It wont be long now

[Ursa Majoris]

Did this specific school have that policy?

 

If there is a specific policy about it and the employees are aware of that policy then I do agree with you.

I would bet they did, either via a policy or as terms of a contract, though I do not know for certain.

[gbpfan1231]

I would bet they did, either via a policy or as terms of a contract, though I do not know for certain.

Knowing this answer would make a big difference. I would have thought it would have been a major point made in the article???

[Ursa Majoris]

Knowing this answer would make a big difference. I would have thought it would have been a major point made in the article???

That assumes a desire for all the facts but I imagine the article would prefer to generate outrage. In that, it's succeeded.

[bushwacked]

but I imagine the article would prefer to generate outrage. In that, it's succeeded.

 

[Pope Flick]

Let's be clear here: his freedom of speech and expression was 100% completely protected.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Many private companies have policies on what employees can say or do on Facebook. The same applies to public agencies. If what is said violates known company / agency policy, the employer can take the actions stated in the policy.

 

I'm not sure that this is entirely a suppression of free speech episode so much as a person knowingly violating an employer policy.

 

 

Is your argument that if one can find a thing being done by others that this would justify the same being done in this case? (You seems to have far too subtle a mind for this so I suspect I took you wrong)

 

 

I am not necessarily willing to concede that what is done in private employment relations can also be done in a public employment relationship. The reason I am not willing to concede this is because the law recognizes a difference, or so I believe.

 

I would need to see examples of these policies you speak of. I just drafted a social media policy for the organiation I serve. This by no means makes me an expert in the area, but neither am I wholly uninformed. In drafting the policy I did, I viewed dozens of policies of governemntal agencies, several model policies for governmental agecies, and perhaps a dozen policies by ;arge private employers. In none of thses did I ever see a blanket policy that employee's speech can subject them to job related actions. In all of them I saw policies that stated that if the employee should make that speech from work assets, or during working hours that the employee could be subject to discipline. In all of them I saw provisions that should the employee appear in a uniform associated with a business or service while speaking that they could be disciplined as the speech could be impugned to the employer. In all of them I saw provisions that the speech could in no way be stated or implied to represent the views of the employer such as occuring on their premises, or while displaying their logos, symbols, trademarks or badges. I just never saw any policies going as far as you state they have.

 

Would you have an example of a policy that would illustrate your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now it should be said that I do recognize that we have a very incomplete set of facts set forth in the article. If may be that his facebook page associates him very cklosely with the school. It may be that his students are instructed to contact him through this page or to submit work to this page or to check his page for class related duties. Were that the case then I believe the matter would turn sharply.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[westvirginia]

Let's be clear here: his freedom of speech and expression was 100% completely protected.

 

Yes it was. You take the king's salt, you dance to the king's tune. I'm sure they have some policy.

[Furd]

Some of you guys are making this way too complicated.

 

A school cannot tolerate public bigotry from one of its educators. Period.

 

I think that you have to sh*tcan this guy. Dumbass did it to himself.

[gbpfan1231]

That assumes a desire for all the facts but I imagine the article would prefer to generate outrage. In that, it's succeeded.

I guess it also assumes you have clear cut examples of the policies that you mentioned?????

 

I have not seen any policies that are that clear cut but like I said - if there is one in this specific case then I see no issues with what the school is doing.

[bushwacked]

Some of you guys are making this way too complicated.

 

A school cannot tolerate public bigotry from one of its educators. Period.

 

I think that you have to sh*tcan this guy. Dumbass did it to himself.

 

end thread

[bpwallace49]

Let's be clear here: his freedom of speech and expression was 100% completely protected.

 

+1

 

Now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.

[Jackass]

Some of you guys are making this way too complicated.

 

A school cannot tolerate public bigotry from one of its educators. Period.

 

I think that you have to sh*tcan this guy. Dumbass did it to himself.

 

i think this is the right answer. to make an analogy, you can't have a teacher who's openly in the ku klux klan. He's free to do that, but the public school system does not have to employ him.

[wiegie]

this is what happens when you let men be teachers

[nuke'em ttg]

this is what happens when you let men be teachers

 

they should be able to swap spit and clean kitchen in the break room is what america is sayin, we should tolerate that, but they gotta draw the line at the pakistani drill press in the shop area

[Savage Beatings]

That darn liberal agenda keeping this teacher from spewing hateful messages on the interwebs.

 

 

Well, that's precisely what it is. I'm not saying the school doesn't have a right to do it. In fact I stated that the teacher should have known better. But it certainly isn't a right wing view that is losing this guy his job. In fact (and you might shudder at this thought) I'd be willing to bet that his view is held by more Americans than not, but still he is not allowed to express it in public because of political correctness run amok.

 

I don't expect you to be intellectually honest enough to actually see the truth of the situation. But let's hear what your theory is as to why he is losing his job for expressing his beliefs about homosexual marriage.

[BeeR]

You can fire a great teacher for speaking out on his own time in his own house but you can't get rid of a horrible teacher for being a horrible teacher?????

Welcome to the 21st century. Political correctness and p * s s l i e s who wail if you so much as look at them cross-eyed rule. I'm oppressed! I'm offended! sniffle

 

 

Too much to read. Can I get a one line summary? TIA.

"PC Nazis deal common sense and the 1st amendment another blow"

 

 

 

PS in fairness we should keep in mind that this is Florida we're talking about.

Edited August 20, 2011 by BeeR

[bushwacked]

In fact (and you might shudder at this thought) I'd be willing to bet that his view is held by more Americans than not, but still he is not allowed to express it in public because of political correctness run amok.

 

I don't expect you to be intellectually honest enough to actually see the truth of the situation. But let's hear what your theory is as to why he is losing his job for expressing his beliefs about homosexual marriage.

 

He publicly stated same sex unions nearly make him throw up and equates the lifestyle to a cesspool. Dude's obvisouly a homophobe and playing the PC card is weak ass schtick and no better than Al Sharpton or Jackson playing the race card. If he is losing his job, it's because he's making hate filled statements in public and employers should have, and most likely contractually safeguarded themselves with the right to distance themselves from that, whether a private or public institution.

 

Not that public opinion necessarily justifies anything but here is a snippet from wiki:

 

When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage.[1] In 2011, Gallup,[2] ABC News/Washington Post,[3][4] and CNN/Opinion Research[5] polling data showed that a majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage.

 

This is marriage mind you, not unions, which he seemed to be FB posting about. I couldn't find numbers on how many Americans almost throw up or compare same sex unions to a cesspool. You might want to take a long look in the mirror before accusing someone else of being intelluctually dishonest.

Edited August 21, 2011 by bushwacked

[Duchess Jack]

Welcome to the 21st century. Political correctness and p * s s l i e s who wail if you so much as look at them cross-eyed rule. I'm oppressed! I'm offended! sniffle

Can I assume that you observed this by watching "other people's" interactions?

[bushwacked]

Welcome to the 21st century. Political correctness and p * s s l i e s who wail if you so much as look at them cross-eyed rule. I'm oppressed! I'm offended! sniffle

 

How does this play into you reporting so many posts to the mods?

[Ditkaless Wonders]

He publicly stated same sex unions nearly make him throw up and compares it to a cesspoll. Dude's obvisouly a homophobe and playing the PC card is weak ass schtick and no better than Al Sharpton or Jackson playing the race card. If he is losing his job, it's because he's making hate filled statements in public (He expressed a view. A view that might be considered intolerant. He did not advocate others to action. He did not incite to violence. He expressed a view) and employers should have the right to distance themselves from that, whether a private or public institution (They do have that right. They can insist he not do so from their equipment, on their time, nor can he in any way imply or state that his view reflects that of his employers. He cannot buttress his view by making it under the banner of their name, logos, or insignia. He cannot do so by stating that he, as teacher of the year for such and such school district holds the view).

Not that public opinion necessarily justifies anything but here is a snippet from wiki:

 

 

 

This is marriage mind you, not unions, which he seemed to be FB posting about. I couldn't find numbers on how many Americans almost throw up or compare same sex unions to a cesspoll. You might want to take a long look in the mirror before accusing someone else of being intelluctually dishonest.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[bushwacked]

He did not advocate others to action.

 

I would say his statements most defnitely did advocate others to action .

 

I would also say if he made the exact same comments about Jews or blacks, the exact same thing would have happened and Fox wouldn't have picked up on the story to generate misguided outrage.

Edited August 20, 2011 by bushwacked

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would say his statements most defnitely did advocate others to action .

 

 

The only action he advocated was unfriending him if you disagreed. This is constitutionally and legally irrelevant action.

 

He did not advocate any specific action to harm any specific person, institution, nor even gays in general. He expressed a view. If you disagree with his view, as it appears you do you, should robustly express and debate why it is wrong or ignorant.

 

 

 

 

I wonder what the state of the law in Florida is right now as to same sex marriage.

 

 

I wonder what gives the school district, usually a government or quasi governmental agency the power to terminate the employment of a person for expressing a view, apparently on their own time.

 

I wonder if the dismissed teacher has a union, and whehter they will weigh in on this matter.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would say his statements most defnitely did advocate others to action .

 

I would also say if he made the exact same comments about Jews or blacks, the exact same thing would have happened and Fox wouldn't have picked up on the story to generate misguided outrage.

 

 

As to what Fox news might have done I cannot say, though I have no reason to dispute your conclusion. Many here seem well versed in the habits of these news organizations. I, myself, am not.

 

As for the legal issues I would suggest they would not change in the least.

 

I would find any of the three statements, the actual one or the two you put forward hypothetically, to be repugnant. The question here is to the reach of employers, and specifically governmental employers, to control speech of employees while off duty.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[bushwacked]

If you disagree with his view, as it appears you do you, should robustly express and debate why it is wrong or ignorant.

 

This, and frankly everything else you have posted, almost certainly has nothing to do with the code of ethics he allegedly violated as part of the contractual agreement for employment.

Edited August 21, 2011 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

Teacher fired for calling local residents snobby and arrogant on Facebook.

Why no outrage for this?