Social Media: The Terminator of Employment
All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, not the publication’s.
Over the last year, the world that we have always known has changed inexplicably. From COVID-19 to Black Lives Matter, we’ve all had to become more politically aware citizens.
But, as these changes have developed, so have opinions. And being that we are a generation that is obsessed with social media and societal approval, these opinions are often shared on our beloved Instagram or Twitter or maybe even Facebook. What does this mean? Controversy. But should this potential anarchy online lead to a termination of one’s employment in the real world?
In June, a former deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives in Maryland was fired due to remarks that he made in a Maryland Facebook group. Arthur “Mac” Love IV, the man who wrote said remarks, explained that he sympathized with the Kenosha, Wisconsin shooting suspect who killed two people and injured another in the midst of a protest. After this very open and incredibly controversial display of his opinions on the matter, Love was fired from his position. Love argues that this decision was based almost entirely on the fact that Love is a Republican. In a press conference a few days after his firing, Love explained that, “It shouldn’t be a question of if you are a Republican you get fired and if you are a Democrat you keep a job.” This more partisan approach on the situation has left a lot of people thinking about the injustices that could be occurring in the workplace. Yet, the content that Love was sharing was largely deemed as offensive.
Another case arose back in July when a detective with the King County Sheriff’s Office in Seattle, Mike Brown posted an offensive meme on his Facebook page. The meme read “All Lives Splatter.” This came just hours after a car “drove into a demonstration on Interstate 5 in Seattle on Saturday, killing one protester and severely injuring another.” Brown, a police officer of forty years, was later suspended while an investigation took place. The family of the protestor that was killed, released a statement explaining that they felt Brown should be fired. A multitude of other people such as Brown’s cousin had the same opinion on the matter. This instance truly started a conversation and many individuals hope that this could invoke some change in the realm of first amendment rights.
There is an identifiable theme in both of the cases above: they are offensive to the majority of people. Though there is a small cohort that may believe that these remarks are completely reasonable, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t barbaric. If one’s life is being threatened or if an individual chooses to side with someone who is unequivocally evil for what they have done, this should be grounds for a termination of one’s employment.
Many on the opposing side of this argument would assert that what somebody posts on social media is entirely their decision. Heck, one might even argue that it is their right to privacy (under the constitution) to do so. That they should not be judged or fired for simply sharing their opinion. However, when an individual works for a company or organization they are representatives of that entity. It also important to specify that employees are NOT entitled to First Amendment “protections against retaliation by her employer unless her employer is the government.” Thus, in the cases of Love and Brown, there is grounds for arguing the first amendment since they are employees of the government. But in any other workplace, this use of first amendment rights as a defense would be entirely inapplicable.
What somebody posts on social media is reflective of the company that they work for. Legally, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide whether a certain “social media shabeel” is worthy of terminating someone’s employment at their company. Thus, whether somebody actually gets fired comes down to morals. Does the employer side with what is unequivocally cruel? Or what is the correct thing to do according to society? I believe that in every instance, the employer should side with the socially acceptable decision, because there is a reason that these fundamental values are in place. There is a distinct difference between right and wrong.
Siding with a shooter or somebody who has killed people is like siding with pure evil. A normal, sane person wouldn’t go out in public and preach about how they think Satan is good because it is a known fact that Satan, whether a real thing or not, is the epitome of evil. This is undeniably threatening because of the negative connotations that Satan has to almost every religion in history. Yet, it is considered “questionable” or “not justified,” when somebody who defends a cause or a person who has effectively said something that defends pure evil, gets fired. According to the ACLU, Free Speech is not protected in instances where such speech “intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person.” We’ve seen this principle used again and again throughout American history. With cases like Schenck vs US and Debs vs US, creating a precedent that states, “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful.”
Now although certain aspects of these precedents are no longer applicable, the very basis of what they stood for do. The idea that there are limitations to freedom of speech under law could not be more relevant today.
This principle is applicable in the case of Mike Brown because there was a potential threat involved in what he was saying. Instead of simply voicing his opinion about the Black Lives Matter protests, Brown insinuated that he would not mind if the protestors in favor of the cause were killed. This is entirely unacceptable. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Although rules such as the “clear and present danger test” no longer apply today, they were discussed for a reason. If free speech was a justifiable reason for every action in American society then a lot of people would potentially be in harm’s way. The same goes for Love: by defending an individual whose intentions were to hurt others, he was siding with hatred, the complete antithesis of American society, and entirely abusing the principles of free speech.
Therefore, an effective barrier has been built by insinuating that hurtful and insulting material could be grounds for a termination of one’s employment. Social media posts should be grounds for getting fired if what is being posted implies that harm may be inflicted on a certain group of people or if the content is in support of something that is prevailingly insulting. This goes for all Americans. Conservatives and Liberals. Black or White, Male or Female. Anyone who shares outright offensive content on social media must suffer the consequences.
At the end of the day, keeping people safe is more important than firing a few people. Unfortunately for those who choose to post such disgusting content on the internet, there may be consequences. But, there must be consequences for those who have opinions that are distressing to the general population.
