Search This Blog

Monday, October 15, 2012

Freedom of Speech or ????

In the past couple of weeks, a couple of CEO's have sent letters to employees about the election.

Read one here

and another here

Is this protected under freedom of speech or is there something else going on here? Is this permissible under law? Could this count as voter intimidation?

Argue your case and remember to reply to another.

Due Friday October 19, by 11:59:59pm

89 comments:

  1. Julio C. Lores CruzOctober 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    The Robertson's article (or article number one) is protected under freedom of speech. Here Dave Roberston writes "then many....may suffer the consequences". This sentence should not be viewed as a threat. If a CEO believes that something will harm his company he has the right to say so. He's not saying it will 100% happen, he is saying it could. Robertson goes on to give a packet with information on politics, and deadlines. This alone is not unconstitutional because you have a choice whether to open the packet or not ( and you already know what it contains from the letter). As a CEO Robertson has a responsibility to educate his employees if the packet really does "not support candidates based on their political affiliation".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Julio C. Lores CruzOctober 15, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    David Siegel's letter is a form of intimidation because he directly says that depending on the presidential outcome (not even pausing to think what my happen), he will fire his workers. This is shown by the sentence "I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best", and when he continues to write "However...". Regardless of whatever he says next he just contradicted himself. In context it says he wants you to vote to your preferences, but.... this is a threat. No matter the reason the "however" shows his true intension of threatening. It's like somebody saying "I'm sorry , but(however)...". Yeah,sure, you're sorry (obviously truthful right).

    ReplyDelete
  3. The letter regarding Koch Industries does fall under the protection of freedom of speech. Robertson's letter as stated in the article is "implicitly" warning the workers of the consequences. Robertson is not forcing anyone to do something they don't want, but instead he encourages workers to educate themselves about each candidate and how it affects them. This would not count as voter intimidation, and this form is permissible under law.

    On the other hand, David Siegel's letter would count as voter intimidation. Siegel is implying that workers will be fired based upon the outcome of the election. He stated in his email to his workers that "4 years of the same Presidential administration" will threaten their job. Siegel says that in no way is he trying to "interfere" in the decision of others, but by saying his opinions about how he feels they should vote is indeed interfering with their voting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Sandra in that Koch industries is only informing the employees on an upcoming election.

      Delete
    2. i agree with sandra the the only thing that Koch industries are doing is informing the employees about how things will go with there decisions.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Sandra in the Koch industries letter because he is informing the employers about the out comes if Obama is re-elected. He is simply persuading them to vote for.. Romney.

      Delete
    4. I disagree because Siegel is simply informing his workers about what will happen if a certain candidate wins the election, he is simply being more direct than the Koch brothers, who in reality are implying something similar.

      Delete
    5. i agree with Sandra about David Siegal because he implies what is going to happen if they vote for Obama, yet he tell them to think about who to vote for and to think hard about it even though he is guiding them to not for obama.

      Delete
    6. I also agree with Sandra. Koch's industry was trying to inform their employees the outcome when/ if Obama is reelected as president. I doubt that David did not mean to say to directly tell their employees to give the vote for Romney, he tried to give them a different perspective on their idea for deeper thinking.

      Delete
    7. I agree with Sandra because David is threatening his workers with taking their jobs away if Obama is they don't vote for the right candidate.

      Delete
  4. For article one (Koch Industries) I’ll say the Freedom of Speech protects it because he says that he is simply letting the employees know the consequences depending of who my get elected. Kind of like what will happen with the employees consequences. Yes, this is permissible under the law because he is not forcing any employee to vote for the candidate he thinks its best he is just giving them an informative package of the candidates.

    But with this other David guy this does falls in the voter intimidation because he saying that the employees are going to get fired based on who is selected. I think this is more like a threat kind of deal. For me he is basically saying “Well if you don’t vote for Romney who is apparently going to make the economy better you are getting FIRED”

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Siegel falls under voters intimidation because he is telling them that he is going to fire them if Obama wins the election no matter what it would be diffrent if he had said that maybe if Obama wins he would have to do it but not being sure if he had to.he would be sude for wrongful termination.....................................

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the article of Siegel, voter intimidation has been committed. Having a threat to employees about firing for anything other than work related instances is wrong and unconstitutional. The intimidation being held is if Obama wins, the whole company should be in fear of their jobs.

    In the first article it is clear and appropriate. The CEO can do whatever he feels like to ensure the safety of his business. No one had to open the packet with the information enclosed in, and he also isn't threatening anyone who votes for the "wrong" candidate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julio C. Lores CruzOctober 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      I agree with Ryan's interpretation of the first article being appropriate. The CEO is doing this to ensure his company's safety, and shouldn't be viewed as threatening.

      Delete
    2. I disagree with Ryan about the first article because Siegel never assures that he will fire employees instead he implies that their might be consequences if what he foresees occurs.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Rya about the first article because the CEO did make it clear that the company would not fire anyone if the wrong candidate was elected.

      Delete
  7. The letter regarding Koch Industries is protected by the freedom of speech, because the company is not making anyone vote for any candidate. They are simply explaining the concequences of what could happen if they vote for a certain candidate.


    David Siegel's letter would count as voter intimidation. He is making the voters vote for Romney basically by telling them that is they vote for Obama they will be fired and with out a job. He says its his opinion but hes telling them to vote for the one he wants to win.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Siegel falls under voters intimidation because he is telling them that he is going to fire them if Obama wins the election no matter what it would be diffrent if he had said that maybe if Obama wins he would have to do it and not being sure if he had to.he can be sude for wrongful termination.He want voter to vote for romney and if they dont thier job are in the line and with that fear people might do as he says and its just wrong. in the other case with sir koch it is freedom of speech because he is not telling themvote for this guy or the otherhe just want them to know who they are voting for and to do it for the right reasons not just becausehe wants the people to become more informed in who to vote for

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Esme I agree with you when you say the if Siegel said "maybe" he won't get into trouble with the government
      .

      Delete
  9. In article number 1 I believe that David Siegel's actions are protected by freedom of speech. Siegel is carefully expressing his opinions, although he comes close he is still protected. Siegel is protected by freedom of speech because he doesn't violate the limitations. He neither slanders nor commits libel against Obamas name. In this article he expresses the way he feels, and never concludes that he WILL fire employees instead he suggests those might be some of the consequences if what he foresees happens if Obama is re-elected.
    In the second article, I believe Siegel is still protected by the freedom of speech because he is only expressing his ideas not forcing anyone to vote for Romney instead he is influencing his employees decision. Because as Siegel states "I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest." This then proves his influence on his employees but never threatens to lay anyone off if Romney is not elected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with you about Siegel because you can't threaten anyone with their job if a certain president doesn't win.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Bella in that Siegel carefully choose his words to express his opinion and that he is only saying that there will be consequences.

      Delete
  10. The article about Robertson is definitely protected under freedom of speech. He has the right to say what he believes about politics, especially if it interferes with HIS company. Under law he has the right to do this to protect and warn about what can possibly happen to his company with any decision. This is not in voters intimidation because he is not threatening anyone on whether they vote for Obama or not. He is just warning them about the possibility of the company failing due to the presidents policies.

    In the second article, Siegel can say the things he said while not abusing his freedom of speech. But since he threaten his employees, it is not permissible under law. This can pass as voter intimidation because he is abusing his power, as the boss, to fire anyone if Romney doesn't win. He can't threaten anyone with their job just cause the president he is voting for doesn't win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Pachuca about Robertson. This is Robertson's company, and he is not threatening anyone about their decision in electing who is president.

      Delete
    2. I agree that threats towards voters are not allowed under law and its abuse of power

      Delete
    3. I agree that Siegel can't threaten his employees because he wants Romney to win. The outcome of the election is up to what the few deciding states decision is. Even if his employees are scared/threatened into voting for Romney, and Obama wins, then in the end their effort of trying to save their job would be in vain.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Pachuca on the second article because Siegel is directly threatening his employees that they have to vote for Romney or they will be fired and thats intimidating them.

      Delete
  11. I believe in the freedom of speech, I believe that both articles have something negative but, they just want to make their company stay alive. In the first article about Robertson he pointed out the negative aspect if Obama wins. He is just letting the workers know if Obama wins they might not have jobs. It is his company and he want it to keep working so he is informing his workers about some possible lay offs. In the second article Siegel is free to say what he wants. Siegel abuses his power by threatening them if Romney doesn't win they will not have a job. This is making them vote for Romney if they want to keep there jobs. If they all vote for Romney they have a bigger chance of keeping there job, but you never know if a state's votes have more power then yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Ms. Vicky on her opinion with the first article, however with the second article I will have to go against her and say that I believe that it's voter intimidation and not ok under Free Speech. However she does have a good point when she says that their votes will not be a greater majority when it comes to a state majority.

      Delete
  12. I agree that the Robertson's letter is protected as freedom of speech. Because Robertson has all the right in the world to express himself in his company.

    In the second article Siegel can say what hewants as well, but he crosses the legal line when he starts threatjng to take peoples jobsis a certain person is selected as president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello mark , I think your right about Siegel crossing the line and how his plans if obama is elected president again are unfair to the people. Because maybe they all dont vote for him and vote for Rombney but in the end obama still wins

      Delete
    2. i agree with this because the first is protected since hes simply giving his thought and second one isnt cuz hes forcing and threatening.. it aint right

      Delete
  13. Angela Dalia AyalaOctober 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    In the first letter from Robertson I believe that it was protected under the freedom of speech. He wasn't really forcing his workers to vote for anyone but advising them to choose their President wisely because it will affect the economy. His letter is permissible and isn't an intimidation towards voters. Now for the second letter from Seigel, I believe he was threatening his workers. Reason being that he said that he would begin to layoff people if they didn't vote for a "NEW PRESIDENT." I don't think his letter is permissible because he intimidates his workers vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Angela because Robertson was not "threatening" his employees but rather was sharing his opinion over who is the best candidate in his eyes , and how they should give it a lot of thought when it comes to deciding on who they should vote for.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Angela because Seigel was forcing his employers to vote for the president he wanted or else they would loose thier jobs. He forced upon them his personal opinion and knew he hit them where it hurt in order to get them to vote for who he wanted.

      Delete
  14. Article number one is protected under the first amendment because the Koch brothers are not forcing anyone or basically threating the jobs of their employees if the man they do not support is elected but advising them by letting them know what could happen in the near feuture.
    Article number two is not protectd under the first amendment because David Siegal is threatening the jobs of his employees and is making his employees vote for the man he want to be president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Brandon's response because Koch is more limitating to what he has to say due to voters intimidation whereas to Siegel he is forcing his employees to vote for who beliefs should be the next president.

      Delete
  15. I believe article one counts as freedom of speech since Koch is just providing information. Siegel's letter however threatens it's employees with job loss and should be viewed as voter intimidation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Adrian article one is considered freedom of speech because the president of the Koch Industries is simply providing information about the candidates.

      Delete
  16. The letters sent to employees by company owners stating consequences that would be accuring if current president Barack Obama is re-elected on November 6th, is protected under freedom of speech.
    In article one Dave Robertson president of the Koch Industries is simply informing former employees to clearly think about who they want to elect as our new president keeping in mind the consequences that would be presented towards their employee status.
    In article two David Siegel founder and CEO of Westgate Resort is simply explaining the wrath that is growing inside of him towards the raising taxes on the 1% President Obama has established. Making it clear that the re-election of former President Obama would leave no option but to unemployed his employees.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I personally say that for article one, Dave Robertson president of the Koch industries, is protected under the first amendment. The reason would be because Robertson is not threatening or interfering on anyones votes for Obama he is simply stating that if Obama is to win there could be consequences to that. In other words Robertson has his limitations and is not violating or intimidating anyone. On the other hand, in article two David Siegel letter to his employees is not protected under the first amendment what so ever due to the fact that Siegel threatens his current employees on lay everyone off if Obama is reelected. Now this being said, Siegel is violating his employees vote only because he is the "boss" and thinks that he can persuade them by forcing them to not vote for Obama or else they all will be fired with no exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Fanny, about how the first article it is protected against the first amendment, but in the second one it violates that.

      Delete
  18. I personally believe that both emails are within the freedom of speech. This is simply because they do not directly threaten to fire the employees, they simple state the feelings of the bosses and explain what consequences could happen if the current administration remains in office. The decision to vote is still left up to the workers in the end. The bosses simply gave their workers a reality check which is completely legal within the constitution

    PS: "Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution..." ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After reading what Jose had to say about the articles, my opinion changed... The letters weren't directly threatening the employees, it was just a "reality check".I believe both letters were protected by the first amendment.

      Delete
  19. The First article about Koch industries, the letter is protected by the first amendment. In the letter, president Dave Robertson gives an "implicitly warning". The warning says everyone should be educated and choose wisely. He also givs his opinion abotu Obama and what's going to happen if he is re-elected.

    The second article about David Siegel, the letter isn't protected by the first amendment. David sent a letter to all of his employees threatening them with being fired if Obama is re-elected. He is forcing them to follow his advice , which violates the employees' first amendment rights. Ofcourse the employees have to accept and follow what the letter says because they need a job. This letter is unconstitutional!

    ReplyDelete
  20. The first article is protected by the freedom of speech because Koch industries is just letting the employees know whats going to happen if Obama gets re-elected for president. This is permissible under law because he is not forcing anyone on who to vote for, but simply just telling them the consequences of the outcome of the election.

    On the Other hand, in Article 2 its much worse than article 1. Basically, CEO David Siegal sent the letter to his employers that if Obama gets re-elected then they all get fired do to how much he has to pay. David is guiding his employees to not vote for obama yet he implies to "think" hard on who to vote for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Miguel's interpretation of the Koch article, seeing that the industry was only letting the employees know what would happen based on the outcomes

      Delete
  21. I would think that Koch Industries' letter to their employees are within the protection of the first amendment. Koch Industries merely sent a packet that includes information about the voting process and how to vote early in the employees' state. They also sent a list of conservative candidates that would be beneficial to the company, but never said that the employees have to vote for them.

    Siegel's e-mail however, insinuated that if President Obama were to be re-elected, many people would be fired. In our economy right now, no one can afford to lose their job, so the employees would most likely yield to his "advice". This would be voter intimidation and I'm pretty sure that isn't permitted by the law since everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, and voting would fall into that category.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I believe that the first article was a good example of free speech because he is expressing his opinion of the outcome of the election, and that if Obama is elected he is going to have to downsize his company which will lead to his workers having to be laid off. He is not forcing anyone to vote for Romney so again, it's alright.
    However, In the other article Siegel is pretty much saying vote or get fired. If they don't listen to him, then they won't have a job. This is Voter Intimidation, especially because he is their boss and thinks that he can just authorize his employees to vote for Romney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Mercedes answer because siegel is telling his employees that if they do not vote as he wants them to vote he would fire them.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Mercedes's answer because in the 2nd article Siegel is forcing his employees to either vote for him or he will fire them leaving them unemployed.

      Delete
  23. I think the first article about the koch company is protected under freedom of speech because hes just letting them know what will happen in the future of the election, not forcing anyone to vote for someone they dont want to.


    I think the second article isnt protected under the freedom of speech because Seigel is threatening the people to vote for a specific candidate and saying that they're going to lose their jobs and stuff like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with Carlos on the first article because Koch is still giving then some kind of threat by telling then to vote for Obama or so and so will happen to them.

      Delete
  24. I believe that article number one about the CEO of Koch Industries hade every right to tell his employees, his thoughts about politics and what he believed might happend to the economy if they did not go out and vote for the best canditate. All he wanted to do is to informed all his employees on how they were able to registered to vote. I do believe that his actions were protected by the freedom of speech.


    However I do not agree with David Siegel's approach towards his employees he was forcing them to absolutly vote for Romney. Siegel use his money, power, and position to intimidate his employees by telling them that if they did not vote against president Obama they would not have a job in the future.This type of intimidation is not protected by our freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In the first article it was a matter of freedom of speeh. He was able to express his thoughts on who to vote for. It is however, a threatening statement to his employees.
    The second article was a lot similar to the first one. Firing people because Mitt Romney does not get elected is no way to get back at people though. I believe they're violating people's right to vote by telling them they will get fired. They are taking advantage of their employees. This can definitely be counted as voter intimidation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do believe that the first article, Robertson's letter is protected by freedom of speech. Robertson is not commanding his employees what to do, nor who to vote for. He tries to give his employees a deeper look in his personal ideas and decides to share it when them. The letter was pretty polite, it had no threats to the individuals. Dave Robertson was leading to persuade and warn them. As stated in the sent email; "So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job?" In other words, employees make your right decision and make a good vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natividad MosquedaOctober 19, 2012 at 9:19 PM

      I dissagre with Andrea because I think that the same words or maybe a close wording is used in both articles in the end. So, both articles kinda have the same idea of having to take harsh measurements to keep a company alive.

      Delete
  27. The first article is about Koch Industries and how the they sent a letter to all their employees about the upcoming elections. The letter explains what will happen to them based on the outcome, i believe this right is protected under the freedom of speech because they're just expressing their ideas and not forcing their employees to do anything because they were really polite.

    On the second article however, i believe the boss is abusing his power and is pretty much forcing his workers to vote for Romney or they will suffer the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with kevin because in the second article the boss is abusing his power to force his worker's to vote for Romney.

      Delete
    2. I disagree with Kevin because Siegel never once showed a form of him forcing his employees to vote for Romney. He just gave his feelings & gave a heads up on how things might be if Obama stayed as president. He still gives his workers the choice of voting for who ever they want.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with Lily because yes Siegel never said "you have to vote for Romney" but he is technically is if he is telling them they will be fire if Obama is reelected. It gives the employees no choice but to vote for Romney so they can keep their jobs, and well that is what Siegel is trying to do, encourage his workers to vote Romney and make their vote count so he can win.

      Delete
  28. I believe that the first article is about, how the CEO of Koch industries, Robertson is pretty much explaining to his employees his ideas and what will happen if they vote for Obama.He's not threatening them or their job but simply saying what he thinks.Therefore his approach is protected by freedom of speech.

    However in the 2nd article David Seigel's approach on intimadating his employess by threatening to fire them if they dont vote for Romney is unacceptable and pretty much an abuse of power and isnt protected by the freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with ana in that David Siegel is intimidating his employees threating then to vote for Romney, and what choice do they have if they do not wan to lose their jobs,he is also violating their right to choose in the upcoming elections, because onw should not be prohibited to choose who they want as a president, they have the right to choose.

      Delete
  29. I believe the first article is protected by freedom of speech because Robertson is just explaining to his employees his ideas and what will happen if they vote for Obama.

    The second article is not protected by freedom of speech because David Seigel's approach is intimadating his employess by threatening to fire them if they dont vote for Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The first article is not violating any freedoms. The opinion of the Robertson's is protected under the freedom of speech. He is not trying to intimidate any voter, he is only giving his own personal view of what could happen and is encouraging his workers to inform themselves about each candidate and how their votes will affect them. This is permissible under law.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In the other article, David's opinion can be count as voter intimidation because he is implying that workers will be fired if Obama wins the election. His opinion is more like a threat because he is telling the employees that they have to vote for Romney or else they will no longer have a job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Luis that he is threatening the employees, amd this could count as voter intimidation.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Luis because he is intimidating his workers.

      Delete
  32. The company, Koch Industry, is not forcing anyone to vote for them to vote for them, they are only explaining their plans and what might happen if one was to vote for them. The letter is protected by Freedom of Speech.

    The article on Siegel is a perfect example of of how to abuse your rights. As a boss, it is not his place to force his employees to vote for a certain candidate, or to threaten them with their jobs. That is not protected by Freedom of Speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i dont believe Seigel is threatening his employee's he is just telling them the consequences anyone could suffer. It's not like if he is gonna find out who voted for what president. He knows of the new policies the candidates want to make and he is just telling them which benefits them best as a whole company

      Delete
  33. I believe both letters are being protected with the freedom of speech. Neither one of them directly threatened their employees with their loss of job. They both simply let their employees know the concequences If President Obama remains as president. It is still up to the employees to decide who they want to vote for. Robertson & Siegel both just share how they feel about the election and their views on how the outcome might turn out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The firs article I believe is protected under the freedom of speech because Robertson is not forcing his employees to vote for a certain candidate , but is just giving his opinion over who he thinks is to perform a better job as our president. Those are his beliefs and he is just giving out information because he seeks for what is best for his company.

    On the other hand the second article proves to be violating one's freedom of being able to decide who one should vote for. They imply that the employees should vote for a certain candidate or else they face with having to be fired. It is not right that the employees should be threaten with losing their jobs if they do not vote in favor of an specific candidate , this is not protected by the freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  35. In the Siegel article they use voter intimidation. They threaten employers by firing employees for something not work related is unconstitutional.

    Then in the first article it is okay because the CEO can do what he wants and makes sure the business is safe. Also he didn't threaten anyone who chooses the "wrong" person.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In the first article of Kosh industries, I think what they are doing is okay and its under the freedom of speech. Robertson is just explaning to his employees to get inform about the election and see who the better candidate is, for a better outcome for the companies. Although, in the Sielge article I do believe that this is voter intimidation. Sielge was telling his employees that if Obama was reelected he would fire them, not once did he was that they had to vote for Romney but he implied it in his letter giving them no choice but to vote for Romney, if they want to keep their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I believe David Seigel is only stating his opinion and the facts. He is not threatening anyone he is simply saying what he thinks will happen if Obama is elected president again. He is informing his employers of the future decisions he might have to make.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Natividad MosquedaOctober 19, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    Both articles, to me , seem to imply the threatening of the jobs of the employees. In one though, it is less stronger than the other. Article 1 lets the employees know of the economic dangers they are facing and the harsh consequences that will need to be taken. In Article 2, the letter explains that the employees HAVE to vote for a candidate to KEEP their job. It is also more from a personal view and therefore, expresses the powerful feelings of the employer. Both articles may be protected under the freedom of speech because they are letters that imply what the employers want the employees to do, but in the end it really has to be the employees' decision. This though, does intimidate the voter's decision, so, it might actually be counted as one person having like a thousand votes...which is unfair. It should not be permissable under the law, but then again, if it is protected under the freedom of speech, then this becomes a gridlock.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In the first article, I believe that the the freedom of speech is protected, because Robertson is not violating what is stated in the first amendment. He is just saying what he believe will happen if they vote for Obama. He is not threatening against Obama, and his comment may not be right for a lot of people but they are his beliefs and he's entitled to them.
    In the second article I do see that it is violating against the right for someone to vote for who they want. There being a consequence for who someone votes is not right. And it violates their right. Being a chance of being fired for who you vote, is not right. This is intimidating to the voter, and is making another person with bigger power be a bully pretty much, and in control of what they want not what others truly want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Gallerie on the second article because when they threaten the expression of others they violate those people freedom.

      Delete
  40. Like article one, the second letter sent from CEO David Seigel is also protected by freedom of speech. This email is permissible as well but on the other hand it does have voter intimidation to it. It's very similar to Robertson's letter but it tends to be more strict and strait up with the fact that employers do have to vote for Romney. The first article was mostly unpersuasive but Seigel's is pretty much demanding. . It's appropriate though because like Robertson, he is speaking about his personal ideas and what he thinks is better for the company.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jocelyn Ascencio (\^·^/)October 19, 2012 at 9:34 PM

    In my opinion both companies and letters took freedom of speech and expanded the meaning. Yes, they are just giving thier opinion to thier employers but they both state that the jobs of the citizens are on the line. Basiclly they know where to hit their employers in order to get them to do what they want. They discribe how there just giving thier opinion and dont care who they vote for, but in the next sentance they quickly take action and say that you need to not vote for obama. Giving these so called "facts" in the letters about the economy and payroll thier honestly just thinking of themselves, because before they speak about thier earning they talk about how reelecting Obama affects the company more. The first article involving Koch industries is protected by the first amendment, because it states it a warning and is sent to egucate the employers. He gives his opinion on Obama and what would hapoen if he becomes president again. In the second article about David Sigegal he threatens his employers with the lose of thier jobs if they vote Obama. Its not protected by the first amendment because he is forcing his vote on his employers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cristian CanizalezOctober 19, 2012 at 9:54 PM

      I agree with Jocelyn's statement on how David Seigel's action that his actions were not protected by the first amendment because he forced the votes for Obama.

      Delete
  42. Cristian CanizalezOctober 19, 2012 at 9:50 PM

    I believe that in the first article, the CEO of Koch Industries had right to tell his employees on his political views. This was an encouragement to his workers to go out and vote for the candidate which will help the economic conditions they were in. So I think that the CEO was protected by Freedom of Speech.
    In the other hand, I believe David Sigegal's actions were not protected by Freedom of Speech because he used his power, money, and threats to make sure his workers votedd for Obama. This would be referred as intimidation of the voter so therefor his actions are not justified.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The article of the Koch Industries is protected under freedom of speech in my opinion.Since the CEO's don't actually threaten their employees on who they are going to vote for like their going to fire them because of that. What they said was that they may be consequences to some people that may be relevant to the situation. They didn't tell them for who to vote but just said to think clearly about it and how it may effect them that's all.

    In the other article its different because he actually threatens his employees in his letter. When he threatens someone else freedom of expression that's when he violated the freedom of speech of someone else witch is not protected . When he said "However" that's when he violated the freedom of speech of other telling them what was going to happen and its just voter intimidation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Bello. There was a lack of a threat in the first article, but it was more evident in the second article.

      Delete
  44. Both companies did not have the right to choose for their employees in who they were going to vote for. But their letters were very specific saying that they wanted and or were pesuating them to vote for the CEO's presodential pick or they were going to gey fired. So thisa is in my opininon not protected by the freedom of speech for he is in a way threating and forcing them to choose in his favor, making it very hard for his employees to choose to actually do the right thing. I don't believe that this is not under the law so in a way the law is being vilolated, one for the CEO's thaking advantage of their employees ans second for vilating their right to vote for who ever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  45. In the article about the Koch Industries,a letter was sent to all their employees about the upcoming elections. The letter explains what will happen to them based on the outcome. i believe this right is protected under the freedom of speech because they're just expressing their ideas and not forcing their employees to do anything. In the article of Siegel, the CEO clearly has the power to do whatever he wants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Patrick when he says they are just expressing their ideas not really forcing or putting their jobs on the line.

      Delete
  46. In the first article i really think the CEO is protected because there is no threat but the second article Siegel clearly threatens the employees if Obama wins. I believe that Siegel has caused voting intimidation by putting in the line employees jobs if Obama were to win .

    ReplyDelete
  47. The first article only gives and shares opinions of the CEO's political views. It was a statement to be cautious of who you're voting for (as we should be).
    The second article clearly involves threats of firing people depending of the voting outcome. That can definitely fall under voter intimidation

    ReplyDelete