Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST
  MMA Playground 4.0 is live!     Returning members: check out the patch notes     New members: visit our getting started guide, read the FAQ's and start playing!

What's Missing From UFC's Response to Miguel Torres, Rashad Evans? Consistency.

Print  
  Page 3 of 3     1     2     3  
Posted By Message

KungFuMaster

Heavyweight Champ

KungFuMaster Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,986
Career:423-341
Joined:May 2011
Camp: The Lone Ranger(s)
Chips:
649

Posted by mrsmiley

I'm not an expert on law,so maybe someone can help me out.
From what I know you are protected from freedom of speech against your government and not a workplace,but your right to speak consertedly is protected and is extended to union and non-union workers alike.

So something like a rape joke may get you fired but if a few of the fighters were to get together and talk about how their boss is mishandling himself or believe he's not being fair they are protected to do so.
I think that's right anyways.



I like your response.

Although a company can fire its employees for any reason or no reason at all, we have to take into consideration, Torres did this outside of the UFC and in no way, shape, or form does his action reflect upon the UFC.

I was bothered by this issue and I went back and looked at old cases where the plaintiffs filed lawsuits against their employers for having been fired due to exercising of freedom of speech. In all cases, the ruling favored the employers stating the employers have not breached any legal parameters while also noting freedom of speech is not protected from private sectors e.g. companies and non-government organizations. However in all these cases, the plaintiffs freedom of speech(es) negatively reflected upon their employers.

In the case of Torres vs the UFC, Torres said nothing which reflected upon the UFC in any negative manner. It is the case of a man saying something which took place away from his work and or associations i.e. MMA, UFC, news media etc. which did not harm his work or his associations in any way.

As far as the letter of the law is concerned, the UFC can fire Torres with or without reason but in some instances of past cases, the ruling judge have instated stricter laws against private sectors on what they can and cannot do to their employees and or petitioners. This case and others like it need to be looked at and dealt with properly to ensure private sectors are not violating human rights which could ultimately lead to the changing of the letter of the law.

And it is changing because unions have been formed to protect employees and they are the direct result of past cases where employers have fired their employees for exercising freedom of speech.

Post #31   12/15/11 12:29:09PM   
 
  Page 3 of 3     1     2     3