The Instigator
ilovejews7
Pro (for)
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)

Should the first amendment be aboilshed due to social media background checks?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
LaL36 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 278 times Debate No: 102369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

ilovejews7

Pro

Employers require social media background checks. So should the first amendment be abolished to better suit the labor force? I think abolishing the first amendment would benefit a modern, competitive work force. Employers are politically sensitive, so due to this, i believe the first amendment to be obsolete. In modern times, the first amendment is used by unemployable discontents who spend their time complaining about the system. I think the first amendment should be abolished ,or possibly modified, to better suit the whims of modern corporations. what do you think?

excsue my unedited grammr sentence structure punctuation
LaL36

Con

Thank you to pro for instigating and good luck!

The function of the first amendment is to secure our rights not to make it easy for us to get job. You can be opposed to social media checks but ultimately the person who posts on social media is accountable for making it public the same way a person is accountable for what they say. Nobody is coercing somebody to post on social media. Additionally, how would this benefit the workforce in any way? Just because employers have less information on this person does not make it helpful. The first amendment's function has nothing to do with the work force. It is an inalienable right. If the government is given the power to revoke this right we lose our right to criticism of our leaders and government.

Lastly, pro you may not be aware of this but the first amendment also includes the right to freedom of exercise of religion and the establishment clause. There is no reason to remove this well for something as trivial as the sensitivity of employers.
Debate Round No. 1
ilovejews7

Pro

What good is freedom of speech if it interferes with one's ambitions? If the first amendment is a modern employment barrier, then what is the purpose of free speech ? many people, for example, have been fired for facebook posts that were made during their leisure time. So it seems that freedom of speech should be granted solely to people or entities who can actually afford the right. Employers screen applicants social media history to see if they committed what they define as a social media felony, which could be defined as something political or personal. Therefore, i think freedom of speech should be granted solely to wealthy individuals or corporations, since they can actually afford to have it. I disagree with your notion that freedom of speech cannot interfere with the labor force. Nobody is coercing one to post on facebook yet posting on facebook could be detrimental to one's career... Like i said, many people have been fired for sloppy drunk facebook posts that may have hinted something about their boss or company....some employers are advocating for microchips to be implanted into employees...so it seems that the labor force is becoming more authoritarian especially as times goes on which will inevitably erode our first amendment rights anyways...I think exclusively granting freedom of speech tp wealthy individuals and corporations will decrase unemployment claims and employment related litigation...

excuse my unedited grammar run on sentence punctuation lack of sense hi!
LaL36

Con

Pro this is literally the greatest part of freedom of speech for you: You have the freedom not to speak as well. End of story. If you do not want to post on facebook because you think it will affect your job then by all means do not post on facebook. But this notion that now we must remove the right from everybody else must not be tolerated. And if you are claiming that the corporations are the ones causing the abuse of the right how can you advocate that they be the only ones granted the right? I have not been aware of microchips being inserted but if that is the case I find that absurd as well. But the only possible way to counter such deeds is to speak up and not grant all the power to the employers because that creates room for them to do pretty nasty stuff if nobody can speak up or use social media.
Debate Round No. 2
ilovejews7

Pro

. It is obvious that an employer does not want a potential applicant or current employee to leak stock information or for that matter company workings. However, the social media check occurs before the interview process ,when it is decided if the applicant is eliigible for the interview. , One may ask, what is the employer analyzing in regards to social media checks? is this a potential mark on a professional's resume in the same manner AS A felony? A person, as a teen, may have made an innocent post such as " i hate george bush" . just imagine that innocent post costing someone a job due to an employer's anal bias. The labor market has become what can be described as authoritarian post recession. Employers are using time management technology such as gps as well as ridiculous background checks such as credit and social media checks. It is obvious that employers will become more authoritarian especailly with automation ever encroaching into the labor market.... therefore, i believe that the right to freedom of speech should be solely granted to financially independent individuals and corporate entities, because they can afford to be unemployable. excuse my run on sentence unedited grammar punctuation comma splices and lack of sense as a debate argument
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 8 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
If anything, employer access to employee social media should be restricted in order to stop commercial discrimination -- the same reason medical records cannot be accessed by employers.
Posted by Jonbonbon 8 months ago
Jonbonbon
This is a troll right? The first amendment and checking social media have nothing to do with each other. The first amendment only applies to what the government restricts. Doing a social media check of a potential employee is just a way to check to make sure you're not going to hire someone who's going to constantly complain about your company or spends most of their free time being irresponsible.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.