Free Speech at Workplace - Coursework Example

Free Speech at Workplace Name Institution Course Date Abstract This essay explores the importance of free speech in workplace. It starts with overview of free speech at workplace and moves on to support the freedom of free speech by ethical theories and principles. The discussion goes on to explore some ways in which employers can encourage free speech in workplace. The essay argues for free speech in workplace. Free Speech at Workplace Common issues arise almost every day in business organisations and small issues become crisis publicly because no one mentioned anything about them due to one reason or another. Employees in workplace do not voice their views in fear of retribution or because they think nobody would listen. Often, workplace scandals trigger the same kind of response. Employees angrily bemoan looking for someone to blame and wonder why no one said anything before the crisis grew. Every employee wants to work in a conducive environment, be paid well, be rewarded for the exceptional work, have privacy and most of all have free speech. Employers nowadays try to limit what the employees should say at their workplace, in social media or even in the broadcast media. Therefore, this essay explores the importance of free speech in the workplace. Policies of many organisations prohibit negative comments on social media about the organisation or any unauthorised contact with the media. These attempts to limit what the employees should say at workplace or away from the workplace is problematic. When employees are not at the workplace, what they do or say should be their business unless it makes employment difficult. Intrusion of employers into employees’ private life leads to breakdown of the available boundary and private life of workers and can lead to detriment of employees. Limiting work-related comments that occur outside the workplace has substantial consequences for employees who plan to organise for better salaries and conditions and efforts to strengthen workplace relationships. Employees who air their workplace grievances would be free to do so with colleagues, family or community through any means they can get, including on social media. These have proven to create relationships with other employees. Closing these medium is considered an assault on employees’ chance to change their workplace conditions and fight against injustices. One reason why employees are afraid of expressing their opinions or complaining in the workplace is retaliation or commonly known as retribution. Retaliation is any action taken against a worker for expressing opinions, complaining or supporting a fellow employee’s complaint. When an employer retaliates against his employees, fear of expression will result. Retaliation is illegal in all aspects and the law against it allows employees to feel free to express themselves in the workplace (Secunda, 2009). Free speech can result to violence because of offensive massage that come out or because the massage that is passed across is deemed unacceptable. Frankly speaking, violence is the price of democracy, employee share the right to free speech even if is offensive to some individuals. Even though free speech can result to violence, it would be worse if free speech is disallowed. Violent free speech or not, it is considered a free speech. If violent free speech is banned, what choices do we have but to condemn and ban other forms of free speech as well because they too can provoke violence? If all types of speeches were to cause violence, should they then be outlawed or condemned? Nevertheless, it is not because of free speech that violence erupts. All this has to do with people who are outraged by massages being passed on freely. Free speech should not be blamed entirely for eruption of violence, but those individuals who are outraged by the massage (Cornwell, 2008). It is injustice to restrain an individual’s freedom to pass on massages even if it stirs up violence. Every individual has a right to free speech even if the massage being delivered is unpopular or dangerous. Even if we do not agree with or like what is being delivered by an individual, it is not acceptable and just to justify violence against that particular person. Every employee’s opinion should be respected and everyone should be assertive about it and not aggressive. According to a theory established by Kant, when we perceive ourselves as authors of our own actions, we tend to ‘impute’ these actions on each other and ourselves (James, 2007). This establishes that we think of us and others as capable of freedom in regard to ‘external freedom’. This means that we must look for a means of interfacing with each other’s external freedom. According to Kant, rightful interactions are those that are recognisable with a particular individual’s innate right of freedom. According to him, for right to be recognised, universal laws of freedom and not individual arbitrary choices should communally control a person’s external freedom. This means that right is based on external freedom that is limited to hindrances in space and time. Kant argues that it is only freedom on the basis of an individual’s right that can be enforced and not freedom based on internal and external use of choice (Korsgaard, 2009). The theory shows that when an employee voice out opinions and information in his interaction with colleagues, he cannot be viewed as wrongdoer based on the view of right. Mere communication of opinions, thoughts or complain whether true or not, offensive or not cannot be considered wrongdoing since it is up to the listeners to believe everything or not. Free speech in space and time is not capable of hindering a person’s external freedom since mere words have no ability to exert physical strength over people. In another theory developed by Tom Campbell, speech is a means of self-expression (Campbell, 2007). According to Campbell, self-expression is considered a basic human activity with preeminent value. Valued expression is centred on communicative experience with physical audience. Self-expression is intrinsic and important to the claim of speech being a human right (Chesterman, 2000). Campbell appreciates speech in workplace. If self-expression is human need, then it is essential for the success of a business. To deprive a person of self-expression is a violation of humanity and suppresses a person’s individuality. Free speech rights are essential in uncovering wrongdoing in the workplace and in protecting the workers’ interests. Workplace is a key environment since many people spent almost all their day there. Therefore, free speech cannot be exempted without causing significant ethic damage to the employees. In addition, John Mill presented a theory that supports free speech (Abrams, 2006). He believes that every person should be free to voice his opinion no matter how immoral it may be. He argues that exclusive freedom of expression is required to direct our opinions to their limits in order to maintain the dignity of an individual. Mill set out the difference between legitimate and illegitimate harm and establishes that free speech does not cause legitimate harm (Barendt, 2005). When an individual is infuriated by the massage or opinion of the other, this is not considered harm. It is only when free speech cause legitimate harms that it should be controlled. Some of the ways that employers can encourage free speech at workplace include turning awareness into action. The focus of this method is built on awareness and practice analysis. Employees are drawn into the missions and visions of companies, not to mention regulation, policies and norms. They may be introduced to various scenarios depicting ethical challenges they encounter. For instance, in pharmaceutical companies, employees talk about FDA’s rules and challenges they may face when communicating about new drug results (Goldacre, 2014). Such efforts may be described as building Awareness. Employees get a chance to not just recite the rules, but to identify any available challenges and voice them. Appeal for innovation instead of prohibition may also be a good way of encouraging free speech in an organisation. It invites workers to think creatively for an opportunity to craft arguments that may be utilized to influence employers and fellow colleagues to take a value conflict seriously. Voicing values in a coaching frame work would enable groups to work together and building a responsible way of solving conflicts at workplace (Koures and Posner, 2012). In addition, organisational leaders have the responsibility of sharing their experience when facing conflicts at work place. When they share about their commitments and struggles, workers can create a trusting relationship with their employers and learn about effective free speaking and how to go about it. Workers learn of the persuasive and best way of voicing their grievances and concerns. Employers are also encouraged to completely eliminate retaliation in the workplace as this is a major contributor of fear of free speech by employees. In conclusion, free speech in workplace can eliminate the possibility of future crisis as employees can voice their views and a solution can be established immediately. Limited free speech is unacceptable in the workplace as it is considered violation of human dignity and individuality. Free speech does not necessarily lead to violence. Violence eruption is entirely on the outraged individuals as every person as the right to free speech whether true or untrue, violent or not. Free speech in space and time is not capable of hindering a person’s external freedom since mere words have no ability to exert physical strength over people. To encourage free speech in the work place, employers have the responsibility of creating a good relationship with the employees and coaching them how to voice their opinions and complain effectively without fear. References Abrams, F 2006, Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment, London, Penguin. Barendt, E 2005, Freedom of Speech, 2nd edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Campbell, T 2007, My big TOE : awakening, discovery, inner workings : a trilogy unifying philosophy, physics, and metaphysics, United States, Lightning Strike Books. Chesterman, M 2000, Freedom of speech in Australian law : a delicate plant, Aldershot Burlington, Vt., USA: Ashgate/Dartmouth. Cornwell, J 2008, Hitler's pope : the secret history of Pius XII, New York, N.Y: Penguin. Goldacre, B 2014, Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients, New York, Faber & Faber, Inc., an affiliate of Farrar, Straus and Giroux. James, W 2007, The principles of psychology, New York, NY., Cosimo. Korsgaard, C 2009, Self-constitution agency, identity, and integrity, Oxford, New York, Oxford Univ. Press. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B 2012, The leadership challenge : how to make extraordinary things happen in organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Secunda, P 2009, Retaliation and whistleblowers, Austin Alphen aan den Rijn Frederick, MD: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Kluwer Law International Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America by Aspen Publishers. Read More

One reason why employees are afraid of expressing their opinions or complaining in the workplace is retaliation or commonly known as retribution. Retaliation is any action taken against a worker for expressing opinions, complaining or supporting a fellow employee’s complaint. When an employer retaliates against his employees, fear of expression will result. Retaliation is illegal in all aspects and the law against it allows employees to feel free to express themselves in the workplace (Secunda, 2009).

Free speech can result to violence because of offensive massage that come out or because the massage that is passed across is deemed unacceptable. Frankly speaking, violence is the price of democracy, employee share the right to free speech even if is offensive to some individuals. Even though free speech can result to violence, it would be worse if free speech is disallowed. Violent free speech or not, it is considered a free speech. If violent free speech is banned, what choices do we have but to condemn and ban other forms of free speech as well because they too can provoke violence?

If all types of speeches were to cause violence, should they then be outlawed or condemned? Nevertheless, it is not because of free speech that violence erupts. All this has to do with people who are outraged by massages being passed on freely. Free speech should not be blamed entirely for eruption of violence, but those individuals who are outraged by the massage (Cornwell, 2008). It is injustice to restrain an individual’s freedom to pass on massages even if it stirs up violence. Every individual has a right to free speech even if the massage being delivered is unpopular or dangerous.

Even if we do not agree with or like what is being delivered by an individual, it is not acceptable and just to justify violence against that particular person. Every employee’s opinion should be respected and everyone should be assertive about it and not aggressive. According to a theory established by Kant, when we perceive ourselves as authors of our own actions, we tend to ‘impute’ these actions on each other and ourselves (James, 2007). This establishes that we think of us and others as capable of freedom in regard to ‘external freedom’.

This means that we must look for a means of interfacing with each other’s external freedom. According to Kant, rightful interactions are those that are recognisable with a particular individual’s innate right of freedom. According to him, for right to be recognised, universal laws of freedom and not individual arbitrary choices should communally control a person’s external freedom. This means that right is based on external freedom that is limited to hindrances in space and time. Kant argues that it is only freedom on the basis of an individual’s right that can be enforced and not freedom based on internal and external use of choice (Korsgaard, 2009).

The theory shows that when an employee voice out opinions and information in his interaction with colleagues, he cannot be viewed as wrongdoer based on the view of right. Mere communication of opinions, thoughts or complain whether true or not, offensive or not cannot be considered wrongdoing since it is up to the listeners to believe everything or not. Free speech in space and time is not capable of hindering a person’s external freedom since mere words have no ability to exert physical strength over people.

In another theory developed by Tom Campbell, speech is a means of self-expression (Campbell, 2007). According to Campbell, self-expression is considered a basic human activity with preeminent value. Valued expression is centred on communicative experience with physical audience. Self-expression is intrinsic and important to the claim of speech being a human right (Chesterman, 2000). Campbell appreciates speech in workplace. If self-expression is human need, then it is essential for the success of a business.

To deprive a person of self-expression is a violation of humanity and suppresses a person’s individuality.

Read More