Is it justified to fire a public employee, regarding freedom of speech?

Public employees, who are taking their salaries from the government, are not entitled to exhibit anti-government positions.

In the US, my stance would be that as long as she was off the clock, it’s her business as long as she’s not breaking the law.

It being in Belgium, I don’t know what their rules on it are.

Yet another misunderstanding of “Freedom of Speech”. In the US, the right to free speech means nothing but the fact that the government cannot arrest or prosecute you for what you say. It does not mean no action can be taken against you of any kind. She was fired, for portraying her employer in a negative light. Every employer, public or private, has the right to do that. She was not arrested, prosecuted, nor convicted. Therefore, her right to free speech was not breached.

Again, that’s if this whole situation happened in the US. I have no idea what the laws are in Belgium.

Maybe I put too much emphasis on the question concerning the dismissal of a public servant. Though grateful for your answers, it’s not really what I was looking for. I know the law, and indeed, what you have told me about the US more or less accounts as well for Belgium.

So maybe I should’ve rather asked wether such a way of conveying your opinion is acceptable. Would you condone such behaviour? Would you take part in such actions, if the usage of GMO’s was at stake? Is that a way of having a debate?

@MrItty While I’m with you in the right to free speech being misunderstood quite often, expressing ones views on something such as this in a peaceful/legal manner, is not justification to fire someone. In the US she would have a very viable lawsuit against the government.

If you think it’s a matter of life and death, then it’s not a debate. You are seeking to create a symbolic event. In the US, back in the 70s and 80s people used to engage in civil disobedience all the time on any number of issues. One of those issues was nuclear power. People didn’t want nuclear power plants in their back yards because they didn’t want the plants to break and spill radioactive material all over, among other things.

So there would be these protests where people would go and deliberately break through the fences and lie down in front of the construction machinery to try to keep it from moving. In other cases, people would go and disable logging machinery that was being used to cut down old growth redwood trees. Some people would set up housekeeping in the tops of these trees which were on private property.

People against Nuclear power think it could harm them or destroy the world. People against clear cut deforestation think it contributes to global warming and will destroy the planet. People against GMO think that if the genes get out to the regular population, that the food we eat will mutate and be destroyed and we could lose our food supply.

These are life and death issues to these people, and I think if people are fighting for their lives, they will do anything to preserve themselves. For a political debate, this kind of protest may not be appropriate use of free speech. But for fighting for your life, it is no longer political. It’s a war, and all is fair in love and war.

The civil rights movement in the US and the anti-war movement and the anti-nuke movement and other movements for freedom all around the world, most recently the Arab spring, all use violence as a way to pursue preservation of life.

Do I condone this behavior? Depends on the issue. I’m not worried about GMOs, but I understand people feel it is a life and death issue. I do condone the behavior on nuclear and civil rights issues. Too few people understood the problems and by creating a big fuss that got a lot of news coverage, they were able to bring attention to the issue and eventually, to make significant change.

The tactic depends on people being sympathetic to the issue. If they are sypathetic, then the tactic will work. If not, the tactic will backfire. This is not about debate; it is about publicity. If you want to judge it as a debate tactic, then you will be against it. If you are sympathetic to the issue and you think it is very important, you will think these protesters are heroes. But it really has nothing to do with free speech, except insofar you can use free speech as protection for your behavior.

Is their firing justified? If their employer felt the person was abusing their position, misrepresenting the university, or in knowingly acting in a manner directly conflicting with the universities goals, yes. Simply voicing an opinion your employer doesn’t agree with in a manner that reflects solely on the individual, no.

My reaction to their behavior? I don’t particularly advocate violence or willfully destructive acts particularly under the guise of peaceful protest. However there are exceptions to every rule, though I’d have to understand the situation much better to consider their destructive actions as anything other than unacceptable.

Limits on public servants freedom of speech? So long as their not using their position to advocate their beliefs above that of those they serve, knowingly misrepresenting their office, or undermining the trust they have been granted they’re free to say whatever they please.

As what @tedd said “so long as they were not on the clock” (as in during employers’ time), afterall we (the public) do not continue being employees after work! People have concerns which may be in direct contrast to our employers, and after hrs we are OURSELVES, and free to BE!
if not, let the SOB’s pay me for 24 hr work day!

@tedd it depends on what state in the US. Most states are “at-will”, meaning either party can sever employment for any reason (other than violation of a protected class). They do not need “justification” to fire.

That wasn’t “violence,” just a sort of glorified shoving match, which often results when there’s a protest by large numbers of people. Unless she instigated the shoving match, she should not be fired for exercising her right to protest. And even if she was involved in the shoving, the university might still not be justified in firing her. A lot would depend on things like, how deeply was the involved in illegal or violent behavior, did her actions somehow reflect adversely on the university, etc.

I think the Monsanto’s of the world are exerting a little too much influence over free speech. They have succeeded in making “non-gmo” labeling illegal.