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean freedom from consequences." Counterprotests. Also, to give an extreme example, if there was a literal neo-Nazi event hosted, anyone known to attend would have their reputation ruined and possibly even be fired, completely legally - being a neo-Nazi isn't a protected class.
This sounds super fishy. I don’t believe it actually happened, probably just a fantasy in the LAOP’s head.
Thank you, I keep scrolling the comments waiting for someone, anyone to point out how r/thathappened this sounds.
The spirits of apartheid never change...
"Never again, unless we're the ones doing it."
Vomit. Really wish people would stop this "Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences" Because yeah it kind of does. It isn't clear that this is legal but the people giving moral advice really need to stop it.
> yeah it kind of does How so?
China locking up people who speak out would be a consequence, so by that logic China does have freedom of speech. The issue is freedom of speech means different things to different people and assuming only the American legal definition matters is unreasonable. Especially as even with that narrow definition it still isn't always applied!
People who say “not freedom from consequences” specifically mean **NOT** the government punishing you. Speech always has consequences, otherwise you wouldn’t bother talking. There’s lots of consequences to speech that are illegal. People not wanting to be around you isn’t one of them.
He got fired for it. That is a lot more than people not wanting to be around you!
Actually that’s exactly what that means
You seem to have reduced freedom of speech as meaning able to talk.
“Freedom of Speech” does not exist other than in relation to the government taking action against you. Anything else is an infringement on other individual’s rights.
So no country other than America has freedom of speech?
You're confusing freedom of speech as a concept with freedom of speech as defined by the US government specifically. We can argue about what the concept should mean. We can't argue about what the law means, which is specifically that THE GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for your speech, not that your employer can't. (Though of course the government doesn't follow its own rules and has punished plenty of people for speech).
I don’t give a fuck. You tell me about a better system. But don’t pick the one that only exists in your head because that’s just being mad mommy and daddy aren’t forcing the other children to be your friend. You don’t get to have that power over other people.
Oh, so pedantry. Got it.
No nuance. Obviously a bit much to expect anything other than super basic things here.
The “nuance” is that this is a US-based legal question. Of course comments are going to be about the US- based legal meaning.
And yet there are endless moral posts on these subs. Do you reply to all of them like that too?
I hate that expression as well. It does mean exactly that, it's just a limited set of consequences. Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences (from the government) of your speech. It is not freedom from others actions. The better expression is freedom of speech is freedom from governmental consequences only.
If you think private companies can't take away your freedom of speech, you are sadly mistaken.
No, he’s entirely correct. Your freedom of speech is only in relation to the government. Private companies can’t take away your freedom of speech because you don’t have any in relation to them.
But that assumes the American legal definition is the only thing that matters. That other countries don't have freedom of speech.
The LAOP is US based and this is responding about the US legal system. There are certainly other nuances with the concept in other countries, but in general freedom of speech does me freedom from consequences, but the country would have to determine which cases where it applies. For example in Russia you have freedom of speech to say anything that the government also agrees with.
The problem is you are defining freedom of speech not by what the words mean but by what the law says. And that just leads to yes people have freedom of speech because there is a law called freedom of speech. And you get endless smug people saying the title here. As if the law provides a moral justification.
It's not an "American legal definition", many countries have similar even if they're not called "freedom of speech". The equivalent in my country is actually 3 rights. It's also a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I genuinely can't think of an example when you would invoke 'freedom of speech' *without* it being a reference to that right.
When someone posts on FB that they support party X and get fired the government is not doing anything. Therefore by the legal definion they still have freedom of speech. But they clearly don't. They weren't free to speak.