Trump's War on the First Amendment

[Gadianton]

Wow. Supreme Court thinks ABC can’t fire an employee? Need to know more on that. Don’t believe it, but I sure didn’t know it.

Yes.

Feel free to do some research.

As for the bold: Plato asserted that knowledge is justified, true belief. If you don't believe it, you've implied you also don't know it, in case you wish to speak with fewer redundancies in the future. Often redundancies are useful for underscoring a point, but at least consider the alternative.

[Whiskey]

Wow. Supreme Court thinks ABC can’t fire an employee? Need to know more on that. Don’t believe it, but I sure didn’t know it.

Yes.

Feel free to do some research.

As for the bold: Plato asserted that knowledge is justified, true belief. If you don't believe it, you've implied you also don't know it, in case you wish to speak with fewer redundancies in the future. Often redundancies are useful for underscoring a point, but at least consider the alternative.

How about this. Didn’t know it but I sure don’t believe it.

Can the Las Vegas Raiders fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

[Whiskey]

Wow. Supreme Court thinks ABC can’t fire an employee? Need to know more on that. Don’t believe it, but I sure didn’t know it.

Yes.

Feel free to do some research.

As for the bold: Plato asserted that knowledge is justified, true belief. If you don't believe it, you've implied you also don't know it, in case you wish to speak with fewer redundancies in the future. Often redundancies are useful for underscoring a point, but at least consider the alternative.

Found this.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) has issued no decision that prohibits Disney—or any private employer—from firing an employee for insubordination in the absence of a protected legal right (such as discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, or union activity). In fact, Supreme Court rulings generally uphold employers' broad authority to terminate at-will employees for such reasons, subject only to narrow federal protections under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), or the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

### Key Principles from Supreme Court and Related Law
- **At-Will Employment as the Default**: In the U.S., most private-sector employment (including at Disney) is "at-will," meaning employers can terminate employees for any reason or no reason, except where prohibited by law. Insubordination—defined as willful refusal to follow a reasonable, lawful order—typically qualifies as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Supreme Court has not created a blanket protection against this; instead, it has reinforced employers' discretion in cases like *Encino Motor Cars, LLC v. Navarro* (2018), where it eased the burden on employers to defend exemptions from overtime rules, indirectly supporting flexible termination practices.

- **Protections Only for Specific Contexts**: Supreme Court decisions protect employees from termination only if the "insubordination" stems from exercising a federal right. Examples include:
- *Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White* (2006): The Court ruled that Title VII prohibits retaliation for discrimination complaints, even if the employer's response (e.g., a reassignment or suspension labeled as insubordination) doesn't cause an "ultimate employment decision" like firing. If Disney fired an employee for refusing an order tied to prior protected activity (e.g., reporting harassment), this could be unlawful retaliation. However, pure insubordination unrelated to such activity is fair game.
- *Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.* (2011): Oral complaints about wage violations under the FLSA are protected; firing someone for "insubordination" in response could violate the law. Again, this doesn't shield general defiance.
- *NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.* (1984): Under the NLRA, employees can't be fired for protected concerted activity (e.g., collective complaints about working conditions), even if it appears insubordinate. The National Labor Relations Board has applied this to cases involving cursing or rudeness during such activity.

- **No Disney-Specific Supreme Court Precedent**: Searches for Supreme Court involvement in Disney termination cases yield none directly on point. Lower-court cases like *Brown v. Walt Disney World Co.* (M.D. Fla. 1992) addressed race discrimination in a firing, not insubordination protections. Shareholder suits like *In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation* (Del. 2006) dealt with executive severance, not employee rights. Recent Disney settlements (e.g., $233 million in 2025 for wage disputes) focus on pay equity, not insubordination.

### Practical Implications for Disney Employees
If an employee's "insubordination" involves refusing illegal, unsafe, or discriminatory orders (e.g., ignoring safety protocols under OSHA or refusing to violate anti-discrimination laws), federal law could prohibit termination—but that's protection for the underlying right, not insubordination itself. Otherwise, Disney can discipline or fire for it, often after progressive steps like warnings. State laws (e.g., California's implied covenant of good faith) add minor limits, but nothing from Supreme Court overrides at-will rules here.

[Gadianton]

How about this. Didn’t know it but I sure don’t believe it.

The "but" is a little awkward, but much better. Really helps me understand your position.

Can the Las Vegas Raiders fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

No, absolutely not.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) has issued no decision...

Of course I already knew this. It also doesn't address anything I said, on the off-chance you were responding to my comments.

[Whiskey]

How about this. Didn’t know it but I sure don’t believe it.

The "but" is a little awkward, but much better. Really helps me understand your position.

Can the Las Vegas Raiders fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

No, absolutely not.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) has issued no decision...

Of course I already knew this. It also doesn't address anything I said, on the off-chance you were responding to my comments.

Honestly. You have to treat me like the top 99 percent intellectually. I actually thought this addressed your point.

I don't see what Supreme Court has said or done to disallow Disney or the Raiders from terminating a subordinate employee. Help me here.

[Gadianton]

Aight buddy.

I'd like to introduce you to a couple of friends of mine. Please, have a seat and meet my good friend Mr. Daniels. First name is Jack. I met this cat in the aisle of the grocery store one lonely evening many years ago. Real smooth dude and always the gentlemen. The three of us will have some great conversations, although, I think those conversations get even better if my main man, Mr. Quantifier, pulls up a chair to join us. First name The. The Quantifier and I met a few years before I met Jack. While Mr. Daniels has this way of getting a man to express his feelings in a conversation, Mr. Quantifier can help a man ensure that the sentences spoken during a conversation are properly understood. Many times, quantifiers are assumed when speaking but often, they aren't even considered, and sometimes, they are purposefully concealed.

Can you believe this: one man can say, "ducks are white!" while another man says "ducks aren't white!" and it's possible that the two men totally disagree with each other about the color of ducks, but it's also possible they are in full agreement. We just don't know. The two men can share internet links and AI responses and it's impossible to say who is right or wrong. Mr. Daniels might help in such a conversation, he's known to get a man concealing quantifiers to pony up. When it comes to quantifiers, it's always better to open carry.

In the case "ducks are white" a quantifier should come before the noun to tell us how many "ducks" are white. One man might assume the sentence means "all ducks are white" while another may assume it means "some ducks are white". If only "some" ducks are white, then "ducks aren't white" is equally true to say. A rabble-rouser or sophist, or troll, or somebody whose interest is other than the truth of a matter, may conceal quantifiers on purpose in order to trap his unwary interlocutor. Suppose a sophist asks his unwary partner at the table, "Are ducks white?" The unwary partner has never met Mr. Q (not to be confused with your buddy Q), but he's got his ad in the personals and looking. He suspects something is wrong with the question, but no matter how he tries to get clarification, the sophist insists the original form of the question, "it's a simple question, just answer it!"

The intent of the sophist might be to force the unwary into a generalization. If the unwary admits there exist white ducks, the sophist declares victory, insisting the unwary has agreed that all ducks are white.

Perhaps that clarifies the matter of your question about "firings". If not, I will gladly provide a more direct example, but a simple example was called for to introduce the main idea.

[Whiskey]

Aight buddy.

I'd like to introduce you to a couple of friends of mine. Please, have a seat and meet my good friend Mr. Daniels. First name is Jack. I met this cat in the aisle of the grocery store one lonely evening many years ago. Real smooth dude and always the gentlemen. The three of us will have some great conversations, although, I think those conversations get even better if my main man, Mr. Quantifier, pulls up a chair to join us. First name The. The Quantifier and I met a few years before I met Jack. While Mr. Daniels has this way of getting a man to express his feelings in a conversation, Mr. Quantifier can help a man ensure that the sentences spoken during a conversation are properly understood. Many times, quantifiers are assumed when speaking but often, they aren't even considered, and sometimes, they are purposefully concealed.

Can you believe this: one man can say, "ducks are white!" while another man says "ducks aren't white!" and it's possible that the two men totally disagree with each other about the color of ducks, but it's also possible they are in full agreement. We just don't know. The two men can share internet links and AI responses and it's impossible to say who is right or wrong. Mr. Daniels might help in such a conversation, he's known to get a man concealing quantifiers to pony up. When it comes to quantifiers, it's always better to open carry.

In the case "ducks are white" a quantifier should come before the noun to tell us how many "ducks" are white. One man might assume the sentence means "all ducks are white" while another may assume it means "some ducks are white". If only "some" ducks are white, then "ducks aren't white" is equally true to say. A rabble-rouser or sophist, or troll, or somebody whose interest is other than the truth of a matter, may conceal quantifiers on purpose in order to trap his unwary interlocutor. Suppose a sophist asks his unwary partner at the table, "Are ducks white?" The unwary partner has never met Mr. Q (not to be confused with your buddy Q), but he's got his ad in the personals and looking. He suspects something is wrong with the question, but no matter how he tries to get clarification, the sophist insists the original form of the question, "it's a simple question, just answer it!"

The intent of the sophist might be to force the unwary into a generalization. If the unwary admits there exist white ducks, the sophist declares victory, insisting the unwary has agreed that all ducks are white.

Perhaps that clarifies the matter of your question about "firings". If not, I will gladly provide a more direct example, but a simple example was called for to introduce the main idea.

Clarifies what is about to come. So send it.

[Gadianton]

I'm not in a position to try for a K2 summit today and so I will assume you're requesting a specific example of the problem of concealing quantification in sentences.

Take this question as an example:

Can the Las Vegas Raiders fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

It's pointless to answer because the answer is both "yes" and "no", no matter what one's biases are, because no quantification is provided. There are other problems with this question if its purpose is to provide insight into Kimmel's suspension, however, even if those other problems are corrected, the lack of quantification will continue to make the question pointless to discuss.

Examples of this question reimagined with quantification:

Can the Las Vegas Raiders (ever) fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

Can the Las Vegas Raiders (always) fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

This helps a lot. The problem is, almost everyone will agree the answer is "yes" to the first example and "no" to the second. Because it's so clear cut for both versions, it's likely that the tacit quantification is meant as a bait and switch. If I'm being generous as the recipient of the question, I'll answer, "sure, they can fire someone for that" intending the restricted quantification, but then the asker will likely declare victory, and respond as if I've assented to the universal version of the question. If an employer can "always" fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers, then it's not much from there to infer Kimmel's suspension is justified, because it's really in the wheelhouse of the company executives to determine what constitutes "stupid crap".

And so we see that providing quantification reveals the question is so easy for most people to agree upon the answer that the question is likely a sham.

[Whiskey]

I'm not in a position to try for a K2 summit today and so I will assume you're requesting a specific example of the problem of concealing quantification in sentences.

Take this question as an example:

Can the Las Vegas Raiders fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

It's pointless to answer because the answer is both "yes" and "no", no matter what one's biases are, because no quantification is provided. There are other problems with this question if its purpose is to provide insight into Kimmel's suspension, however, even if those other problems are corrected, the lack of quantification will continue to make the question pointless to discuss.

Examples of this question reimagined with quantification:

Can the Las Vegas Raiders (ever) fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

Can the Las Vegas Raiders (always) fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers?

This helps a lot. The problem is, almost everyone will agree the answer is "yes" to the first example and "no" to the second. Because it's so clear cut for both versions, it's likely that the tacit quantification is meant as a bait and switch. If I'm being generous as the recipient of the question, I'll answer, "sure, they can fire someone for that" intending the restricted quantification, but then the asker will likely declare victory, and respond as if I've assented to the universal version of the question. If an employer can "always" fire an employee for saying stupid crap about their customers, then it's not much from there to infer Kimmel's suspension is justified, because it's really in the wheelhouse of the company executives to determine what constitutes "stupid crap".

And so we see that providing quantification reveals the question is so easy for most people to agree upon the answer that the question is likely a sham.

Nicely done.

From a data analytics perspective, I would replace quantification with qualification. Though, that does not discredit the validity of your argument.

[honorentheos]

I started skimming the thread and decided it was pointless to read the majority of it if the argument was not about the actions and statements of FCC chairman Brenden Carr. Someone want to argue the FCC was acting in the public interest when it claimed that Jimmy Kimmel should be taken off the air, be my guest. The argument about the right to be employed is not the issue. The issue is if the Executive Branch acted in the interest of the President and exerted influence for his gain at the expense of democratic principles and private corporate interests.