Traditionally when thinking about the Freedom of Speech, we
usually think about the verbal expression that is protected under the First
Amendment. But as explained in our textbook, nonverbal expression is just as important
as we analyze the specific protections provided by the First Amendment. Specifically,
in this chapter, non-verbal manners of communication such as symbolic
expression and conduct. Symbolic expression is the passive display of a symbol
that can be qualified as speech under certain criteria (Tedford & Herbeck,
306). What is quite interesting however, is how the interpretation of symbolic expression
has changed over the years. Initially to be considered as speech, there must be
some likelihood that the audience will understand the message conveyed. But as
this distinction became more difficult in protected speech cases the interpretation
became more open, as seen in Hurley vs.
Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. This shift to an interpretative
perspective made it increasingly hard to restrict symbolic expression based on
the intent of the action.
Which brings me to the case of a woman that was fired after being
photographed flicking off Donald Trump’s motorcade. After being fired from her
company, Akima LLC, she is now contacting the American Civil Liberties Union
about the situation. In the framework of considering her middle finger as a
form of symbolic political expression, her action would be protected under the
First Amendment. To her company however, her act towards to the President was
considered “obscene” and “lewd”, which could be considered unprotected. It all
lays in the intent and interpretation. The First Amendment allows us to criticize
our government, including our government officials. What makes this situation
complex is the fact that she was released because of her social media posts of
the picture, which did not identify her or her workplace. This brings up the
question of what is a public or private forum in the new age of the internet. As a government contract organization, they should have an obligation to comply with the constitution. Under this premise, I
would say then that her workplace is infringing on her freedom of speech, specifically political expression by a restrictive code of
conduct, which led to her being fired.
Sources:
Tedford,
Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of speech in the United States. 8th
ed., State College, PA, Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Bendery,
Jennifer. “Woman Fired For Flipping Off Trump's Motorcade.” The Huffington
Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 6 Nov. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woman-flips-off-donald-trump-fired_us_59fe0ab4e4b0c9652fffa484.-
Dvorak,
Petula. “Perspective | She flipped off President Trump - and got fired from her
government contracting job.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Nov. 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/local/she-flipped-off-president-trump--and-got-fired-from-her-government-contracting-job/2017/11/06/4cf1af9a-c2da-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.a0c36bb3b973.
I remember seeing this article show up in my news feed on Monday, but I was only able to skim through it. Now that I have read the article in its entirety, I find there are many small details within the story that greatly complicate the issue. First, there is the matter of Juli Briskman being an employee of a government contractor at the time of the incident. Although she wasn’t on the job when she flicked off President Trump’s motorcade or wearing anything that identified her as an Akima LLC employee, she was still an employee of Akima, and hence her actions could place the company in a negative light. This scenario is only worsened when we consider the fact that Akima LLC is a government contractor. This means that Akima does business with the government—in other words, the federal government is a major customer, and when it comes to business, a company always wants to keep its customers happy. Though outsiders such as ourselves see this incident as a woman expressing her political views by flipping off the President of the United States, the executives of Akima might see this action as flipping off not the President of the United States, but rather as flipping off the president of a company that they do major business with.
ReplyDeleteI for one wouldn’t want to keep on an employee that publicly insulted a major business partner, so I can somewhat understand why Akima chose to fire Briskman. However, we can’t ignore the fact that Briskman was expressing her own personal political views when she flipped off Trump’s motorcade, not those of her employer. As stated in the Huffington Post article, “…she wasn’t on the job when the incident happened and…her social media pages [didn’t] mention her employer.” (Bendery). Many people probably deduced that Briskman was merely exercising her rights to free political speech as an individual and not making a statement for her employer. For this reason, I doubt that many people would associate Briskman’s actions with her employer. If anything, I bet that Akima LLC is getting more bad press for firing her than they would have if they had done nothing. At the end of the day though, it is the company’s choice how they will respond to the incident, and if their standards don’t tolerate this behavior, then it is within their power to fire Briskman.
This is what I would say, except that Akima LLC doesn’t appear to remain consistent in enforcing their standards. According to the Huffington Post article, one of Briskman’s “…male colleague[s] kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo…[he] was allowed to delete the post and keep his job.” (Bendery). To me, this detail shows that the corporate officers at Akima are biased in their rulings of what they consider to be “obscene” and what warrants dismissal. As stated earlier, I believe that Akima had a somewhat valid reason for wanting to terminate Briskman’s employment. With consideration of this detail though, I find that I no longer sympathize with the government contractor. My belief is that if a company is going to set strict standards, then there are two conditions they must fulfill. First, the company must clearly and effectively lay out their policies for all employees. Second, the company must remain consistent in how they approach instances where an employee broke a policy. If the code of conduct stipulates that there are no second chances, then no one gets a second chance—regardless of their station/position within the company. Since Akima LLC gave one of its employees a second chance, I think it is only fair that Juli Briskman should have gotten one as well.
Sources:
Bendery, Jennifer. “Woman Fired For Flipping Off Donald Trump’s Motorcade.” The Huffington Post, 6 Nov 2017, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woman-flips-off-donald-trump-fired_us_59fe0ab4e4b0c9652fffa484.- Accessed 8 Nov. 2017.