Poll of the Day > Nurse is FIRED for this HORRIFIC Message on Protesters as she cited FREE SPEECH

(+) Yeah! (+)

An illinois nurse has been Fired after she wrote a HORRIFIC message on George Floyd Protesters as she is not being publicly named and the hospital initially suspended her first because they were told employees had FREE SPEECH before finally giving her the axe

She was a nurse at Catholic OSF Healthcare system as her incendiary remark was posted on her FB before someone busted her

She made controversial comments about RUNNING OVER George Floyd protesters and said they would make great GOOD ORNAMENTS

The hospital refused to fire her initially because of FREEDOM OF SPEECH but one complaint said "Yes, we have freedom of speech, but to threaten someone's life because you don't support what they support is eivl. People are allowed to express abhorrent views online. But if you hold those views, you MUST not be allowed to serve in a position of power anywhere, for any reason. And we the people are done letting it happen"

Jere Murry whose daughter was a patient there said it was extremely disheartening to know someone in the helping field as a nurse would be bold enough to send a message like that on social media and now won't feel comfortable going to a hospital with workers like that.

OSF Spokesperson Shelli Dankoff released a statement that what the heifer wrote does not align with their values and they were immediately suspended before being fired as it's not known if she quit on her own or was fired

Do you think what this wench wrote should be protected by FREE SPEECH?

The horrific message -

https://i.imgur.com/GwyXywA.jpg

Hospital Hell -

https://i.imgur.com/UQUw8Hd.jpg
---

what a dumbass. I don't agree at all with protesters blocking roadways but my god keep murderous thoughts out of social media. it is literally never a good look. my guess is this nurse was in her late 40s or 50s. older people tend not to think what they say on facebook will have consequences

Eww, Illinois.

---

It's transparently free speech. Doesn't mean she isn't a dumbass. Also I agree with her dismissal.

---

I actually don't have a problem with people running over morons blocking traffic for no reason.

Should what she said be protected by free speech? Fuck no. Freedom of speech only applies to the government. It literally means youre allowed to express yourself in regards to your government without legal punishment. Vs some countries where you can be arrested for speaking against its leaders.

anyone working a job is still expected to maintain a certain degree of respect when talking.
if a subway employee told a customer to Fuck off bitch, as satisfying as it might be, theyd still get fired. This woman got what she deserved.

on a side note, why do people only claim free speech when theyre being assholes?

---

ZBug_ posted...

on a side note, why do people only claim free speech when theyre being assholes?

Popular speech doesn't need protecting.

---

People claiming "free speech" don't seem to understand free speech.

---

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence from speech. If what you speak reveals you to be a loathsome piece of shit, don't be surprised when society flushes you.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I actually don't have a problem with people running over morons blocking traffic for no reason.

I used to have that stance, but it feels like we collectively "deserve it' now, thanks to conservative cry babies.
BLM had moved on from blocking streets in favor of the whole taking a knee thing.
And Trumpkins cried EVEN HARDER about that than they did about an actually dangerous act like blocking streets.
I 100% blame those morons for this. They quite literally asked for this to happen the second they started throwing hissy fits over Colin Kaepernik.

Protestors should stay the fuck out of roads. The fact that they're in a position to get run over means that police aren't doing their jobs

---

as someone who actually uses the osf hospitals

yeah, they do not tolerate that shit at all

---

Yes, I'm sure the horses will be very safe when you run people over. :-/

---

Free speech, sure... But it would also come up in court if she actually did what she threatened.

---

Terroristic threats, lock her up

---

id need a pic of the nurse first before making any type of decision.

oh? wait nvm.

Shadowbird_RH posted...

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence from speech. If what you speak reveals you to be a loathsome piece of shit, don't be surprised when society flushes you.

A lot of people I've met think that freedom of speech means that you're also free from the CONSEQUENCES of that speech. Private employers have a right to fire someone who might, due to their action or inaction for whatever reason, make them 'look bad' or other criteria; that's what 'right to work' laws are all about. Just because the government lets you say what you want doesn't mean that you won't have to 'pay the piper' sooner rather than later.

I'm offensive?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yes, I'm sure the horses will be very safe when you run people over. :-/

Swerving to miss something and going off the road usually is more likely to result in harm for a driver than just hitting whatever is in the road.

https://cultureofsafety.thesilverlining.com/driving/deer-vs-car-collisions

And keep in mind that article discusses a NORMAL incident involving a swerve. If you're pulling something behind you, those dangers are multiplied many times over.

papercup posted...

Terroristic threats, lock her up

The nurse literally made no threat. Even the horse-owner she responded to didn't arguably make a threat considering she was addressing a hypothetical in which both her and her horses' lives would be put at risk by some idiot standing in the road. And if you want to charge somebody with terrorism, illegally standing in the road poses both a danger to the person and every motorist on the road. Given that they're actually doing it for political reasons, that's closer to being terrorism than somebody who doesn't want to risk life and limb for somebody who happens to feel entitled to stand in a non-pedestrian area despite knowing the dangers since the time they were 5 years old.

Don't stand in roads. Period. Not only is it dangerous to yourself -- which is arguably your business although the state has a responsibility to protect you against yourself -- but you're also endangering motorists.

---

Zeus posted...

Swerving to miss something and going off the road usually is more likely to result in harm for a driver than just hitting whatever is in the road.

https://cultureofsafety.thesilverlining.com/driving/deer-vs-car-collisions

And keep in mind that article discusses a NORMAL incident involving a swerve. If you're pulling something behind you, those dangers are multiplied many times over.

The nurse literally made no threat. Even the horse-owner she responded to didn't arguably make a threat considering she was addressing a hypothetical in which both her and her horses' lives would be put at risk by some idiot standing in the road. And if you want to charge somebody with terrorism, illegally standing in the road poses both a danger to the person and every motorist on the road. Given that they're actually doing it for political reasons, that's closer to being terrorism than somebody who doesn't want to risk life and limb for somebody who happens to feel entitled to stand in a non-pedestrian area despite knowing the dangers since the time they were 5 years old.

Don't stand in roads. Period. Not only is it dangerous to yourself -- which is arguably your business although the state has a responsibility to protect you against yourself -- but you're also endangering motorists.

Yeah that's true. By American laws it wouldn't qualify as a death threat.
---

One's speech doesn't have to be intelligent in order to be a protected right (see: Donald Trump).

---

Zeus posted...

Swerving to miss something and going off the road usually is more likely to result in harm for a driver than just hitting whatever is in the road.

There is the third option of stopping. Hopefully she's not going so fast she can't come to a safe stop.

Threatening murder is not free speech. This is a pretty simple call.

VeeVees posted...

People claiming "free speech" don't seem to understand free speech.

---

Arv doesnt think shes actually going to run someone over. Its kinda like when someone says they are so bored they can die. Doesnt mean they are going to kill them selves

---

Alls it means is that they were pissed off nothing more

---

ArvTheGreat posted...

Arv doesnt think shes actually going to run someone over. Its kinda like when someone says they are so bored they can die. Doesnt mean they are going to kill them selves

Technically I think the hyperbole is that the boredom is going to kill them.

If she weren't fired, she could treat the same people she ran over if they're admitted to her workplace

---

Voxwik posted...

Threatening murder is not free speech. This is a pretty simple call.

She didn't threaten murder under the definition of American death threat laws.
---

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. All it does is prevent the government from prosecuting you for your opinion. It's a restriction, not a right. It's a way to protect citizens from being imprisoned on political grounds. Her employers aren't the government, so that restriction doesn't apply to them. For example, I can freely and publicly tell how much I hate the US government without fear of being imprisoned for it even if I was on US soil. This is in stark contrast to totalitarian regimes like in North Korea and China where you can definitely find yourself in deep trouble if you dare insult the government. But if I were to say anything to piss off GameFAQs' administration, they have all the rights to terminate my account.

This freedom of speech myth is annoying.

---

People against free speech shouldn't have a voice in public discourse.

Accrovideogames posted...

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. All it does is prevent the government from prosecuting you for your opinion. It's a restriction, not a right. It's a way to protect citizens from being imprisoned on political grounds. Her employers aren't the government, so that restriction doesn't apply to them. For example, I can freely and publicly tell how much I hate the US government without fear of being imprisoned for it even if I were on US soil (I'm not, but my point still stands). This is in stark contrast to totalitarian regimes like in North Korea and China where you can definitely find yourself in deep trouble if you dare insult the government. But if I were to say anything to piss off GameFAQs' administration, they have all the rights to terminate my account.

This freedom of speech myth is annoying.

Actually it has plenty to do with it. People are saying what she said is a death threat when it isn't.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Actually it has plenty to do with it. People are saying what she said is a death threat when it isn't.

It still has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no matter what you say.

---

Revelation34 posted...

People are saying what she said is a death threat when it isn't.

Then what is it? A promise of death?

---

sodium-chloride posted...

what a dumbass. I don't agree at all with protesters blocking roadways but my god keep murderous thoughts out of social media. it is literally never a good look. my guess is this nurse was in her late 40s or 50s. older people tend not to think what they say on facebook will have consequences

Yeah, cause the kids always think it through.

---

Yea. I would too. I wouldn't give those assholes a chance to hurt or kill my horses. If you are standing in the road, and are being violent, I'm valuing my life and the life of my animals more than yours. If you don't get out of the way when I'm protecting myself and my horses, that's on you, you've killed yourself.

---

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

---

Accrovideogames posted...

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. All it does is prevent the government from prosecuting you for your opinion. It's a restriction, not a right.

It's literally in the Bill of Rights, so claiming it's not a right is just ignorance. And, broadly speaking, rights are protections.

Accrovideogames posted...

It's a way to protect citizens from being imprisoned on political grounds.

It goes waaaaaaaay beyond imprisonment. Courts have argued that politicians can't even block people on social media (probably some caveats), despite social not being a government platform. Granted, this ruling is very selectively enforced since most politicians get away with it (probably because most people can't afford to get a lawyer to fight it or don't have the backing of activist lawyers)

Accrovideogames posted...

This is in stark contrast to totalitarian regimes like in North Korea and China where you can definitely find yourself in deep trouble if you dare insult the government.

Even other Western democracies could make life hard for you if you insult the government. The US is one of the few true exceptions.

---

Accrovideogames posted...

It still has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no matter what you say.

It does because things like this are covered under the First Amendment.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Then what is it? A promise of death?

A protected statement. A death threat under American law has to be a direct statement.
---

Okay, since there has been a lot of misunderstandings about the issue, let me explain.

How this is unrelated to freedom or speech:
Freedom of speech is there to protect citizens from being prosecuted, censored or imprisoned by the government for having a different opinion than them. For example, you may publicly proclaim that you love communism, that you hate the government, that you hate democracy, that you want someone to be killed, that you identify yourself as an alligator trapped in a human body, etc. without fear of being prosecuted, censored or imprisoned by the government. While this protects you on a legal manner, it won't prevent other citizens from hating your guts. The nurse obviously stated a controversial opinion. Whether or not what she said falls under freedom of speech is irrelevant. The hospital isn't the government, so they have all the rights to fire her. Whether or not this constitutes as an unlawful termination of her contract is irrelevant to freedom of speech.

How this is related to freedom or speech:
Some people are arguing that she should get imprisoned for what she said. One side argues that what she said falls under freedom of speech while the other side argues that it constitutes a death threat, thus not being protected by freedom of speech. So what exactly counts as a death threat? Freedom of speech actually covers hypothetical threats. For example, "I would kill someone if he looked at me with disdain" is protected under freedom of speech. On the other hand, "I will kill you" isn't protected by it because it counts as a death threat. It appears like what she says does indeed fall under freedom of speech, so the government unfortunately can't do anything about it.

Exceptions to freedom of speech:
Incitement: the advocacy of the use of force is unprotected when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. For example, inciting someone to commit robbery, murder or suicide.
False statements of fact: while lying isn't always a crime, it isn't protected under freedom of speech and so can be censored. It also means that false statements can be subject to civil or criminal liability. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. False statements made under penalty of perjury are subject to legal sanctions if they are judged to be material.
Obscenity: Speech is unprotected if your "work of art" is offensive and/or lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Usually, possessing such work in your home is fine. In most cases, censoring beats imprisonment, but in other cases, for example sex in public, it can subject you to criminal charges.
Child pornography: While it would technically fall under obscenity, child pornography is distinct from it because it's always outlawed no matter what, so merely possessing it at home is criminal.
Fighting words (death threats fall under this category): What constitutes fighting words is speech that tend to incite immediate breach of the peace by provoking a fight, so long as it is a personally abusive speech inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Such speech must be directed to the hearer to count. True threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole. Additionally, threats of social ostracism and of politically motivated boycotts are constitutionally protected.
Speech owned by others: Basically, this is about copyright.
Commercial speech: Basically, this is about false advertising.

---