Nashville Woman Fired for Anti-War Letter (wrote to Charlie Daniels)

Newschannel 5 Nashville ^ | 3/10/03 | staff

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Believe me, after reading this thread I'm overjoyed you don't live in MY neighborhood. I assume you even run over the Quaker down the street whose religion doesn't allow him to do anything BUT oppose war?

How do you know that I don't live in your neighborhood? Maybe I'm the guy that goes to work every morning and cuts his lawn on the weekend. You never bothered to strike up a conversation because you thought you had him figured out. Bwhahahahaha! There are a lot more of us then there are of you, believe me.

As for the faceless Quaker down the road, if he wants to stick his neck out he must be willing to risk getting it snapped. RMN was a Quaker and look what he did to Hai Phong Harbor. I personally think he should have done a lot more, and not that I really care, but how do his actions square with the honored traditions of the Quaker church?

[SarahW]

I was talking bout principles, too; that was the whole point of my post to you. Don't you get it?

The PRINCIPLE behind freedom of speech isn't that people can shoot their mouths of with no consequence. The principle is that a free press and free speech keep government in check, and that the GOVERNMENT can't use prior restraint or punishment to prevent publication of ideas it doesn't like.

I saw the post about the truck, but you seem to think that folks are somehow protected by the constitution from any and all consequences of their unpopular opinions. I wouldn't murder an antiwar protestor, but I sure as hell would mock, scorn, shun and fire them.

You also seem to think that an employer canning an employee for speaking out is in violation of that priniciple. It is not. (If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize in advance, but I read all your posts , and you seemed to think this woman was denied her rights).

[ohioman]

YES!

[Illbay]

The PRINCIPLE behind freedom of speech isn't that people can shoot their mouths of with no consequence.

Sorry, but if you're implying that one of those "consequences" should be getting run over by a Dodge RAM pickup, you and I have to part company.

[savedbygrace]

First of all, I don't believe Charlie Daniels responded to her directly.

Well, he responded to me directly when I wrote to thank him for the piece. Even signed his name in all caps in the email.

;-)

[Illbay]

Oh, and I don't think she was denied "rights." Sometimes it isn't about "rights" but about principles that ought to be observed.

IMO, unless there are mitigating circumstances (such as that this woman has done things like this repeatedly in the past, or she offended a client/customer thus losing business, etc.) then I simply feel the employer over-reacted.

The story says that she used her private email address, and did it on her own time, but signed the name of her company. Not sure if that was a huge problem or not.

But it could have been handled a lot more easily than it was, IMO.

[CyberAnt]

"her PERSONAL email box"

Doesn't matter - email can be to personal box, but it's ultimately a sub-box to the company's box and is PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYER!! That makes the email box the PROPERTY of the EMPLOYER!!

Sorry - nice try though!

[SarahW]

I not only did not imply such a thing, I affirmatively stated the opposite.

[SarahW]

But what principle are you talking about? I thought you meant the principles behind the first amendment.

Whether she did or didn't deserve to get fired, her employer has no obligation to put up with her under the principles behind the first amendment.

[SarahW]

But what principle are you talking about? I thought you meant the principles behind the first amendment.

Whether she did or didn't deserve to get fired, her employer has no obligation to put up with her under the principles behind the first amendment.

[JebBush2008]

They are when we have men standing on the line poised to go at a moment's notice. They are when we have aircraft flying sorties every single day, attacking ground-to-ground missile sites in preparation for a land attack.

I guess I commited Treason when I opposed Clinton's Bombing in Kosovo. Glad to hear that you were on Board with Bill Clinton and all his bombing adventures.

[doug from upland]

It should have been done on her own computer after business hours. She absolutely had every right to do that. I would suspect that employees have been warned at most companies that you use your work computer for business only and while you are on the clock, personal business is not tolerated.

[GailA]

http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/03/30006410.shtml?Element_ID=30006410

Producer fired after e-mail blasting of Charlie Daniels' Iraq stand

By BRAD SCHMITT
Staff Writer

The Great American Country cable channel has fired a producer after she told Charlie Daniels' publicist in an e-mail that the singer's views on Iraq were ''bulls… propaganda.''

The producer, Tamara Saviano, has now retained high-powered Nashville attorney David Raybin to battle not only the channel, but also Daniels' publicist, Kirt Webster, as well.

''He's the one who initiated this,'' Raybin said of Webster, owner of public relations company Webster & Associates. ''It was his intent to have her terminated.''

Webster yesterday said that wasn't so.

And GAC issued a statement saying Saviano was fired not for her views, but because she didn't state clearly enough in her e-mails that her opinions were her own and not that of the company.

''Our success as a television network requires that we have access to and good relationships with, country music artists, their management and their record labels…,'' the statement said. ''We believe her actions threatened to seriously damage relationships key to GAC's success.''

The controversy has captured the attention of many on Music Row: Was Saviano punished for exercising free speech, or fired for using company time and the company banner to butt heads with a country legend?

For his part, Daniels said he had nothing to do with Saviano's firing.

''I was unaware that Ms. Saviano had even written anything about me, and even if I had been, I would never retaliate,'' he said yesterday. ''I know nothing about Ms. Saviano's relationship with her employer and have had absolutely no contact with them concerning this matter.''

The hubbub started when Daniels, on his Web site charliedaniels.com, posted a rant against actors who have publicly opposed war on Iraq.

Webster copied it and sent it via e-mail to reporters and media figures in the country music field, and Saviano received it on her personal e-mail account, which she regularly had used for business.

In an e-mail exchange with Webster, she described Daniels' posting as ''offensive,'' ''an insult'' and ''bulls… propaganda.''

The first of those e-mails, Saviano concedes, included GAC's name, address and phone number at the bottom. But she says GAC wasn't mentioned in subsequent e-mails.

Saviano then sent this e-mail, with Daniels' posting attached, to two Music Row friends: ''Did y'all see this? I think it's time for everyone to boycott Charlie Daniels. If you disagree with his angry, bitter open letter to Hollywood, pass this on to all of your friends and tell them to stop purchasing CDB music or concert tickets.''

Saviano also forwarded it to Webster with a note saying she was going to send it to 2,000 people.

Yesterday, she said she actually sent it to just three people, and that the mass e-mail claim was a ''tongue-in-cheek'' joke.

GAC apparently didn't think so.

''Without consent of the company, the employee sent a communication — via an e-mail account she regularly used in her capacity as a GAC employee — calling for a boycott of Mr. Charlie Daniels' music concerts in opposition to his 'Open Letter to Hollywood,' '' the GAC statement said.

Webster said he called GAC last Wednesday not to complain about Saviano's views, but to make sure a special on Daniels scheduled to air two days later would, indeed, be broadcast, despite Saviano's views.

''I didn't call to complain, and I didn't call to get her fired,'' he said. ''That wasn't our intention.''

Saviano insists she expressed her opinion on her own time and on her own e-mail account. She also said she didn't consider her exchange with Webster confrontational.

''I didn't think it was testy at all,'' she said. ''I just thought it was a free exchange of blather.''

Plus, Saviano said, Webster knew her from other Music Row jobs and should've known that she was responding as an individual, not as a GAC employee.

''I just want to send a message that this isn't right,'' she said. ''I believe that my personal convictions that I stated … have nothing to do with my job performance.''

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Let's go over this one more time. I'm not talking about Clinton or Bush or Nixon or Johnson. I opposed Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being and I support GWB.

I will say this once more slowly, okay? When-our-troops-are-engaged-in-combat, all-protest-needs- to-end. At that point, I am more concerned about the lives of our warriors than the politicians or their politics. Why is this so bloody difficult for some of you to understand? It's the soldiers and their families that matter. Period, end of story.

[mars32]

I know we sold weapons to Iraq in the past, but what is this about us telling them it was ok for them to invade Kuwait? I disagree with this, but maybe you know something I don't? Can I have details here

[mars32]

Illbay you ARE right, people should have the right to say dang near anything they want in our free society. Emotions run high on this. Even the "coldpatriot" has to calm down every once in a while. My frustration, and maybe O.C.'s, is that while they have the right to protest and be anti-war, I think they are nieve, I think to a certain extent they are being used by Iraq (the media is an extremely powerful tool), and I honestly do not think a lot of them have America's best interests at heart. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am. I sometimes think that we could have the (this is an historical stretch) the Red Army on our northern border, Nazi Germany on our southern border, Napolean's armies coming at us on the east coast, and Genghis Khan coming at us on the west coast, and I wonder sometimes if even then, these people would lift a finger to defend the country. A lot of them appear to me to be people who are the 1st to use the freedoms of this country, but the last to defend it. We have been, and are, under attack, whether it's in New York, or Kuwait, or the Phillipines. Maybe I've got them all wrong, I don't know. Again, emotions get high, I would hope O.C. would not hit anyone with his car.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

All these anti-war protesters get a free pass from me until the fighting starts. It's the protesting after our men are in combat that I won't stand for.

I don't really want to kill anyone, Mars, but I am fed up with the dissent. I'm at the age where if push comes to shove, I'm not sure what I would do. One thing's for certain, if I see these ungrateful, unwashed creeps on the street holding their "Bush is a Nazi", "Don't Kill Iraqi Babies" or "No Blood for Oil" posters, I will not pass quietly by.

Thanks for your post. O.C.

[Illbay]

They are naive, they are stupid, they are complete idiots without a lick of sense.

All of the above.

But they aren't traitors and they aren't seditious. Not unless and until they start committing acts of sabotage and general insurrection.

We uphold their right to speak out, no matter how lamely, because we reserve that right to ourselves. Ultimately the truth ALWAYS prevails--no matter how much it might have to go through.

Now, that some of these people DO have evil intent, I do not doubt, but again, the guiding philosophy of our nation's law is that you are innocent until proved guilty. And speaking unpopular opinions are NOT prima facie evidence of guilt.

[Illbay]

No one is asking you to be quiet. You can shout, holler, and gesticulate all you want.

You can be far more outrageous than they. You can call them every name in the book (and nothing you call them would probably make a patch on the truth).

But cannot abrogate their right to speak. And you can't break the law, and then think you are justified because of what they say.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

No one is asking you to be quiet. You can shout, holler, and gesticulate all you want. You can be far more outrageous than they. You can call them every name in the book (and nothing you call them would probably make a patch on the truth). But cannot abrogate their right to speak. And you can't break the law, and then think you are justified because of what they say.

If I break the law, I expect to pay the price. I don't need you to lecture me about the law and my own conscience. What these protesters and their Vietnam era counterparts engage(d) in is not what our founding fathers envisioned nearly 230 years ago. The fact that my generation's leaders did not have the courage to fully prosecute the war in Vietnam and crush the communists is what caused this whole mess we're in now. The dissent I am hearing and seeing is reminiscent of the '60s and it is wrong. Unfortunately, the genie was loosed from the bottle during the late '60s and I don't think we will ever be able to coax it back in.

You may want to invest in a grammar/spell checker. Wading through your drivel is difficult enough without all the errors.