A little on contract law

[nadinbrzezinski]

For the record I called MSNBC, I emailed them, signed the petition... but...

Realize that the government cannot limit your rights to free speech, but a corporation can. Any contract you sign to work at any corporation read it. Make sure you understand the clauses. And yes they have the RIGHT to do that.

I know that people believe that the first amendment is absolute, and it is... as far as the government is concerned. But when you enter PRIVATE (read corporate ) Property, many of your rights disappear... like sand.

Been like that for as long as I remember.

In fact. you have a right to say what you want, but the owners of this website have the right to curtail your speech. Every time somebody is Tossed they exercise that right. And we applaud it, every time.

[flvegan]

1. This might get good.

:popcorn:

[RandomThoughts]

2. I am not part of any corporation, nor would ever be in part of a corporation for that reason.

You only lose rights if you give them up.

And I know that because I can say what I want, even when they are not the best comments, or comments in jest.

As far as a web site doing that, then I have the right to curtail their speech or ability to communicate.

[apocalypsehow]

7. No, you don't.

"As far as a web site doing that, then I have the right to curtail their speech or ability to communicate"

No, you don't: that's called a Denial of Service (DOS) attack, and it is illegal in many countries, including the United States.

The ridiculousness of that statement needs to be explored a bit: you no more have a right to "curtail" a website that has banned you "speech or ability to communicate" than you would have to stand in my living room and continue to exercise your "free speech" after I have asked you to leave. You are on private property, and I would be well within my rights to have you removed by the police if you refused to honor my request that you leave.

What you are implying, with this "curtail their speech or ability to communicate" business (implied DOS attack), is the equivalent of saying "if you won't let me rant in your living room without restraint, I'll try to burn your house down." It's an apt metaphor.

[RandomThoughts]

8. If you want to hear the argument for it.

You make the assumption that posting here, or not posting here would be able to remove the stated right to effects. You are speaking of different thing then I am.

Although within the context of law, the claim is made under public square rule of the ability for people to discuss relevant issues to society. Although the argument is not needed to be made under that context.

It does not imply a denial of service attack as you state it, it is not within the lexicon or context of tech.

As far as burning down houses, I avoid that, however rules applied back can have that effect. And since I believe in rules applied back, it makes complete sense, accept within the concept of ownership, a concept that can easily be challenged by imbalance in many sectors of society.

I said I had the right, but it would not be me that would do it. I have said before, having power to do something, and having right to do something is not the same thing. So I agree that a moderator or administrator could kick someone off a web site, that is an use of some control over keystrokes on some tech server, it is not an act of 'right' within an out of balance society.

[apocalypsehow]

10. There is no "argument" for it: it is as illegal to launch a DOS attack as it is to burn down houses.

Plain. Simple. Period.

"You make the assumption that posting here, or not posting here would be able to remove the stated right to effects"

Meaningless.

"It does not imply a denial of service attack as you state it,"

Yes, it did.

"it is not within the lexicon or context of tech"

Meaningless.

"As far as burning down houses, I avoid that, however rules applied back can have that effect"

False: you have no "right" to burn down a person's house who has asked you to leave said domicile, period. "Rules applied back" or no.

"And since I believe in rules applied back, it makes complete sense, accept within the concept of ownership, a concept that can easily be challenged by imbalance in many sectors of society."

Meaningless.

"I said I had the right, but it would not be me that would do it. I have said before, having power to do something, and having right to do something is not the same thing."

You do not have the "right": we've already been all through that.

So I agree that a moderator or administrator could kick someone off a web site, that is an use of some control over keystrokes on some tech server, it is not an act of 'right' within an out of balance society"

Meaningless.

[RandomThoughts]

14. I did not say anything about a DOS attack, you did.

And having the right to do something is not disputable if the argument can not be made against the points I made. You can discuss if something can be done, or how it would be done as a different topic, that is not the topic I am discussing.

I am saying that if it can be shown that ownership is out of balance to earned work, and can not be argued to be balanced, or that public good of information is more important then the profit of some individuals, or even worse if information is used for control by those individuals, then those individuals would not have the right to remove someone from a place of public discussion. Or if they did, then the same thing could be done to them.

I did not say I would burn down houses, you said that. Although I do agree that happens sometimes.



And what you do not understand, is not a rebuttal against a statement, especially one not talking about what is within powers to be done, but within the establishment of a right to do something. Before discussing powers to do something the right should be established, so any comment on doing anything is not part of the conversation, the intent is to establish the right to do something.


Let me make it easy for you. You are thinking within a system structure you have been told is the only structure. From that your ideas are repeating rules of that system, the only thing you know. I am stating if those rules are correct or not, and making an argument that they are not correct. I make that argument with easy to understand thought, the only thing missing, is the argument I make does not protect a small part of society against the rest of society, which is why you have not been allowed to think or hear about those ways of thinking.

[apocalypsehow]

16. That's precisely what you implied. *Ahem*:

"As far as a web site doing that, then I have the right to curtail their speech or ability to communicate"

There is only one way to "curtail" the "speech or ability" of a website to communicate: that is a DOS attack. Take your attempt at semantics games elsewhere, thank you.

"And having the right to do something is not disputable if the argument can not be made against the points I made. You can discuss if something can be done, or how it would be done as a different topic, that is not the topic I am discussing.

I am saying that if it can be shown that ownership is out of balance to earned work, and can not be argued to be balanced, or that public good of information is more important then the profit of some individuals, or even worse if information is used for control by those individuals, then those individuals would not have the right to remove someone from a place of public discussion"

:boring: - and meaningless. Again.

"I did not say I would burn down houses, you said that. Although I do agree that happens sometimes"

I explicitly stated it was a metaphor, of course, but here you are making it literal: "Although I do agree that happens sometimes"

And when it happens, it is just as illegal as the DOS attack you played cutesy with in your implications about "curtailing" a website's "ability to communicate" above.

"And what you do not understand, is not a rebuttal against a statement, especially one not talking about what is within powers to be done, but within the establishment of a right to do something. Before discussing powers to do something the right should be established, so any comment on doing anything is not part of the conversation, the intent is to establish the right to do something.


Let me make it easy for you. You are thinking within a system structure you have been told is the only structure. From that your ideas are repeating rules of that system, the only thing you know. I am stating if those rules are correct or not, and making an argument that they are not correct. I make that argument with easy to understand thought, the only thing missing, is the argument I make does not protect a small part of society against the rest of society, which is why you have not been allowed to think or hear about those ways of thinking"

:boring: - and meaningless. Again.

[JDPriestly]

11. The person posting on a website is not an employee.

The person on the website is posting something on the website of the owner of the website.

I could conceivably post something on DU that was fine with DU, but DU would not have the right to restrict what I post on another website.

MSNBC can restrict what Olbermann says while he is speaking for MSNBC, but I think that the First Amendment right to participate in the political process by donating to candidates is so fundamental that an employer should not be able to limit that right. I am unaware of any case law that has decided this specific issue.

Olbermann is not owned by MSNBC, and while not on the job should not be restricted in his First Amendment rights in politics by MSNBC.

A journalist even on the job, in my opinion, should not be scripted to that extent by his employer. If MSNBC and other cable and news companies are dictating what their newscaster say to this extent, no wonder our country is in such bad shape.

This makes me wonder whether the so-called newscasters on any of the TV stations state their true opinions. Are they just actors and actresses who read the scripts dictated by their employers? Do they live in fear of the day that that say something their employer doesn't like, perhaps express some opinion that doesn't voice the corporate stance on something? That's not news. That's advertisement. That's propaganda.

Is there any real free news left? Where is the Benjamin Franklin of our day? Where is the Tom Paine? Are there any heroes of journalism now that Bill Moyers is no longer on the air?

I was shocked at Rachel Maddow's claim today that permitting yourself to be bullied by your corporate employer with respect to your political donations and expressions of opinion was somehow a badge of honor -- a proof of journalistic professionalism.

I disagree with Rachel Maddow on this.

[apocalypsehow]

12. I was trying to address some of the assertions in Reply #2, not the OP.

Edited: in lieu of clarifying reply.

[JDPriestly]

15. I read down all of the responses.

Unfortunately, when I do that I cannot tell which post the poster is responding to. Sorry if I read your post out of context.

[apocalypsehow]

17. I thought that must have been the case, though I wasn't sure: I've edited my reply. Thanks for the

clarification.

[JDPriestly]

24. acopalypsehow, I often start my post with the name of the person

who posted the statement to which I am responding because otherwise no one knows which post I am reacting to.

[Suich]

3. Based on Juan Williams v. NPR,

that's what I thought.

I get the feeling that MSNBC reacted to the Politico story before FAUX got it.

Do you know if the NBC/MSNBC policy is that you have to "ask" your superior before a political donation or do you "tell" them?

TIA!

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The problem is that

according to a leak the NBC policy don't apply to MSNBC so it will get sticky...

But you need to ask permission... if you work at Mickey Ds you need to ask permission to go to the bathroom, so there.

Employees, even well paid, as in VERY WELL paid employees, are treated like children by American corporations. Some things have not changed in 500 years.

[Luminous Animal]

23. A McDonald's employee does not have to aske permission to pee outside of work.

[stopbush]

4. No contract is absolute. Clauses may be argued in court and are all the time.

If a contract contains a clause that calls on one to act illegally, it isn't valid, for instance.

In the case of Olbermann's contract, we aren't sure of the specific wording. We're assuming it's the same as that which people have been posting for an NBC source. If that is the wording in KO's contract, the there is plenty of wiggle room in there for KO to claim the clause didn't apply to him because he doesn't pretend to be an objective journo, as do people like David Gregory, and NBC's clause is predicated on maintaining the appearance of being an objective, unbiased journalist. How can such a clause possible apply to a person like KOs whose entire raison d'être at MSNBC is to be an opinionated advocate for the liberal viewpoint? That would be like requiring the house cleaning crew at a hospital to abide by the Hippocratic Oath.

It comes down to a judge deciding what the reasonable interpretation of the wording means, what KO's job was, and what KO/NBC's expectations for KO's job at MSNBC was, and that could go either way in this case.

I've signed employment contracts before, and there are always clauses that are presented as "standard clauses." Often, these clauses are mutually beneficial. Other times, they're not.

A standard mortgage is a contract between a homeowner and a financial institution. Were every clause in every mortgage considered to be unchangeable and air tight - and air tight only from the perspective of the lender, then we'd have nothing but foreclosures going on in this country right now. The fact is that clauses in mortgage contracts are both being challenged and being used to excuse homeowners from the obligations they made toward lenders.

In this case, MSNBC will stake out their claim that they have a policy, or KO's contract says this or that. That's simply a starting point for negotiations and/or a legal decision, not the end.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Of course and I have not seen the SPECIFIC

contract.

Now if he takes it to court and he might have a case, he can kiss any work in media good bye. Another way to enforce things. For the record it would be good if he can win and set precedent.

[JDPriestly]

13. Do you think that an employer can require you to sign a contract

giving up your right to practice your religion? How about giving up your right to marry someone of a different race?

Why then should an employer be allowed to require you to give up your right to participate in the political system by giving a donation to a candidate?

Can your employer require you to sign a document stating you will never have an abortion?

How about an employer who requires the employees to sign a contract stating that they will not own a gun?

How about an employer who requires the employees to sign a contract stating that the employee will not prosecute any lawsuit against anyone in a civil court while employed?

How about an employer who requires the employee to sign a contract stating that the employee will never refuse to testify against himself if accused of a criminal act?

How about an employer who requires the employee to sign a contract stating that the employee will never testify in court against the employer for any reason?

Employment contracts cannot require people to give up certain very basic rights unless there is a compelling cause for requiring it.

Thus, government employees' rights to participate in the political process are curtailed to some extent by law. But that is because at one point in history, too many government jobs were awarded for political favors. The law was passed to limit the political corruption in ordinary government jobs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Some employers have tried shit like that

why you need to read it... negotiate it, and if you don't like it, don't take the job.

But the way things are these days workers have almost no rights anymore when working for a corporation. And this is one of the many things that workers should start organizing about... oh wait that means unions and strikes... and all that. That is like unamerican.

Which is the reason Union Workers in general have better work conditions than their counterparts in non-union shops.

As much as I hate my hubby's union... ineffectual as hell, yesterday he was sick, he had to come home. He took sick time... in a non union shop he might have come home and not have a job come Monday.

Hell when I was working at food service at college we HAD to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.

Is it me or people do not realize that as much as the military sucks and has a lot of stoopid rules, they still treat their troops like adults, but corporations do not?

[JDPriestly]

9. True, generally your employer can make you give up certain

of your rights by contract. But, for example, you cannot be forced to give up your right to sue for discrimination by contract. You also cannot be forced to give up your right to remain silent if you become a defendant in a lawsuit -- even if your employer is also a defendant. Your employer cannot force you via a contract to give up your right to practice your religion.

That's because some rights are so fundamental that your employer cannot force you to give them up.

I would argue that the First Amendment right to give political donations is one of those peculiar rights that a person cannot be forced to relinquish through an employment contract except for a compelling reason.

So, the argument boils down to whether just being a newscaster is a compelling enough ground to justify allowing a corporation to require an employee to give up or to get permission to exercise a fundamental First Amendment right? I don't think it is.

As I understand Scarborough is not considered a newscaster but is considered an opinion show and he was given permission to donate to a Republican.

That makes no sense.

Further, it is true that employees can be subject to confidentiality clauses and that our law does not thus far insure employees of the government the right to speak openly about certain political things depending on their employment status, but those are exceptions because there are compelling reasons for those limitations on speech.

Of all employees, newscasters should be the most free to express themselves with regard to current events and politics. That's their job. That's their area of expertise.

The Constitution only limits the government, but private employers do not have the right to limit certain basic rights. For example, an employer probably could not refuse to hire someone because that person is in an interracial marriage.

Certain religious employers may be able to discriminate in employment based on religious beliefs, but that again is for a very specific reason. The employer can limit the speech of employees on the job, but to limit the right of a person to participate in the political system or to require that the person obtain the permission of the employer to do so would make a mocker of what is left of our democracy.

I disagree with the OP.

[Liberty Belle]

18. What if the Reps in Congress conspired with MSNBC to get him fired?

A judge could rule that the network acted as an extension of the government to illegally deprive him of his rights. Similar cases have been won, for example, on private college campuses and in homeowner associations if the groups collaborated with goverment officials to squelch someone's rights.

Also employment law surely requires fair and equal enforcement of contract terms. Olbermann could argue that Scarborough and others should be fired, too, if he is let go.

[apocalypsehow]

19. LOL...simply beyond satire. Good grief. n/t.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. This is funny at many levels

for MSNBC it is a bidness decision and disciplining one of the children. That is the way they see employees.

It is a bad decision, but that's what it is.

As to Scarborough, he apparently asked for permission before he gave, which is the requirement So if Keith did not but Scar did... Scar did not violate the inane terms of the contract now did he?

[Xicano]

20. So you are saying it would be legal for an employer to, say, not allow the eating of pizza or...

cheese burgers, even when off duty so long as it was listed in a contract?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Yes, and until this is tested

in the court, yes they can do that. They do that regularly. You missed all the drug testing?

[KharmaTrain]

21. It's Their Ballpark...

I've had my encounters with contracts...had one breeched and spent the better part of a year suing, winning and going through hell. Even though I was right...and won my case...the ordeal was one I wouldn't wish on anyone.

In most of these "performance" contracts, they are paid handsomely in return the employer will stipulate conditions to get the money, the security and the national stature (consider that in the "goodwill" catagory). When you sign, you have signed away basic rights...but that's why one should have their own attorney to read through the fine print and negotiate any sticky points. In the end, it's the employer...the corporate...who holds the cards. You have signed and now serve at their pleasure. Pretty simple...and one that people who've never encountered this world are having troubles getting their head around.

I've been using a sports analogy here. Olbermann is like a franchise player. He's one of the most visible faces of the network and thus any thing that goes bad with him will reflect badly on the network. To the corporates, their brand name or "standards" must be followed, just like an athelete isn't allowed to trash the caterer or appear in a commercial without team permission or even do simple speaking gigs. It all has to be cleared.

Yes there's a lot of hypocrisy here, but that more the symptom of the industry than breach of contract and a topic for another time. Understandable that emotions are running raw...this has been a looooooooooooong week.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Why I kept it simple

and used an example people here are familiar with... pizza delivery to trolls.

[Joe Fields]

22. So true. It was about keeping Olbermanns ego in check.

[bemildred]

25. Yes, and we can raise as much Hell as we like about it too. For as long as we want. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I have, that does not mean

I don't understand what is going on.

I know that if Keith decides to go to court with this, hoping to get a precedent for workers, he will never again work in media as well That is just the way it is.

[Gin]

31. looking at it from another angle...when god closes a door he/she

opens a window..he will be on to his next adventure!

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I am sure

and I wish him well

[bemildred]

33. True, I suppose. I can't really imagine him doing that,

I am used to being an "at will" employee, so I have never relied on contractual law to maintain my employment in the first place, but maybe it's different when you are a popular talking head. I did at one time work union, a good thing that, but I always assumed even so that if my employer wanted to get rid of me, it would be in my interests to move on eventually.