Even Obnoxious People Have to Work
A couple choses to protest the Iraq war by hanging an effigy of a soldier in front of their Sacramento, California home. Do I hate it? Sure. Did it have me fuming the first time I heard about it? Of course. However that’s not what this post is about. It isn’t about whether or not the effigy is offensive, is in poor taste or is an example of hate speech. It isn’t even about whether Stephen and Virginia Pearcy—the couple in question--are merely asserting their free speech rights.
The subject matter is this: contacting a subject’s employer when that subject says or does something you don’t like. This blogger didn’t actually contact the Pearcys’ employers himself, but encouraged encouraged his readers to do so.
Unless a person is jeopardizing life, limb, liberty and/or property, contacting his/her employer--while not illegal per se--is a juvenile, tacky ploy and, according to a few lawyers with which I’m acquainted, possibly actionable. As loathsome as I find the Pearcys’ method of free expression in this manner, contacting their employers about it has ‘cheap shot’ written all over it.
On the other hand, the Pearcys should be reminded that free speech doesn’t go hand-in-hand with freedom from the consequences of that speech. They may be able to take all kinds of legal action against those who have torn down the image or otherwise vandalized their home decor, but I can’t believe that they didn’t know that they would catch all manner of flak for the effigy, if only from their neighbors. The cynic in me says it was an attention-getting ploy. A blogger can’t get too mad at that.
And look! It’s working.
(Thanks to Digger’s Realm)
Cross-posted in edited form at In Search of Utopia









They look like whiny, paxil chewing liberals. The sweater that guy is wearing? It screams metro. He's probably envious of that effigy, knowing that it represents an entity with balls (be it male or female, going out into combat requires brass balls polished to the Nth degree in my opinion).
Too bad we can't export this particular breed to Canada.
Posted by: cythen | April 18, 2005 at 09:57 PM
Just HAD to be two yokels from California.
Geebus......I was born and raised here. This invasion is more odious than that of the "Killer Bees"
Sound of grinding teeth
Posted by: wes jackson | April 19, 2005 at 12:34 AM
Virginia Pearcy responded, "To tell us to go to Iraq, a country where people don't have those rights to voice political dissent and expression completely ignores what our democracy is all about."
News flash, Virginia: The people of Iraq now have those very rights. Wanna guess where they got them? Yes, that's right, the people you mock and deride gave them those rights in spite of everything you and your ilk did to try to stop them.
Iraq is free, you lose. Move along.
Posted by: StinKerr | April 19, 2005 at 01:56 AM
I agree that the blogger who contacted their employer was wrong.
I also agree that these people are whiney, annoying, liberal idiots! The most annoying thing about these TWO. They don't even LIVE in the house where they hung the effigy. They subjected their former neighbors to the protestors, supporters, and news media and THEY didn't have to put up with 24 hrs. a day.
Nice huh!
Posted by: Wendi | April 19, 2005 at 06:05 AM
True, but then again, they live in Berkeley so if they hung a similar effigy on their principal residence, I doubt it would faze their neighbors at all.
Posted by: Xrlq | April 19, 2005 at 09:40 AM
hey Stinkerr,
Is Iraq free? How do you define freedom?
Posted by: ben | April 19, 2005 at 10:03 AM
hey Stinkerr,
Is Iraq free? How do you define freedom?
Posted by: ben | April 19, 2005 at 10:06 AM
You are right Xrlq...hanging it in their OWN neighborhood would not have brought them the media attention they wanted. It's Berkeley...none of their neighbors would have cared!
They wouldn't have gotten all over the papers, no one would be talking about them. It was pretty shrewd on their part. Although, if I was one of the former neighbors, I would have been tempted to find their home in Berkeley and paint a BIG *WE LOVE G.W.* sign on their lawn. But, that's just me!
Posted by: Wendi | April 19, 2005 at 10:15 AM
Or anyone, really.
What is freedom?
It's a popular word, but what is it?
Freedom to....
Posted by: ben | April 19, 2005 at 10:25 AM
Gee, the local neighborhood association isn't up in arms over a public eyesore? But let some poor shlub let his grass grow 1/4" higher than the bylaws allows...
Posted by: JSAllison | April 19, 2005 at 12:36 PM
In a time where employers can fire people for SMOKING TOBACCO on their own time, it seems to me that said employer could fire an employee for hanging a soldier in effigy. If the employer wanted to.
Do they have the right to work? Absolutely. Do I have the right to fire them? A year ago I would have said no. Nowadays, the answer trends more to yes...
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman | April 19, 2005 at 01:16 PM
I agree that employers (should) have the right to fire anyone they want. That's what makes tattling to the employer about things not related to work so insidious (again, outside of criminal behavior). It's a dirty trick.
Just because the Pearcys' actions are of a questionable nature, doesn't mean that those who disagree with them have to act likewise.
Posted by: Juliette | April 19, 2005 at 01:42 PM
The second civil war gets a little bit closer each day.
Posted by: wayne | April 19, 2005 at 01:49 PM
Have you ever stared at pictures of liberals to see if you can detect what the problem might be? You shift your gaze back and forth from pinpoint focus on a particular item to taking in the whole picture.
She appears to have a little bit of a woman I meet when I go to a particular bookstore. It is hard to describe. You could say that they are hard-headed or knuckle-headed although not necessarily low IQ. Actually words like that only apply to people who are thought to be smart enough to be mentally culpable in the first place.
A lot of it is about selfishness. Iraq is about some other people. Whether it be our soldiers, or the Iraqi people, or events in Iraq, all those things are about something that is not about the Pearcys and/or a grievance that they have that again is ultimately about the Pearcys.
Posted by: Steve | April 19, 2005 at 03:29 PM
Isn't one of them holding a pitchfork in the original picture?
Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim | April 19, 2005 at 04:44 PM
I rather like the practice of informing employers of the political leanings of their employees, and I would be delighted at getting that info.
Why should I, as an employer, subsidise my enemies?
If someone holds Leftist views, that gives me every reason to suspect their integrity and fitness to work for me in any position of trust. I can choose from any number of good people who deserve a job and will actually enjoy working in a conservative atmosphere.
Posted by: Hugh Jorgan | April 20, 2005 at 06:41 AM
"Should," maybe, but they don't, at least not in California. The general rule is at-will but there are exceptions, and firing for political activity is among them.
Posted by: Xrlq | April 20, 2005 at 09:59 PM
xrlq:"Should," maybe, but they don't, at least not in California.
I know. That's why the word 'should' is inserted.
Posted by: baldilocks | April 20, 2005 at 10:08 PM
Sorry to take so long to get back to you, Ben.
I don't have a quick definition of freedom, but I know it when I see it.
Did you see the people with the purple fingers?
How about the ones who are demonstrating and protesting in the streets for various and opposing ideas? Nobody's bothering them or shooting them.
Maybe the new government being started up? Freely elected, I might add.
How about the appointed government peacefully stepping down to make way for the freely elected government?
How about the majority making sure to include the minority in the new government?
Did I mention that it's freely elected? No soldiers in the voting booth to make sure that the citizens vote the "right way" or examining the ballots and beating the ones who don't get it.
They're free. You lose, Ben. Move along.
Posted by: StinKerr | April 21, 2005 at 02:43 AM
Not saying that I approve of the following antecdote (full of common sense), but I notice a distinct difference between CA and MI. We were living in Lansing at the time of the WTC collapse. Shortly thereafter, a liberal couple in an otherwise conservative neighborhood did something similiar. They recieved a visit from the police a few hours later, who gently told them "We will do our duty to protect your free speech. However, we'd like you to consider that there just aren't physically enough of us to protect you from the rest of them." Their display came down immediately.
Posted by: Lucy | April 21, 2005 at 05:23 PM