Berkeley Hot Dog Stand Fires Cook Seen At Charlottesville Protest

originally posted by: Willtell
The poor guy now he'll never ever get another job at a hotdog stand. His career is over.

Awe shucks....Maybe he should try burger king, they even sell hot dogs now.

I'm thinking the only job he's going to be able to get now is prostitution. Nobody is going to hire this wannabe racist loser and he clearly hasn't the brains to start his own business.

So life on the streets it will be for him. He will reap what he sowed.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Willtell
The poor guy now he'll never ever get another job at a hotdog stand. His career is over.

Awe shucks....Maybe he should try burger king, they even sell hot dogs now.

I'm thinking the only job he's going to be able to get now is prostitution. Nobody is going to hire this wannabe racist loser and he clearly hasn't the brains to start his own business.

So life on the streets it will be for him. He will reap what he sowed.

People don't have to know. Unless he's stupid enough to tell on a resume. If he's a Nazi he may be that stupid

People wont remember this

originally posted by: Willtell
People wont remember this

Pepperidge Farm will.

a reply to: Grambler

I can sing a copyrighted song in public, as long as I am not making money off of it. Would you really be for criminalizing that?

How is it weird? It's literally against the law already. Everyone except the copyright holder has to pay a licensing fee to do so. It's clause #5 in Section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code (which is over the exclusive rights of a copyright holder):

Exclusive rights of the copyright owner (section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code):

1. To reproduce the work

2. To prepare derivative works

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the work publicly

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly

6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

www.copyright.gov...

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Grambler

I can sing a copyrighted song in public, as long as I am not making money off of it. Would you really be for criminalizing that?

How is it weird? It's literally against the law already. Everyone except the copyright holder has to pay a licensing fee to do so. It's clause #5 in Section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code (which is over the exclusive rights of a copyright holder):

Exclusive rights of the copyright owner (section 106 , title 17, U.S. Code):

1. To reproduce the work

2. To prepare derivative works

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the work publicly

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly

6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

www.copyright.gov...

So I am walking down the road singing "MmmBop" and I have broken the law?

Karaoke is against the law?

Not buying it.

a reply to: Grambler

So you go by what you think is the law and I take the actual law into account. Got it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Grambler

So you go by what you think is the law and I take the actual law into account. Got it.

You actually think singing a tune walking down the street is illegal?

Wow!

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if--

 there is no direct or indirect admission charge;  or

codes.findlaw.com...

Go on, read the whole thing if you like. There are many exemptions.

I can't believe I had to post the law to prove to you you were wrong.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I believe the difference is whether or not the copyrighted material is being used for commercial purposes or not.

Walking down the street singing would not be considered to be for commercial purposes.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: xuenchen

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights.

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

But his contract said the employer could fire him for anything they wanted. That's one of the side effects of at will employment. The only political speech you can safely make, is that which your employer approves of.

a reply to: Grambler

The singing in public issue still isn't set because it was just settled last year in the Warner Brothers "Happy Birthday" case. But even then, that's only because the song was declared public domain & that Warner Bros didn't have the rights to the song, only to specific recordings of the song.

As for my original point before the tangent, there are still many legal restrictions on freedom of speech. You even said you agreed with restrictions when there is violence involved in this post (HERE):

But the answer is quite simple, as long as someone is not threatening violence, they should be allowed to speak.

Inciting a riot is already a legal limit to free speech, it clearly involves violence or the threat of violence, and both of those were involved in the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The guy in the OP who resigned was actively participating in the rally that incited the violence. So why should we defend his "freedom of speech" again?

a reply to: Kryties

You're probably right. So I should've said "a professional can't sing a song or display otherwise copywritten material in public without a license".

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Grambler

The singing in public issue still isn't set because it was just settled last year in the Warner Brothers "Happy Birthday" case. But even then, that's only because the song was declared public domain & that Warner Bros didn't have the rights to the song, only to specific recordings of the song.

As for my original point before the tangent, there are still many legal restrictions on freedom of speech. You even said you agreed with restrictions when there is violence involved in this post (HERE):

But the answer is quite simple, as long as someone is not threatening violence, they should be allowed to speak.

Inciting a riot is already a legal limit to free speech, it clearly involves violence or the threat of violence, and both of those were involved in the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The guy in the OP who resigned was actively participating in the rally that incited the violence. So why should we defend his "freedom of speech" again?

I will fully admit I didn't here all of what was being said at that rally.

I am in total agreement with you that if a speaker was inciting violence, it was not protected speech and he or she should have been arrested.

Do you have a link that shows what was said that was an incitement of violence?

(not that I don't believe you, I just haven't seen it.)

Top Dog sucks, it's the best thing to ever happen to him.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Top Dog sucks, it's the best thing to ever happen to him.

Except when he gets home he will be branded with the Nazi label that will follow him for the rest of his life.

Top dog is the least of that young mans problems.

Sweet. Now lets move on and expose all the secret radical muslims who posed with an Daesh flag next and get rid of them as well. Fair is fair. Wow this is so easy. Doxxing people i don't like is so much fun. Sorry to say this but some people are turning exactly into what they despise. Good luck when the tables are turned.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SprocketUK
It disgusts me that those who call themselves the left are happy to rekindle such a vile practice.

Lol "rekindle such a vile practice"? You make it sound like at will employment was going out the door until this employer just decided to invoke it to kick out a nazi and furthermore you appear to be blaming all of the left for this guy getting fired. You really need to slow your roll and go deny some ignorance.

No, Top Dog didn't invoke any legal rights to discriminate/retaliate against Cole White for attending the Charlottesville protest. They had no legal right even discussing his presence with him, and if they encouraged him to resign by threatening any retaliation -- if he didn't voluntarily resign -- then Cole White may have a valid civil lawsuit called a 'Tameny Claim.'

Contrary to what you, and most ATSers seem to believe, an employer cannot fire/retaliate against an employee for an illegal reason.

In California, employers do not have the right to fire an employee for attending a political protest on their own time:

Unlike many state and federal employees, most employees in America working for private employers do not have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity. (A public employer can, under certain circumstances, be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech.) Only a mere handful of states (California, New York, and Washington, DC) have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee's political activity or affiliation, while two more states (Colorado and North Dakota) prohibit discrimination on the basis of "lawful conduct outside of work."

workplacefairness.org

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What I believe? I'm not the one who fired him now am I?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What I believe? I'm not the one who fired him now am I?

Your comment indicated that you believed Top Dog invoked a right to fire-at-will. They didn't. What they did is illegal in California.

If you already knew and believed that, your comment didn't reflect it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What I believe? I'm not the one who fired him now am I?

Your comment indicated that you believed Top Dog invoked a right to fire-at-will. They didn't. What they did is illegal in California.

If you already knew and believed that, your comment didn't reflect it.

Yet they fired him anyways. I'm going to side with the employer on this one, and unless he actually faces legal consequences I'd be willing to bet things aren't as simple as you think they are with this firing and that is why it's ok. Have at it though. Reach out to this guy and be his internet lawyer since you like telling people what is legal and illegal so much.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They didn't fire him. During the course of the discussion about his presence at the protest, he resigned.

Your comment is ridiculous, btw. But I think you know that.