Dale Carnegie in his book 'How to win friends & influence people' states you can't win an argument and we agree. We here in why did you join the union do not support Samuelsen’s efforts to silence a fellow co worker in the guise that those opinions posted in insidelocal100.blogspot.com are undermining his ability to run Local 100.
There are thousands of our co workers who hold the same views does that mean Samuelsen will silence all of them by filing lawsuits against them. We here in why did you join the union are concerned that this anti-first amendment effort to silence a fellow co worker will only perpetuate the infighting which Samuelsen said needs to end. Therefore the lawsuit contradicts his rhetoric.
If the intention of the lawsuit is to unmask the blogger then it does not hold water. Once unmasked what will that bring about? Will it create harmony or will it change the blogger’s opinion about Samuelsen? As Dale Carnegie said you can't win an argument. We believe Samuelsen should adhere to that advice because there are 38000 arguments and surely Samuelsen cannot win them all.
First, Samuelsen should adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 458.2 Bill of rights of members of labor organizations subsection (a)(2)...to express any views, arguments or opinions.... it is clear our fellow co worker has that right. We here in why did you join the union are surprised at the waste of resources that could be directed to the well being of the membership. If our fellow co worker has no moral courage to back his opinions publicly then we will remind Samuelsen of those anonymous hurtful outbursts from the crowd directed towards the laid off members in the solidarity fund town hall meeting at the Jacob Javits Center. Do we like them? no but we have to tolerate them.
Second, American Civil Liberties Union provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk. ACLU position has been to defend the first amendment right to full freedom of speech. We would advice our morally defunct fellow co worker to seek out ACLU assistance.
Third, our courage less co worker has a defense as a qualified privilege regarding the matter of Haiti money and meeting Walder which has been discussed in monthly meetings. Fourth, Samuelsen as a public figure, gives our morally corrupt fellow co worker a way out as a defense. John Samuelsen is not a private individual thus it is a total waste of energy and resources towards a fruitless endeavor.
We hope you read our opinions and enjoy them, we hope that even on occasion we get you angry and upset, we want you to share our passion to better Local 100 and the well being of the membership. It is your choice to agree or disagree with us. It is this kind of biting commentary that has won us our fellow co workers and occasionally made enemies. But our track record shows that we are right a lot more often than we are wrong. We here in why did you join the union work very hard to bring in different points of view as well as true discussion & debate. Therefore it's always worthwhile to learn some of the issues. On this issue we side with our courage less co worker, he has a right to his opinions. We remind Samuelsen that in America we have a right to express our opinions.
Manhattanville do I read you sweating a little?Don't worry.
ReplyDeleteWhile your argument about first amendment rights sounds good, it does not apply in this case.
The first amendment does apply in this case.
To explain, you can say such and such is a bum, but if you say such and such ia a bum who robbed the 7-11 you are opening yourself up to legal problems.
That is why bloggers should be careful about what they print.
Besides all that, in my opinion, insidelocal100 blog is the worst of what blogging or opinion based media can be.
It is a blog that is totally censored, and in my opinion is the product of a few people posting over and over again to make it look like it has a following.
No blog (as you know) has 100% approval from it's readers. insidelocal100 blog does. So it is more fiction than fact.
Also if you try to add to the discussion by posting a dissenting view, the blog does not print it.
Unlike this blog that practices no censorship at all.
The other blog, tells lies about people and hides behind names like "proud CTA" or mobile wash worker. Typical for that bunch.
They have attacked me for my support of the solidarity fund, but would allow a proper debate about my stance.
I amactually surprised that you would defend a blog that is so opposite from this one, one who rather than encourage discussion, restricts it.