Business Ethics: Freedon of Speech - Assignment Example

? Freedom of Speech and Expression Introduction The issue of dialogue liberty & manifestation is rampant in United s fromthe past many years. The constitution of the country allows every individual the basic right to express themselves freely without any restrictions. The boundaries and limitations have not been defined properly due to which problems radically make grounds. It is considered autonomy of every citizen to have the human rights to express themselves vigorously. The sexual harassment issue has been however critically reviewed by authors, sociologists and research analysts. Individuals crossing the line of moral and ethical behavior are condemned. Exhibiting oneself and asking out for sexual pleasures is not considered to be a part of freedom of expression in the view of several authors. The defendants however claim that it sexual harassment is a part of dialogue liberty & manifestation and it should be sub-categorized (Sullivan, 2010). In the international corporate cultures of organizations, sexual harassment is considered immoral and is not held the part of freedom of expression. Even in the United States, organizations have made strict laws on sexual harassment archetypes (Perry and Golom, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to examine what are the main broader categories related with dialogue liberty & manifestation and how do it correlates with sexual harassment paradigm. How Norman Bowie analyzed the whole sphere and what kinds of moral obligations are rampant in the multinational organizations. Moreover the conflicts between both ideas are critically reviewed and balance between conflicting circumstances is also presented. The intention remains to present concise view regarding sexual harassment and freedom of speech prototypes. Freedom of Speech and Expression Dialogue liberty & manifestation is asserted to be the rudimentary right of every individual living on planet earth. The way an individual thinks about certain things can be expressed in any form. It is an integral part of the U.S Constitution and practiced abundantly by the citizens of the country. The Supreme Court of the United States has however identified some categories that are removed from the bracket of dialogue liberty & manifestation . The measures made by the courts are because of the increasing social issues in the region. Hate crimes exalted throughout the country which created tremendous problems for the masses. The right to exemplify thoughts and opinions are therefore maintained in the ethical bracket, that would not harm, insult or disgust any group, region or society particularly (Post, 2011). There are several authors and sociologists that consider maintaining brackets and categories of dialogue liberty & manifestation to be disastrous for the society. According to their point of view issues in the society would eventually emerge more if such obstacles are laid. Every individual must have the authority and autonomy to share his ideas to the world. Obstructions are direct attack on the autonomy which is not beneficial for the American society. Generically a viewpoint revolves around that if embargoes and constraints are imposed on certain thing; the thing surely exploits out more (Sullivan, 2010). In the organizational context specifically, maintaining and sustaining ethical behaviors is essential. Freedom of speech and expression are only tolerated if it’s for the betterment and improvement of the organization. In corporate business environments where democratic culture prevails, dialogue liberty & manifestation are given utmost importance but constraints are specifically defined so that nobody would cross the line (Arnold, Beauchamp and Bowie, 2012). Sexual Harassment Paradigm In the corporate environments throughout the globe, sexual harassment is considered offense and misdeed. The organizations want their employees specifically to focus on their respective jobs instead of making out with other employees. The sexual harassment cases emerged enormously in United States for which legislation had to be done ultimately. Initially in the appeal courts these cases were brought in the category of dialogue liberty & manifestation however after the regulations passed by the Supreme Court, sexual harassment was excluded from the freedom of speech category and was declared as serious offense. Most of the female employees working in different hierarchical positions in the organizations were victims of sexual harassment. The cases of harassment decreased after the court’s verdict and organizations leaned to formulate their corporate practices accordingly (Berdahl and Raver, 2011). Multinational Corporations follow an organized framework of international business practices. The practices demonstrate about managing affairs of the organization tactically; sexual harassment is one it. Multinational organizations formulate approach to tackle sexual harassment cases. Initially the enquiry is conducted internally by the investigative staff of human resource department. The termination of employment is mostly guaranteed if the employee is found guilty. Moreover employee is handed over to the law enforcement agencies and further proceedings take place as per the law of the respective country. Many analysts believe that sexual harassment has strong association with dialogue liberty & manifestation and harsh measures must not be taken in such cases. The multinational corporations take every precise measure to keep their name clean from any sexual harassment cases (Arnold, Beauchamp and Bowie, 2012). In international organizations, employment candidates are asked to sign the form of signifying that in case of sexually harassing employees, management may take necessary steps. Moreover the involvement of law enforcement agencies in these cases is informed in written prior to the candidates so that problems would not arise in the long run. The appointment letter is issued to candidates after getting signatory on the respective forms. Appointed candidates are also informed by the H.R Offices verbally about harassment issues and formal document stating types of harassment are indicated so that there would no problem for employees understanding in the concept (Perry and Golom, 2010). The paradigm explained by Norman Bowie, the moral obligations of multinational organizations remains to sustain the environment where people from diverse backgrounds would work actively without any discrimination. He also suggested that basic moral principles all over the world remains same therefore certain issues are not essential to discuss on board (Bowie, 2004). However multinational organizations tend to ensure that everything is stated clearly, in written form. The suggestion of universal moral principles has been critically reviewed by several authors as morality element changes as per cultures. For instance in conservative cultures, women in workforce are not appreciated. If women are to be worked in offices, than male staff members need not to mingle around them and communicate minimal. In liberal environments, women are appreciated to work and communication channel is quite widespread. The application of Bowie notions therefore cannot be implemented on all grounds (Griseri and Seppala, 2010). The Conflict Conflict on the debate on dialogue liberty & manifestation along with relevance to sexual harassment has been extending in most of the cultures. The idea about sexual harassment among certain mindsets prevails that it can have negative impact on the autonomy. The basic notion to be discussed is that either it has any correlation with dialogue liberty & manifestation or not. An overwhelming majority reviews this argument to make no sense as the spheres of both debates are converse and have no connotation but another viewpoint signifies the bonding of sexual harassment with freedom of speech. The idea rampant provokes that sexual harassment must be tolerated as it is one’s way of expressing himself. There must not be lawful implications on it as it is against the fundamental human right (Golash, 2010). In the organizations especially, this notion cannot be allowed as it directly influences on job performance. The supporters of sexual harassment to be a part of freedom of expression claim that even in the organizations, employees must not be confined into the boundaries of minding their own businesses. They should have the chance to mingle around with each other and sexual harassment must be tolerated. These kinds of measures are however not in favor of the organizations as it creates problem in the long run. Moreover job in hand is affected greatly as employees focus is tilted to other matters. The primary goal of employees must remain to work for the organization instead of making personal relationships (Griseri and Seppala, 2010). Balancing Conflict The conflict between two ideas can be balanced by making effective measures. The harassment issues of serious offense and as per the ruling of the court, sexual harassment cases are to be dealt with iron hands. The major problem is that either it is attack on the autonomy of individuals or not. It is evident that sexual harassment is to do with two individuals personally therefore the issue must be resolved by them privately. In severe cases when one of the parties continuously approaches the other one; law enforcers must be called on (Griseri and Seppala, 2010). In organizations however the primary focus must remain on the job instead of managing private life vividly. Organizations should consider it to be a part of dialogue liberty & manifestation but as per the international corporate practices and laws, sexual harassment must be deemed as serious offense. Warnings and termination of jobs must be applied to the offenders as organizations primarily want employees to be productive for the business. Making private relations in work setup is neither beneficial for employees nor for the employers. References Arnold, B. and Bowie D. G. (2012) Ethical theory and business. London: Pearson; 9th Edition Berdahl, J. L., & Raver, J. L. (2011), Sexual harassment, Kohler Inc Bowie, N. (2004). Relativism and the moral obligations of multinational corporations, Ethical Theory and Business, 538-543 Golash, D. (2010). Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World (Vol. 3), Springer Griseri, P., & Seppala, N. (2010) Business ethics and corporate social responsibility, Cengage Learning Perry, E. L., & Golom, F. D. (2010), The impact of reason for training on the relationship between “best practices” and sexual harassment training effectiveness, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(2), 187-208. Post, R. (2011), Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply. Va. L. Rev., 97, 617. Sullivan, K. M. (2010). Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech, Harvard L. Rev., 124, 143 Read More