Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

More facile legal analysis.

 

   Second, Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12–13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.

 

As the dissenting opinion?  JFC.....

More basic, surely you do not think the First Amendment is absolute?  Or as a government employee, the First Amendment gives you absolute freedom of speech without consequnce?

Edited by Texas Fight
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

When Garrett gets overturned you may be right. Until then, the highest court in the land says you are wrong.
 

 The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.

This makes sense.  It is not saying they can be disciplined based on personal statements made as a private individual, but statements made when speaking, or appearing to speak, as a representative of an organization.

In the military I was clear that I could participate in political or other rallies or events, but I had to do so as an individual.   Except for approved events I could not do so as a uniformed, or even identified service member, as it implied organizational support.  Doing so would potentially open me to disciplinary action.

Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Fight said:

And for all those that posted the student was a plant from the some conservative think tank, must not think that they chose a student from a district where they would face the easiest pathway.  

I don't know w/o going back and rereading if anyone posted that the student was a 'plant,' as far as I know she was a legitimately registered A&M student enrolled in the summer course for credit. I do think the student (and if I recall correctly there was more than one initial complaint in the first(?) week of class) went up the chain (as one should do after consulting with the instructor) and then as this issue was discussed outside of those directly involved and time passed either acting alone or with encouragement achieved the desired result; the instructor was removed from teaching the class permanently.  This was likely the way it was going to go from the outset and I do know I stated as such. However, I'm not sure where a lawsuit would've come in exactly? As a lecturer, that professor had no protections beyond the minimum for employment; I was not aware whether the student entertained a legal remedy but it wouldn't make sense to me to do so. But I'm not close enough nor familiar enough with the situation nor the law to know.

Posted
45 minutes ago, ABSR said:

This makes sense.  It is not saying they can be disciplined based on personal statements made as a private individual, but statements made when speaking, or appearing to speak, as a representative of an organization.

In the military I was clear that I could participate in political or other rallies or events, but I had to do so as an individual.   Except for approved events I could not do so as a uniformed, or even identified service member, as it implied organizational support.  Doing so would potentially open me to disciplinary action.

Under Clinton, he used a Department of Defense Directive (not even an executive order) to establish Don't Ask Don't Tell.  13,000 servicemembers were kicked out of the military from 1994 to 2011 under DADT.  As it relates to First Amendment, the servicemember didn't even have to be LGBTQ.  Just making the verbal statement (sometimes unintentionally) was grounds for separation.  Plenty of examples to go google.

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't know w/o going back and rereading if anyone posted that the student was a 'plant,' as far as I know she was a legitimately registered A&M student enrolled in the summer course for credit. I do think the student (and if I recall correctly there was more than one initial complaint in the first(?) week of class) went up the chain (as one should do after consulting with the instructor) and then as this issue was discussed outside of those directly involved and time passed either acting alone or with encouragement achieved the desired result; the instructor was removed from teaching the class permanently.  This was likely the way it was going to go from the outset and I do know I stated as such. However, I'm not sure where a lawsuit would've come in exactly? As a lecturer, that professor had no protections beyond the minimum for employment; I was not aware whether the student entertained a legal remedy but it wouldn't make sense to me to do so. But I'm not close enough nor familiar enough with the situation nor the law to know.

I'm am sure she is a legitimate enrolled student.  But this is about genuine tolerance, not about how Leonard Leo and the Federalist society are running circles around liberals on issues like this.  Lets get back on topic and talk about how video games and helicopter moms are hurting education.  Not some strategic legal/political framework for social issues setup by the boot-licking MAGA morons who can't read books.

Regarding the lawsuit... It would have been filed by the student (and still may be) if Texas A&M didn't do what Leo wanted.  They would determine the best legal venues to pursue this (Texas, district, circuit, etc..) before they selected student, school, etc.... They wanted this issue to play out and be decided in the courts for the future.  Can an EO control what is taught in universities (i don't know if this was the exact objective).  

Sorry, off topic, lets get back to young people tolerance.....

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

Society is breaking apart at the seams before they have any control over any of it, and they're mad/worried that they're not even going to get to participate in their own version of America before the whole thing descends into madness. And angry young people are intolerant in many ways. 

Posted (edited)

Maybe how adults empower this behavior is part of the problem. We went from a society that defended the rights of people to speak their mind freely even if we find it abhorrent to a nation that goes on witch hunts when people say things we don't like. Yes, consequences of speech I get that but not a single person should be happy with this unless she was physically threatening people. Arresting someone for mocking a death. 

Edit: in the video she touched the guy's cap so that was deemed assault. Yet look at what our governor is selling it as. 

 

Edited by mdmost
Posted
18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Maybe how adults empower this behavior is part of the problem. We went from a society that defended the rights of people to speak their mind freely even if we find it abhorrent to a nation that goes on witch hunts when people say things we don't like. Yes, consequences of speech I get that but not a single person should be happy with this unless she was physically threatening people. Arresting someone for mocking a death. 

Edit: in the video she touched the guy's cap so that was deemed assault. Yet look at what our governor is selling it as. 

 

 

The silence from ardent Free Speech advocates is deafening. In his own words, the Governor is expressing his pleasure that the proverbial State, with a capital S, is punishing a woman for her speech, regardless of whether it involved any alleged assault.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...