I believe we all (myself included) tend to miss
the absurdity of this whole thing, as embroiled
as we are in the spam-wars aspect...
How absurd is it that someone, having been in
essence shown a sign reading 'No Solicitation'
or more to the point 'No Viagra Salesmen' on
our front doors (SPAM filters) would, none the
less and without knocking, show up at dinner time
and without knocking, barge into our homes and
try to tell us 'I'm not a Viagra salesman, I'm
here to sell you Vayahghrua.' ?
On what planet and in whose mind does it seem
that we're going to say... 'Oh, never mind. As
it turns out I really *do* want what you're
selling, here's my credit-card number!' ?
What I'm saying, I guess is 'SPAMmers, what's
really the point? To prove that you can get into
our mailboxes regardless? If you're really
selling something, why would you want to spend
money sending to people who've told you 'no,
no, a thousand times no!' already'?
Geez!
Let us then test this supposed 'Free Speech' issue.
You said 'when a corporation indirectly
discourages people making public their
scientific opinion'
So, then, all scientists are should be free to
say anything they want, regardless of their
employers wishes or policies?
What about 'trade secrets?'
What about information that would harm the
corporation, but which doesn't reflect anything
that would put life or health at risk, or hide
a violation of law? Do I have a right to 'go public' with that without risking being fired?
What about something that is more inflammatory
than factual (such as Microsoft's position
making it responsible for internet security
vulnerabilities which, though it may be true
is as much a matter of opinion as of established
fact)?
This 'pure science' stuff is just so much pap
and pablum. It reflects a schoolboy understanding
of human rights which can do little more than
jump up and down and shout 'Free Speech! Free
Speech!' while failing to understand that an
employee owes a large measure of loyalty and
subordination to his employer, whether he likes
it or not.
Is Mr. Geer really a 'scientist' in this
context, or is he a pundit? Wouldn't a better
'reasonableness test' be to compare him to a
political analyst working for a consulting firm
in the employ of the Republican National
Committee. If he released a report publicly
criticizing the Bush Administration's policies
in Iraq, one that damaged the RNC's chances of
keeping the White House, might not he be subject
to dismissal from his job? No, he could not be
prosecuted by the government (though if he
released it under color of the RNC, civil
liability might be an issue because he gave
them a product they didn't want).
Let us carry this even further, to the civil
matter of 'wrongful termination.' It will be
necessary to show harm to prevail with damages.
If our hero was hired by the Democrats as a
result of his report, he won't have much of a
case.
Now back to our Mr. Geer. He has as much as
said that people are beating down his door with
opportunities. Obviously, he hasn't been harmed
much. Indeed his noteriety may leave him better
off than if he hadn't been fired.
Let's get it right. This is not a 'free
speech' issue. It is an corporate and
scientific honesty issue.
In fact, it was the employer excercising their
rights to fire an employee for making statements
they didn't like, and it affirms, rather than
denies the Bill of Rights.
You may not like that, but that's the way it
is. The First Amendment restricts government,
not employers.
Therefore, Gere's employers were within their
Constitutional rights to let him go for not
toeing the company line.
In doing so, they discredit themselves and the
rest of us can exercise OUR rights to take
anything they say with a grain of salt, realizing
as we do that they're in a certain corporation's
pocket.
You can wave the Constitution in the face of
private industry all you like...but it doesn't
apply, and it just gets tiresome.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe we all (myself included) tend to miss the absurdity of this whole thing, as embroiled as we are in the spam-wars aspect... How absurd is it that someone, having been in essence shown a sign reading 'No Solicitation' or more to the point 'No Viagra Salesmen' on our front doors (SPAM filters) would, none the less and without knocking, show up at dinner time and without knocking, barge into our homes and try to tell us 'I'm not a Viagra salesman, I'm here to sell you Vayahghrua.' ? On what planet and in whose mind does it seem that we're going to say... 'Oh, never mind. As it turns out I really *do* want what you're selling, here's my credit-card number!' ? What I'm saying, I guess is 'SPAMmers, what's really the point? To prove that you can get into our mailboxes regardless? If you're really selling something, why would you want to spend money sending to people who've told you 'no, no, a thousand times no!' already'? Geez!
You said 'when a corporation indirectly discourages people making public their scientific opinion'
So, then, all scientists are should be free to say anything they want, regardless of their employers wishes or policies?
What about 'trade secrets?'
What about information that would harm the corporation, but which doesn't reflect anything that would put life or health at risk, or hide a violation of law? Do I have a right to 'go public' with that without risking being fired?
What about something that is more inflammatory than factual (such as Microsoft's position making it responsible for internet security vulnerabilities which, though it may be true is as much a matter of opinion as of established fact)?
This 'pure science' stuff is just so much pap and pablum. It reflects a schoolboy understanding of human rights which can do little more than jump up and down and shout 'Free Speech! Free Speech!' while failing to understand that an employee owes a large measure of loyalty and subordination to his employer, whether he likes it or not.
Is Mr. Geer really a 'scientist' in this context, or is he a pundit? Wouldn't a better 'reasonableness test' be to compare him to a political analyst working for a consulting firm in the employ of the Republican National Committee. If he released a report publicly criticizing the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, one that damaged the RNC's chances of keeping the White House, might not he be subject to dismissal from his job? No, he could not be prosecuted by the government (though if he released it under color of the RNC, civil liability might be an issue because he gave them a product they didn't want).
Let us carry this even further, to the civil matter of 'wrongful termination.' It will be necessary to show harm to prevail with damages. If our hero was hired by the Democrats as a result of his report, he won't have much of a case.
Now back to our Mr. Geer. He has as much as said that people are beating down his door with opportunities. Obviously, he hasn't been harmed much. Indeed his noteriety may leave him better off than if he hadn't been fired.
Next case.
Let's get it right. This is not a 'free speech' issue. It is an corporate and scientific honesty issue. In fact, it was the employer excercising their rights to fire an employee for making statements they didn't like, and it affirms, rather than denies the Bill of Rights. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. The First Amendment restricts government, not employers. Therefore, Gere's employers were within their Constitutional rights to let him go for not toeing the company line. In doing so, they discredit themselves and the rest of us can exercise OUR rights to take anything they say with a grain of salt, realizing as we do that they're in a certain corporation's pocket. You can wave the Constitution in the face of private industry all you like...but it doesn't apply, and it just gets tiresome.