“I think that they thereby lose their entitlement to certain government benefits, …”

Why do you think that? There are plenty of tax-exempt organizations that engage in partisan politics. Obama’s church, the Trinity Baptist Church, is a recent example. After all, fair is fair.

I think you may want to consider carefully how your proposed policies would shake out, though, in practice. Protecting speech is, indeed, crucially important. One part of the first amendment is traditionally understood as the right to ‘freedom of association’, however.

That right to freedom of association is what the Boy Scouts rest on when defending their policy of excluding gays and atheists, for example – not only in membership but in employment. I think they do fully possess that right, and can decide who they want to allow in their organization. (I think that they thereby lose their entitlement to certain government benefits, but that’s their choice.)

How does the BSA’s policy match your model? Are they as wrong as Ms. Dixon’s boss?

Regarding muzzling of non-work related speech, you say “Since I stated, quite clearly, how I understood comment #17 right there in comment #18 … if I misapprehended it, the time to correct it was in comment #19.”

Am I, therefore, to blame for not correcting your misreading of me? Oh, well, let’s let that one go. I hope, at least, we can now agree what people say outside of work can only be censored to the degree it violates a clearly stated policy protecting an employer’s legitimate and well-defined interests; not what social policies and convictions we can publicly discuss outside of work. In Dixon’s case, that might include things like not mentioning particular students or coworkers by name, mischaracterizing individuals with whom she comes in contact at work, revealing as yet to be announced policies, or attacking her employer’s policies as immoral or unlawful. Dixon did none of these and nothing remotely like them. However, even if she had, some burden of proof and due process is, surely, in order.

There is a more recent article posted here (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/05/29/reading-as-racial-harassment/) discussing a similar case in which a worker is charged with racial harassment for the crime of reading a book dealing with the KKK in proximity to a co-worker who brought the harassment charge against him. Though it isn’t specifically stated, he would have to be a Purdue employee for Purdue to process the complaint. He has been threatened by Purdue’s Affirmative Action Officer with discharge because he has, so far, refused to comply with what he sees as a violation of his rights. He is also a student at Purdue and, thus, under a double threat.

Dixon is not an isolated case; it’s a growing and chilling trend. Speech is under broad attack; most notably by those historically passionate defenders of speech and learning – academia. The press, the most profound symbol and vehicle for speech, is also suppressing speech whenever it is deemed the ‘wrong kind’ of speech. These lemmings don’t just limit themselves to obvious political ‘enemies’ (i.e., conservatives), they have so far ‘lost it’ they are even attacking their own; as shown by both Dixon and Sampson. In fact, they seem to have a particular abhorrence of liberal non-conformists (the trick being which strain of liberalism you aren’t currently violating). Of course, those they attack are instantly re-classified as bigots, racists, and (invariably) ‘right-wing fascists’ and thrown off the liberal -reservation. Some residual ‘traditional value’ can always be found with which to make the charge stick and provide cover. In Dixon’s case, it was her religion, in Sampson’s his race. But, let’s not quibble; the gods of correctness have spoken so they must be guilty.

I will agree with you about “off-duty” activities, but only to the extent they are a) well-defined, b) cover information the employer has a right to protect, and c) do not violate a higher right or obligation of an employee to protect others or himself (e.g., if you know your boss is embezzling client funds, do you keep silent or blow the whistle?). Beyond that your employer has no right to prevent you from voicing your own legitimate concerns about where your country may be heading or what to do about it. Your boss’s opinion may differ from yours, but that gives him (it) no right to silence yours. That’s what Dixon’s boss did and why he was wrong.

You say you are libertarian; so do I. We are both, then, concerned with defending speech as all good libertarians are obliged to do. Where we differ has to do with where exactly our right comes into conflict with some other right or interest. Remember corporations only have interests, not rights. As a libertarian, I err on the side of individual-rights over the interests of corporations, institutions and, most especially, governments. If something must be made to give, lets not make it on the side of rights. If interests need protecting (and they do), then some better formula must be found than sacrificing liberty to them.

I’ve already said (in comment #10) – being libertarian-ish as I am – private employers do have a right to have whatever policies they like regarding at-work behavior. I’ll go further here, and state that (private) employer policies that affect off-duty behavior are (or should be) legal, though generally such policies are pretty stupid. Job performance should be all that employers care about, but that doesn’t mean that employers should be legally prevented from caring about other things. For example, I think Kieffe and Sons should be free to fire someone for being an atheist… and I think others should be free to express their contempt for such a decision.

Government employers are subject to greater restrictions, as I also said in comment #10.

Now that I’ve answered your question twice, once before you asked it, can you answer mine, Mr. Stapler?

You are being unfair to Mr. Stapler. I read his post #17 and he makes references to “the” muzzling, which was muzzling for comments made away from work.

What is it that made you to believe he was introducing an argument about on-the-job censoring?

Now, with respect to your post #18, I think it is appropriate to address the issue of pedophilia, particularly homosexual pedophilia, and even more particularly homosexual, aetheist pedophilia, as it relates to this discussion.

As for posing questions other than asked, you are as free to pose them as anyone here. Neither of us has a right of censorship over the other, and both of us are guests of IC. This is but another of your red-herrings because no one has even remotely suggested you haven’t a right to pose as many questions as you like. My complaint with you is that you never answer any of the perfectly reasonable questions asked of you, instead pounding away with tangential questions meant to alter the terms of discussion. Therefore, I feel justified in refusing to answer yours in the same measure and manner you refuse mine and everyone else’s. Nor have I any objection to exploring these ‘corollaries’ of yours, but let’s be honest that we are then discussing altered and not original cases. I have been open and honest answering your questions, but, until I get some reciprocity, will limit my answers. You are an interesting adversary and I enjoy crossing swords with you, but I am no fool to be played.

Besides, I thought that posing other questions was standard policy here – after all, I asked about the actual topic of the article over here</a and suddenly I was being asked about pedophilia.

(As to being threatened with job loss… it wasn’t that long ago: http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of_atheism_firing/ )

You are the one dodging bullets. I’ve answered most of your questions while you continue to evade mine (and everyone else’s) by asking new ones and pulling the topic in new directions. Dixon did not air her opinions at work, her ‘offense’ had nothing to do with atheism (besides, when was the last time you heard of anyone, private or public, threatened with job loss for being a loud-mouthed atheist?), and Gooding and K&SF are irrelevancies.

I wasn’t asking about Ms. Dixon – we agree on that. I was asking about Kieffe & Sons. “Would they have the right to fire someone for advocating atheism at work? At home?”