Originally Posted by
pinseeker
No, I'm not confusing what you said. How has the government enforced the suppression of speech when it relates to a job action? Have they arrested anyone? Have they made anyone pay a fine to the government? No, companies have sought relief from the courts for an illegal job action and those that organized it through either a verbal or written campaign. The courts have had the unions pay a fine to those companies. If you are sure that you are correct and that this type of speech is protected, there is one way to prove your theory, just don't take the rest of us down with you.
Originally Posted by
BlueMoon
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
I think I understand what you guys are saying now. I’m saying is that speech has been used to prove the RLA has been violated. If there were no RLA, there would be no basis for subpoenaing speech to prove it. And you are saying that it’s not the speech, per se, that violates the RLA, it’s the actions of what people do after that speech is made. And the other point about government enforcement of the RLA, I understand it to be a civil case so it wouldn’t be an arrest for violating it. It would be a fine. Who the fine is paid to I believe may be irrelevant to the first amendment as the law was created by government. Not to dissimilar to the current controversy in the Texas civil law against abortions. Just because the law is a civil case, doesn’t mean the constitution cannot be violated in a colateral way.