Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

You are perfectly free to express it.

And as an employer, in most states I am free to fire you if I feel you can't work well with others.

 

That's the legal right. I'm talking about placing a social value on free expression.

 

Dick, go brush up on your landmark First Amendment cases, then get back to me.
[/quote]

I am well aware of the case you're talking about. More aware than you are. The kid is not any more protected than the teacher her. No one is trying to jail or arrest the teacher.

So I ask you again: How was the "Fuck the Draft" plaintiff more protected under the First Amendment than this teacher? How?
[/quote]Well, his arrest was overturned. He suffered no consequences. This teacher hasn't, either, but some on these boards are saying that he should. Which is insane. They both should be protected.

And Wiki says: Prior restraint or prior censorship is censorship in which certain material may not be published or communicated, rather than not prohibiting publication but making the publisher answerable for what is made known.

Again, this could be a form of this because the teachers would not be able to communicate their ideas, knowing full well they will be punished if they do. While the school board or teacher's union would not be held responsible, this would still be a form of prior censorship. Is it a textbook definition of prior restraint? No. But no one said it was.

 

I am well aware of the case you're talking about. More aware than you are. The kid is not any more protected than the teacher her. No one is trying to jail or arrest the teacher.

So I ask you again: How was the "Fuck the Draft" plaintiff more protected under the First Amendment than this teacher? How?
[/quote]Well, his arrest was overturned. He suffered no consequences. This teacher hasn't, either, but some on these boards are saying that he should. Which is insane. They both should be protected.

And Wiki says: Prior restraint or prior censorship is censorship in which certain material may not be published or communicated, rather than not prohibiting publication but making the publisher answerable for what is made known.

Again, this could be a form of this because the teachers would not be able to communicate their ideas, knowing full well they will be punished if they do. While the school board or teacher's union would not be held responsible, this would still be a form of prior censorship. Is it a textbook definition of prior restraint? No. But no one said it was.
[/quote]

It would chill speech, but it is not legal prior restraint. They are not the same.

As far as the "Fuck the Draft" person, you're right, his conviction was overturned. As would be the teacher's.

Again, I ask you: How did the "Fuck the Draft" plaintiff receive "more protection" than the teacher? Please explain. You told me to brush up on my First Amendment cases. I did so. Now explain it to me. You said it. Explain it.

 

No, Dick, that is not what I said. Here is the post in question...

Who defines what is "ignorant, mean or unwise?" I think that is kind of the point being made here. A college kid wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the draft" is protected, but a teacher posting something on their personal Facebook page, on their own time using their own equipment, is not?

I was asking if they deserved the same level of protection because earlier posts were stating how this teacher deserved to be punished while Cohen was not. See the question mark at the end of the post? That indicates a question.

So I will ask you your opinion...does this teacher deserve to be fired or not? Would you give him the same level of freedom of expression as was given to Paul Robert Cohen in 1969?

 

You've gotta have filters. If you wife asks if she looks good in her dress, you gonna tell her it makes her hips look fat?

Do you tell your kid after he makes an error in Little League that he's not nearly as good at baseball as his brother?

Seriously. C'mon.

 

Can the teacher be charged with a crime?

The teacher has the same protection that Cohen had. In fact, the teacher has more, being a public employee.

 

Social, professional and legal issues should be kept separate as much as possible.

 

OK, we agree on this. Why the hell are we arguing when we are on the same side here? Freedom of speech and expression is the only area in life where I am an absolute liberal. I do not see how any journalist couldn't be.

 

Does this mean that you are retreating from the contention that Cohen had more First Amendment protections than this teacher?

 

As a journalist, you should know that people are free to say whatever they want. No one can stop them. The government can't censor them.

So you can quote a football player saying his coach is an idiot who lost the game for the team with his lousy play-calling.

But if you run that quote, you also have to be aware that the kid is going to be in a lot of trouble with the coach and school.

If you quote the coach saying that the refs are a bunch of blind idiots who probably got paid off by Podunk Tech you can print it but have to be aware the coach will be fined or suspended.

If you print a quote from a parent a parent saying the high school principal is an idiot who doesn't care about the kids, that parent may get a lot of support. If you quote a teacher saying that, they could be in real hot water.

So people can say whatever they want but the words can have repercussions. Maybe serious ones.

 

Correct. And this is really where CarltonBanks's "prior restraint" comes in. "Prior restraint" means you can't even publish it to begin with. Or say it. It doesn't mean that there can't be consequences once it is said. In fact, I believe that many to most First Amendment scholars believe that the only thing that the Framers meant to cover with the First Amendment was prior restraint.

CarltonBanks, I believe you are on the record as a Constitutional originalist. Do you believe that only prior restraint should be protected? I am guess "no," because of your most recent post.