While the first amendment promotes freedom of speech by the government, employers have a different say on that. In August 2017, Google fired a Software engineer James Damore for writing a memo that argues that biological differences classify women as a less capable gender in tech and in leadership roles. Google claimed that the memo violated the essence of its Code of Conduct that requires "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.". While James message will not get him in jail but certainly resulted in losing his job as it contradicts the beliefs and standards of Google. Sundar Pichai said that Damore was terminated because he opposed the essence of Google’s Code of Conduct. Therefore, Employees are allowed to express their voice and share opinions but they should expect their employer to have a say/act about it.
Richard Ceballos works in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Recently, he claimed that a sheriff provided false statements in the search warrant affidavit. The attorneys that lead the case agreed with him, however the D.A office refused to not take action to what Ceballos raised. Ceballos thought his statement towards the sheriff was protected by the right of freedom of speech. The district attorney concluded that Ceballos was unprotected by the amendment because it was related to his workplace and during the time he was there. Nowadays we have come to know that the amendment does not specify our actions as Americans ,but rather gets us to a point that allows us to interpret and decide flexibly. In terms of employees and their freedom of speech, they represent businesses and governments during their work hours, therefore their actions and expressions reflect directly on their employer. While they are still protected as citizens by the first amendment that does not guarantee them their jobs as workers. Employees have the right to criticise and downgrade their work environment at home, once they have removed their suits and untied their shoes and are representatives of themselves and only themselves.
The Hollywood Reporter published an article written by Paul Pond that showed artistic reaction by the street over Google’s controversy. One of the artworks that were shown was Sabo’s post. In his artwork, he included Google’s logo and Sundar Pichai image along with Apple’s logo and its co-founder Steve Jobs. Next to Apple, he wrote “Think Different” and “Not So Much” next to Google. In a way that shows opposing the flow in Google can get an employee fired, but hired in Apple. The Hollywood Publisher is a credible source because of it an informative, objective site. As the writer stated facts and mentioned quotes the article remained objective and avoided biases. This article expresses the people’s perspective on Google's issue and in terms of the first amendment. There are people that believe in the freedom to express oneself but it does not matter because Google is not the government, and hence, they can hire and fire anyone they like or disagree in their property.
Fox News Insider posted an interview with former Google employee James Damore who published a memo that argues women are less reliable on tech and leadership for biological differences. His argument got him fired from Google as he opposed the company’s Code of Conduct and advanced harmful gender stereotypes. Damore said, “They called me and said to me “You are terminated!” and when I asked for details, they would not give me any.” He also said that his memo purpose was to better the company as a whole. Although the Fox News Insider is well known for objectivity and credibility, the interview was biased. The interview included only one perspective and the interviewers forgot his objectivity and shared his opinions publicly. The interviewer was extremely biased in the conversation, as he mocked Google in parts of the conversation and claimed that Google was irrational by himself. The interviewer was engaged on the issue and shared his opinions publicly. Usually, interviewers are objective and remain unbiased because acts, as such, can pull the credibility of the source, down. In terms of the first amendment this shows that there are many supporters for freedom of speech for employees, but as an employer who stays and leaves is a decision they can make whenever and however they want.
The Business Insider wrote an article that showed the percentage of support James Damore has from other Google employees and other websites. From the 441 participants in Blind’s online survey, 56% disagreed with Google’s act of firing Damore for expressing his own thoughts. Damore had supporters from other websites such as Uber, Yahoo, and Microsoft. The Business Insider is a credible source because they gave credit to Blind for conducting the survey. The results of the survey show that many employees support freedom of speech in workplaces. However, the first amendment gives individuals the right to speak their minds, but it does not guarantee them their jobs.