Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

[Dick Whitman]

That said, the teacher exercised his right to free speech in a public forum. It isn't unreasonable to ask if there's to be a consequence for doing so.

For my money, acceptable consequences include loss of respect of friends and family, public scrutiny, etc. Loss of job, especially a state-sponsored job, should not be on the list.

He's on administrative leave so far.

Firing him for this one episode would be extreme. (Maybe for a pattern of instances like this; or for obvious bigotry in how he grades, or deals with students, etc.)

And again: If he simply types "I object to gay marriage." none of this is likely to happen.

So speech should get more protection if you are less emphatic about it?

Emphatic?

Nope.

But colorful amplifiers like "cesspool" certainly muddy the waters as a matter of "hate speech."

There is no such thing.

Here's an exercise:

I am a white supremacist who is going to open a restaurant in downtown Detroit.

I am going to call it, "The I Hate N$*$&$& Restaurant."

Write a law to stop me.

 

[Azrael]

In the dull laboratory of sterile Constitutional hypotheticals, perhaps 'hate speech' doesn't exist.

But in the two-fisted society you currently inhabit, 'hate speech' is a thing we all get to wrestle with.

 

[Dick Whitman]

In the dull laboratory of sterile Constitutional hypotheticals, perhaps 'hate speech' doesn't exist.

But in the two-fisted society you currently inhabit, 'hate speech' is a thing we all get to wrestle with.

This isn't a sterile Constitutional hypothetical.

A man's job is in jeopardy.

You insinuate this is justifiable, or at least more so, because he used "hate speech," implying that this should receive a lesser level of First Amendment protection.

 

[Point of Order]

You guys who are arguing that this is a First Amendment issue is right. The Establishment clause. If Dude can't leave his religious beliefs out of his work then he shouldn't be teaching.

 

[RickStain]

You guys who are arguing that this is a First Amendment issue is right. The Establishment clause. If Dude can't leave his religious beliefs out of his work then he shouldn't be teaching.

Agreed. If he brings his beliefs into his teaching, then there is a problem.

 

[Azrael]

In the dull laboratory of sterile Constitutional hypotheticals, perhaps 'hate speech' doesn't exist.

But in the two-fisted society you currently inhabit, 'hate speech' is a thing we all get to wrestle with.

This isn't a sterile Constitutional hypothetical.

A man's job is in jeopardy.

You insinuate this is justifiable, or at least more so, because he used "hate speech," implying that this should receive a lesser level of First Amendment protection.

I haven't insinuated a thing.

I've said that this instance of a teacher being suspended for a Facebook posting is a complex example of Free Speech, which it certainly is, because as a public employee he chose to characterize his distaste for a certain group of people in a certain and very colorful way.

"Hate speech" as a concept is a terribly complicated cultural byproduct of our society's impulse toward progress. In the course of becoming less prejudiced, less racist, less bigoted, we all have to wrestle new standards of speech and conduct.

 

[YGBFKM]

"You guys is"?

 

[Dick Whitman]

In the dull laboratory of sterile Constitutional hypotheticals, perhaps 'hate speech' doesn't exist.

But in the two-fisted society you currently inhabit, 'hate speech' is a thing we all get to wrestle with.

This isn't a sterile Constitutional hypothetical.

A man's job is in jeopardy.

You insinuate this is justifiable, or at least more so, because he used "hate speech," implying that this should receive a lesser level of First Amendment protection.

I haven't insinuated a thing.

I've said that this instance of a teacher being suspended for a Facebook posting is a complex example of Free Speech, which it certainly is, because as a public employee he chose to characterize his distaste for a certain group of people in a certain and very colorful way.

"Hate speech" as a concept is a terribly complicated cultural byproduct of our society's impulse toward progress. In the course of becoming less prejudiced, less racist, less bigoted, we all have to wrestle new standards of speech and conduct.

There is no such thing as "hate speech" under the First Amendment. That is settled law. No wrestling required.

 

[RickStain]

"Hate speech" as a concept is a terribly complicated cultural byproduct of our society's impulse toward progress. In the course of becoming less prejudiced, less racist, less bigoted, we all have to wrestle new standards of speech and conduct.

From my point of view, the concept of "hate speech" nothing but an attempt at an end-run around free expression perpetrated by people with very little respect for that freedom.

Your mileage may vary

 

[Dick Whitman]

A First Amendment that didn't protect "hate speech" is no First Amendment at all.

 

[Azrael]

Thus we go back to employers, employees and codes of conduct vs. "settled law."

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thus we go back to employers, employees and codes of conduct vs. "settled law."

Here would be the scoreboard in that battle:

Settled Law: 100
Employer "code of conduct" that includes articulated speech restrictions: 0