Woman Flips Off Trump’s Motorcade; Instantly Pays a Big Price

Juli Briskman made a bad decision and paid for it almost instantly.

On her bike ride in Sterling, Virginia, President Donald Trump’s motorcade passed her. Trump was on his way home from the golf course.

So, she decided to flip off his motorcade.

According to The Hill:

Briskman said when she saw Trump’s motorcade come up next to her, her “blood just started to boil.”

“I’m thinking, DACA recipients are getting kicked out. He pulled ads for open enrollment in ObamaCare,” she said.

“Only one-third of Puerto Rico has power. I’m thinking, he’s at the damn golf course again,” she continued.

“I flipped off the motorcade a number of times.”

The photo, taken by a White House photographer, went viral.

When Briskman saw it, she was not embarrassed. She was actually quite proud. Proud enough to make it her Facebook profile picture.

As a result, Briskman was fired from her job.

The Huffington Post reported that the woman, Juli Briskman, was fired from her job at government contractor Akima LLC…

…She told the Huffington Post that after the photo surfaced, her bosses told her she had violated the company’s social media policy because she had used the photo as her profile picture.

“They said, ‘We’re separating from you,'” Briskman said.

“Basically, you cannot have ‘lewd’ or ‘obscene’ things on your social media. So they were calling flipping him off ‘obscene.’ “…

…She said she doesn’t regret her actions, adding: “In some ways, I’m doing better than ever.”

“I’m angry about where our country is right now. I am appalled,” she said. “This was an opportunity for me to say something.”

There are no bad guys in this story. Briskman violates company policy. Briskman is fired.

This is similar to Jemele Hill and her two-week suspension from ESPN for tweeting about Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

Hill violated company policy. Hill is suspended.

Specifically, according to The Washington Post, section 4.3 of their social media policy:

“Covered Social Media Activity that contains discriminatory, obscene malicious or threatening content, is knowingly false, create [sic] a hostile work environment, or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct will not be tolerated and will be subject to discipline up to an [sic] including termination of employment.”

In the United States of America, we have the right to do and say as we please. And, our employers also have the right to hold us accountable for our actions if it reflects poorly on the company.

Thus, if our “free speech” violates their policy, they too have the freedom to fire.

Briskman believed that action was worth it, the company did not.

However, during Briskman’s tenure with the company, she flagged some questionable behavior that received no repercussions.

Because Briskman was in charge of the firm’s social media presence during her six-month tenure there, she recently flagged something that did link her company to some pretty ugly stuff.

As she was monitoring Facebook this summer, she found a public comment by a senior director at the company in an otherwise civil discussion by one of his employees about Black Lives Matter.

“You’re a f—— Libtard a——,” the director injected, using his profile that clearly and repeatedly identifies himself as an employee of the firm.

Briskman highlighted the exchange and shared the exchange with senior management.

But, this individual did not “get the old ‘section 4.3’ boot”.

Is this policy not being applied on a consistent basis? Did Briskman really deserve the boot? And, if she did, did the “libtard” comment deserve the same boot?