Losing your freedom of speech at work?

Now it seems that you can not even talk or criticize your government during working ours at least if you work in a government base that much I know.

My husband was informed that CID will be monitoring conversations among civilian workers and they are encouraging civilian workers to notify of any co-workers of any references to Islamic terrorist organizations, criticism of government anti-terrorist policies or just if somebody’s conversation makes them uncomfortable.

My husband is not sure as how bad the situation is because this happen Friday but he will find out if is true or not next week.

The rumor of CID activities has always been circulation around about their monitoring but is expected in a military base, but specifics about what is monitoring has always been a speculation.

Does anybody have anymore information on this attack to freedom of speech?

BTW the CID is U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command

www.lewis.army.mil...

American's are losing their freedom of speech everywhere.. Military personel are not typical American Citizens by law.. they arent governed under the Constitution but the U.C.M.J. Or the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.. Which pretty much means the Government OWNS them..

U.C.M.J

But, private Citizens do fall under the constitution.. and SHOULD be able to speak freely under the 1st amendment about what they feel.. I'm sure the Fed could come up with an excuse that it has something to do with National Security or what not, but basically they are trying to stop the criticism and stop people spreading the WORD about how bad this is really getting...

If you work on a military base, you fall under military rules. As a civilian or not. That's like saying you can work for Lockheed as a sales rep, but you can keep telling people you are talking to that Boeing makes better planes. Military bases, military rules. The military is allowed to monitor any conversation they want to, because they deal with classified information.

I can understand and appreciate that... But.. if I'm working on a military base and I get into a conversation with a co-worker about how much I disagree with Bush and his antics, I dont believe that should be against my rights.. or I dont think I should be punished for having an opinion.... Leaking Classified info.. sure... personal opinions.. No

Except that as of now there's no proof that this is more than a rumor. Was he told directly by CID, or was it someone that heard something. And how do we know that he'll get in trouble if he says how ugly Bush is, or that they won't just keep an eye on him and see what else he says. Not saying marg is lying or he is lying, but I've seen too many situations where everyone was saying that something like this was happening, and it turned out it was someone that heard something from someone and they weren't even close to the truth.

Zaphod.. good point... Unfortunately I cant answer that.. That's up to Marg.. if she's willing to answer...

Actually is a lot of monitoring and that is expected, but my husband has noticed that the conversations people used to have freely about the government and world issues has become hush and even non-existant compare to few months ago.

He said that as soon somebody mention Bush people change conversations.

As now the specifics of what is been monitored has always been just speculation, but when rumors go around of what is now been tracked is something that is raising eyebrows.

And people are believing the rumors as to change their conversations.

Now my point is . . . what kind of country has we become that you may feel intimidated if you speek or are afraid of losing your job for speaking.

This is something to worry about rumors or not, just having people changing their demeanor is enough for concern.

This is a case of the rumor mill getting out of control. I can see why people are concerned though, being on a military base. There has always been the rumor that the military can't criticise the gov't or they'll be courtmartialled. That simply isn't true. People on a military base can talk about the same things that people NOT on a military base can talk about, they just have to live with more monitoring and security mostly. I won't speculate on how this got started, but I'm willing to bet that it's NOT because CID is monitoring conversations and writing names down of people that criticise Bush. CID has enough to deal with already, and they don't have the manpower to monitor all the civilian workers to hear who things Bush is ugly.

It has been upheld by the Supreme Court that an employer has the right to limit an employee's freedom of speech on company time or property. The Federal Government in this case is just another employer. Marg, your husband agreed to certain rules and policies when he accepted his security clearance. This may include monitoring and certain restrictions on his rights. If it is that big of an issue, he is perfectly free to quit working with classified information at any time.

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

the supreme court can spew all the garbage
they feel like
THE PEOPLE ULTIMATELY ARE RESPONSIBLE
AND should be the JUDGE of this , NOT some
lawyer with an agenda.

it IS SUPPOSED to be
a government ,
" OF THE PEOPLE ,by THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE "

funny, I don't see LAWYER , ANYWHERE in there , do you ?



the supreme court has usurped the power
of the people.
and the people have kowtowed
to illegal judgements by usurpers !


big trouble, dead ahead...

Zaphod58 my husband is a retire marine, he knows very well what the duties of loyalty to ones government employer is all about, he has always abided by them during his military time and now as a civilian.

You are right is a thin line when it comes to the rights of active duty military personnel, but that was no excused for soldiers to stay away from private conversations and voice their disappointments.

Now the problem is as to what extent the rumors will turn into intimidation.

Let’s make something clear US government is running off military personnel to run the bases and the privatization of military bases has been in high gear since the Iraq war.

I guess loyalties to once employer that happens to be the US government are enforced.

But as a civilian you just do not lose your constitutional rights if you work in a base, only certain rules that you have to abide by it and nowhere it says that you can not be critical of the government.

Does anybody have anything to the contrary

Thanks toasted for that nice reminder.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by marg6043]

You have the right to freedom of speech, but you DON'T have the right to say things against your employer to others. I can say this better in an example.

Let's say that I'm a salesperson for Lockheed. I can't go up to Jimc, and say "Hey, we start rolling the 7481 off the production lines in 6 months. It looks like it would be good for your airline, but the new Boeing 737 would fit in with you guys better, so you should buy it." I also can't go up and start talking to him about how stupid my boss is, and how he's running the company into the ground, and I'm miserable at work. I can talk to him about anything else, but if it got back to my boss that I was talking about another companies product being better than ours, or that my boss was doing things that hurt the company, then I'd lose my job.

Remeber the US government is not a private entity at least that is what we believe.

Is a government of the people and by the people as a member before me has said.

You are right if you work for Lockheed a private company you should not critize the company, but is nothing that said that you can not talk about your government.

I understand your example but it doesn't apply when we are talking about government.

Now you see my point right?

It doesn't matter if they're private or not. They're still his employer in this case. If it was me talking to you on ATS then fine, we can say what we want to about them. If we were both employed by them working on a military base, they're STILL OUR EMPLOYER and we can't sit here saying how dumb they are. In the case of your husband it's not the gov't, it's his employer.

[edit on 9/3/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You have the right to freedom of speech, but you DON'T have the right to say things against your employer to others.

Your arguement is based on the false premise that elected officials are employers. An individual in the military, just like the president, is an employee of the american people and damn well DOES have the right to be critical of government policy & elected officials.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by df1]

When the gov't starts to pay your salary, they become your employer. They pay your salary, and your COLA and everything else. Your argument would mean that if Lockheed paid my salary I wouldn't be employed by them. How is it that if I'm a civil servant I'm NOT employed by the gov't?

And we're not talking about military members. We're talking about civil service.

[edit on 9/3/2006 by Zaphod58]

I'm detecting an interesting new theme in the postings on ATS, one that cuts across a lot of threads.

There are people who are going to be happy living under a totalitarian regime because the rigid adherence to rules makes them feel safe: and there are going to be those who are extremely unhappy because they realise their freedoms are being taken away.

Marg,

I dont know of anyplace (workplace) that you can actually talk politics today. its as if the subject of politics is taboo and should only be whispered among close friends.

That speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
When the gov't starts to pay your salary, they become your employer.

Why do you think this amounts to a hill of beans in terms of the first amendment?

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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

The first amendment doesnt say anything about an individuals employment status. None the less, tax dollars that belong to the american people pay those salaries. Not only is your position patently unconstitutional, it is morally corrupt & elitist. You want to silence the employee's voice in governmental affairs, so only the voice of the employer will be heard.

Congress has no legislative authority other the amendment process to change the constitution. Are you actually suggesting the repeal of the first amendment?
.

Except that the SUPREME COURT which decides if it's constitutional has said that an employer has the right to limit freedom of speech during company time. In this case, whether you say it is or not, the gov't IS the employer and they have the right to limit your freedom of speech just like any other employer.

Most employees believe they have absolute freedom of speech at work. They don't. The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says, "Government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech ...". As a result, government employees like firefighters have the most freedom of speech in the workplace. For example, when Ronald Reagan was shot, an employee of a Texas sheriff's department said, "If they go for him again, I hope they get him." She was fired, but the U.S. Supreme Court held that was unconstitutional because she was speaking on a matter of public concern.

The First Amendment does not apply to employees in the private sector. Employees do not even have the right to discuss non-work related issues at all. Most employers allow it, but it's important to realize that it is a privilege that the employer can revoke at any time. After all, the purpose of the workers is to work.

If management allows discussion in the workplace, in most states employees are protected against discrimination, harassment or termination as a result of the content of their political views. They are protected by general privacy laws, specific political speech statutes, or the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in lawful activities.

If managers allow political discussion in the workplace, they should ensure that employees are respectful and tolerant of each other. If these discussions disrupt the office, undermine a manager's authority, or impair working relationships, they should be stopped.

courses.cs.vt.edu...

[edit on 9/4/2006 by Zaphod58]