Originally Posted by
FXLAX
I think you are confusing two things I’ve said. First, I’m talking about a theoretical first amendment right in the context of someone telling their fellow pilots to commit an illegal job action. Rick said it’s not because that only applies to government. My point is that it’s the government who has passed, enforced, and interpreted the RLA so you can’t write things online because they violate the RLA. So is it not a first amendment issue at that point?
My second point is a hypothetical wherein the RLA doesn’t exist. You would be free to tell pilots to go on wildcat strikes. But like you said, you may still run afoul of your company rules and be punished. And lastly, that in this scenario, the company wouldn’t have grounds to ask a judge to subpoena APC in order to find out who the person is.
To be clear, I’m not referring to consequences. I’m solely speaking to legality.
I think we are confusing a couple points. The speech of advocating isn’t against the law, I can’t find text of the law that says you can’t talk about a job action.
The job action or perceived job action is what is actually against the RLA.
The speech, posts, Fb comments are what the company will be used to prove that there is a job actions. They’d argue that there was a concerted effort by the pilots posting such words to organize a job action.
It is illegal to use speech that could cause immenent lawless action. So advocating to break the RLA could be construed as such possibly but that is most likely a stretch in all but the most extreme instances. As there is a time element that is required.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advo...illegal_action