Franco Harris' Job "On Hold" In Light Of Scandal

[Rogah]

Maybe people should not be offended. He didn't defend pedophilia, he commented on Penn States reaction to Paterno. I wouldn't defend Paterno or Penn State, because it's not about that, he simply voiced his opinion on that issue and no one should be offended.

I won't agree with it no matter what the argument. People shouldn't be fired for voicing their opinion.

If you're saying Franco Harris shouldn't have been fired, you may have a point. I think what he said was stupid but not ridiculously offensive.

If you're saying no one should ever be fired for voicing their opinion, then that's silly. We hear of people in the public sphere getting fired all the time for making offensive remarks. If someone represents a corporation and they make an offensive statement, for example they say something racist, then that company has a right to part ways with that person.

 

[Rogah]

He has the right to an opinion. He can sue the Casino for firing him. Stating an opinion is not illegal. It's a protected right.

Having "the right" to do something means the government cannot forbid it. Franco Harris cannot go to jail or be fined for his statements.

However, it does not mean that you can just say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Harris has the right to say what he wants to. And the casino has the right to fire him for saying something controversial.

 

[burmafrd]

Its amazing how many people know so little about what free speech means.

And that there are limits to everything.

And that when you say something dumb you will usually have to pay for it; one way or another.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Having "the right" to do something means the government cannot forbid it. Franco Harris cannot go to jail or be fined for his statements.

However, it does not mean that you can just say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Harris has the right to say what he wants to. And the casino has the right to fire him for saying something controversial.

In 1967 the Courts laid a new premise down that stated that "The government ought not to be able to do indirectly what it cannot do directly." ie, the Court took the position that employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights.

Now, there was a problem with it. The Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

Apparently there are people here who know less than they think they do. (burmafrd) The government nor any "other institution" can indirectly compromise a persons right to freedom of speech. It's illegal.

The ONLY way for this to occur is if it was previously agreed too in a contract prior to employment. Even then, it can be fought.

This is what I was talking about when I said threaten legal action, but agree to a severance.

 

[casmith07]

In 1967 the Courts laid a new premise down that stated that "The government ought not to be able to do indirectly what it cannot do directly." ie, the Court took the position that employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights.

Now, there was a problem with it. The Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

Apparently there are people here who know less than they think they do. (burmafrd) The government nor any "other institution" can indirectly compromise a persons right to freedom of speech. It's illegal.

The ONLY way for this to occur is if it was previously agreed too in a contract prior to employment. Even then, it can be fought.

This is what I was talking about when I said threaten legal action, but agree to a severance.

Not that it isn't kind of my job, or anything, but I'm willing to bet there have been some court opinions after 1967 that might have said something a little differently

Also - what case are you talking about?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

For voicing your opinion on something in general would be fine. Franco seemed like in his comments that he was offended by the fact that anyone would hold Joe Pa responsible for his lack of action in kids being raped.


That is vastly different then saying "I don't like tea." or something of that nature.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Also - what case are you talking about?

Cases. Plural. ...and there have been several since 1968.

• Pickering v Board of Education (1968)
• Mt. Healthy v Doyle (1977)
• Branti v. Finkel (1980)
• Connick v. Myers (1983)
• Rankin v. McPherson (1987)
• Garcetti v Ceballos (2006)

 

[YosemiteSam]

For voicing your opinion on something in general would be fine. Franco seemed like in his comments that he was offended by the fact that anyone would hold Joe Pa responsible for his lack of action in kids being raped.


That is vastly different then saying "I don't like tea." or something of that nature.

You can make political statements, disagree with your bosses, etc and still be within your rights as an American citizen. See cases listed above. They cannot fire you, demote you, or deny a promotion if what you said was true and/or believed to be of public concern.

I think Harris is well within his rights. Whether any of us agree or disagree with what he said, is irrelevant.

This is America and we have the freedom of speech.

 

[JBond]

No it shouldn't. He voiced his opinion on the matter. Regardless of how any might feel about him or if they disagree with his opinion, no one should give assent to men being fired for voicing an opinion.

It's more offensive than anything he said in that comment.

Depends on the job.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Depends on the job.

Does it? If he flipped burgers at McDonalds he would have more rights than say a spokesmen for a casino?

 

[burmafrd]

You can make political statements, disagree with your bosses, etc and still be within your rights as an American citizen. See cases listed above. They cannot fire you, demote you, or deny a promotion if what you said was true and/or believed to be of public concern.

I think Harris is well within his rights. Whether any of us agree or disagree with what he said, is irrelevant.

This is America and we have the freedom of speech.

what you seem to willingly not want to see is that there are always consequences when you deal with controvertial situations. Over the last few years quite a number of people said something not very smart and got fired or penalized for that. And there was nothing done in court.

Bottom line is that companies have the right to fire people; and you do not seem to get that. All they have to say is that they believe that continued association with a certain person could be bad for business. And that is basically what was done in this situation.

 

[Rogah]

In 1967 the Courts laid a new premise down that stated that "The government ought not to be able to do indirectly what it cannot do directly." ie, the Court took the position that employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights.

Now, there was a problem with it. The Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

Apparently there are people here who know less than they think they do. (burmafrd) The government nor any "other institution" can indirectly compromise a persons right to freedom of speech. It's illegal.

The ONLY way for this to occur is if it was previously agreed too in a contract prior to employment. Even then, it can be fought.

This is what I was talking about when I said threaten legal action, but agree to a severance.

I don't have time to research or respond, but you're simply mistaken here. An employer has every right to fire an employee for making offensive statements. If you don't believe me then go into work tomorrow and start making racist and sexist statements to everyone you see. Then, after they fire you, see how well your freedom of speech lawsuit goes.

Franco Harris won't sue because he doesn't have a chance in heck of winning a darn thing. We've seen cases like this before. Aflac recently fired Gilbert Gottfried for making offensive remarks. They are well within their rights to have done that.

 

[burmafrd]

Child molestation. Sam think about that. You try and find ANY court that would penalize a company for wanting to distance themselves from ANYONE that in any way shape or form connects them to THAT.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If you don't believe me then go into work tomorrow and start making racist and sexist statements to everyone you see.

Read my post again. The second sentence from the bottom. Now, go read your application for employment.

I'm right.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Child molestation. Sam think about that. You try and find ANY court that would penalize a company for wanting to distance themselves from ANYONE that in any way shape or form connects them to THAT.

It's the law brum. Harris didn't molest a child. He only defended his coach who also didn't molest a child. It's not against the law to defend someone. If that was the case, there would be no lawyers.

 

[TheDude]

It's the law brum. Harris didn't molest a child. He only defended his coach who also didn't molest a child. It's not against the law to defend someone. If that was the case, there would be no lawyers.

If only :

 

[burmafrd]

It's the law brum. Harris didn't molest a child. He only defended his coach who also didn't molest a child. It's not against the law to defend someone. If that was the case, there would be no lawyers.

no its what you claim is the law and frankly you have shown no evidence otherwise. The cases you cited are really not applicable at all.

Free speech has always been something that any government is bound by; private enterprise is very different. You keep convienently forgetting all the very stupid things said by people and what happened to them afterwards.

Jimmy the Greek was fired right after he said something stupid. Nothing happened there.

There are many other cases of that that you like to ignore.

Joepa is involved in a child molestation case. Fact.
Franco Harris defended Joepa. Fact.

There has been HUGE amounts of VERY BAD pulblicity involving Joepa. FACT.

So why in the world are you saying that Franco getting fired for defending Joepa is legally wrong? You can spout all you want about court cases but fact is that nothing will happen here at all.

 

[Stautner]

[

I agree with VTA ..... there was nothing wrong with defending the football program of Penn State.

I agree. As someone said, he was not defending Sandusky or the crime, but the football program in general, and a man he had known and loved and respected for many years.

Apparently many who express righteous indignation in this thread find it very easy to HYPOTHETICALLY dismiss a person's admiration, respect and love for an individual that is developed over many years, but it's not hypotetical to Franco, it's real life, and I find no fault in Franco expressing his thoughts on Paterno.

I also think the casino is very short sighted because I don't for a second believe Franco's comments would reflect negatively on the casino or cause it to lose a dime's worth of business.

Completely incorrect.

A well thought out argument.

 

[Rogah]

Read my post again. The second sentence from the bottom. Now, go read your application for employment.

I'm right.

I think I understand the disconnect. We're talking about this casino, right? Your own quote specifically references public employees but I'm under the impression that the casino is a private entity.

 

[Stautner]

I don't have time to research or respond, but you're simply mistaken here. An employer has every right to fire an employee for making offensive statements. If you don't believe me then go into work tomorrow and start making racist and sexist statements to everyone you see. Then, after they fire you, see how well your freedom of speech lawsuit goes.

Franco Harris won't sue because he doesn't have a chance in heck of winning a darn thing. We've seen cases like this before. Aflac recently fired Gilbert Gottfried for making offensive remarks. They are well within their rights to have done that.

Poor analogy. You are talking about someone going to work and violating someones civil rights, and Franco did nothing like that.