Florida professor could be fired for suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooting was a Hoax.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Hold on, why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that the professor thinks its a hoax? Doesn't the OP say that what he was really saying was that the media did a bad job of reporting (and with things like the wrong person being identified as the shooter and all that who can say different)? The actual article itself is really lacking in information so I can't really say for sure, and it's not like the professor himself made that video and nothing suggests that he actually believes it.

DVS BSTrD:
Of course Fox news is on his side, any excuse as long as it means white people can keep their guns. I've read some of his statement: the way he so patronizing danced around calling it an outright hoax "if at all". If he wants the the media to hold itself accountable he should set an example and resign so the school doesn't have to be associated with his ignorant fear mongering.

Who said anything about white people or guns. The article is about a professor keeping his job over personal opinions posted on the internet. The way people want to bring up color or race in threads and articles completely unrelated is a sign of the person being racist themselves, so please leave race out of the discussion. Guns have only a very slight bearing on the discussion as the conspiracy theory seems to think that the hoax was to push the gun laws, but once again not what we are discussing. As for Fox, we know that Fox is slanted and retarded, I used the link because it was the first one I saw on the subject and I wanted to share the news. Even though Fox is retarded I highly doubt they are making this story up.

As for you insinuating that he be fired because he implied that he believes there is a hoax in the first place is relevant, but I think your motivations for firing someone are a little harsh. You don't go out of your way to fire people for their personal beliefs. I don't know where you work, but what if they decided to fire you for your belief that Fox news is slanted and fakes the news? That is a personal opinion, you are posting it on the internet, and many people like fox news (for whatever reason). By your standards you should be fired for having an opinion. Its okay though, because you are going to resign to make sure your employer avoids any potential fall out from Fox news lovers not using their services anymore.

KingsGambit:

barbzilla:
For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

So the second ammendment is carved in stone and can't be challenged, but screw his first ammendment rights?

He might be an idiot, but last I heard the US was quite proud of being the land of free speech, a free press and being able to have an opinion contrary to the status quo without fear of persecution or prosecution.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, it sounds like you are saying I think he should be fired. I do not, I think he has a right to his opinions and, as long as he doesn't imply it is the opinion of the university, he is entitled to speak/write his mind on whatever subject matter he feels like (provided it isn't hateful, but that is another discussion).

Captcha: know your rights

Damn skippy captcha

Gatx:
Hold on, why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that the professor thinks its a hoax? Doesn't the OP say that what he was really saying was that the media did a bad job of reporting (and with things like the wrong person being identified as the shooter and all that who can say different)? The actual article itself is really lacking in information so I can't really say for sure, and it's not like the professor himself made that video and nothing suggests that he actually believes it.

If you read into what he actually wrote on the blog, it is fairly evident that he is at least considering the possibility of it being a hoax. I will try to dig up a more in depth article when I get home for the thread and post it in another spoiler. I don't really blame him for thinking there are some issues with the investigation though, but I wouldn't go about advocating the hoax idea until I at least heard the official reports when they are released.

FelixG:

Revolutionary:
If you actually look at the conspiracy theorists video, a lot of their "evidence" is actually supposition here-say, and flimsy observations that prove absolutely nothing. Also Fox news lol. As to whether he should be fired or not is a bit of a fiddly matter. I'm all for free speech, but what he's saying is fairly offensive. At the end of the day Id probably say because this happened on his personal blog and not through any official channels The guy shouldn't be fired. Just IMO.

I have looked at a few of them, isnt their main point that a lot of things seem to have been posted the day before the shootings then removed such as memorial sites and the shooters death certificate?

Yes but It turns out the pages were actually just pages that had already been lying around and renamed. I.e someone just re purposed an already existing page (Created before the shooting).
most of the research has already been done here.

Katatori-kun:

Not every country has that law. I actually don't know the American (or Floridian) laws pertinent here, but the fact that they don't come up in the article suggests to me that they aren't applicable.

Ahhh.

I wasn't sure if America as a whole or it's states therein had anything similar law wise.

Although Unfair dismissal and Unlawful Dismissal were only properly enforced when the Employment Act was updated in 1996 so it's still a relatively new law.

TJC:
Frankly, if a professor is evidently too dumb to breathe, then yes, he should be fired because in his position, stupidity IS contagious.

But sadly, we have to stay calm and realize that freedom of speech also includes fucking stupidity and it wouldn't be alright to fire him just because you disagree with his disrespectful, dumbass opinion. So no firing but the university should double-check his qualities as a teacher (if he's actually teaching something)

Revolutionary:
If you actually look at the conspiracy theorists video, a lot of their "evidence" is actually supposition here-say, and flimsy observations that prove absolutely nothing. Also Fox news lol. As to whether he should be fired or not is a bit of a fiddly matter. I'm all for free speech, but what he's saying is fairly offensive. At the end of the day Id probably say because this happened on his personal blog and not through any official channels The guy shouldn't be fired. Just IMO.

erttheking:
This is probably mean for me to say...but he's probably a loon and they'll be better off without him.

He's saying, if OP is to be believed, that the media didn't do their best job when it came to covering and investigating the event, and you're all reacting as though he's a pothead conspiracy crackhead.

Charli:
On his personal blog? No. In his lessons to his students? Debatable.

But yeah you're not allowed to fire someone over what they believe. That's retarded. Even if you disagree with what they believe in.

Sure you can. As an employer I can fire anyone in my employ for any reason other than personal bias specifically against their race, sex, sometimes disability, and in some states sexuality. I am allowed t fire them for the views they express. Whether that is moral or not, whatever. The point is that they are ALLOWED

Freedom of Speech protects you from criminal prosecution. That's it. Your employer is more than in their rights to fire you if they believe your comments have negatively impacted their business. He definitely should not see jail time, but if his college fired him for making them look stupid...I wouldn't blame them.

barbzilla:

DVS BSTrD:
Of course Fox news is on his side, any excuse as long as it means white people can keep their guns. I've read some of his statement: the way he so patronizing danced around calling it an outright hoax "if at all". If he wants the the media to hold itself accountable he should set an example and resign so the school doesn't have to be associated with his ignorant fear mongering.

Who said anything about white people or guns. The article is about a professor keeping his job over personal opinions posted on the internet. The way people want to bring up color or race in threads and articles completely unrelated is a sign of the person being racist themselves, so please leave race out of the discussion. Guns have only a very slight bearing on the discussion as the conspiracy theory seems to think that the hoax was to push the gun laws, but once again not what we are discussing. As for Fox, we know that Fox is slanted and retarded, I used the link because it was the first one I saw on the subject and I wanted to share the news. Even though Fox is retarded I highly doubt they are making this story up.

As for you insinuating that he be fired because he implied that he believes there is a hoax in the first place is relevant, but I think your motivations for firing someone are a little harsh. You don't go out of your way to fire people for their personal beliefs. I don't know where you work, but what if they decided to fire you for your belief that Fox news is slanted and fakes the news? That is a personal opinion, you are posting it on the internet, and many people like fox news (for whatever reason). By your standards you should be fired for having an opinion. Its okay though, because you are going to resign to make sure your employer avoids any potential fall out from Fox news lovers not using their services anymore.

You and I both know Fox only cares about freedom of speech when it suits them. And it suits them to support a guy who claims that Sandy hook was a hoax. The Sandy Hook Truthers believe that the massacre was orchestrated by the government as part of a plot to disarm the populace. The more the right can get people to doubt the "official" story of Sandy Hook, the easier it is to get people to believe the government was behind it. Or have you never heard of the "second gunman" or "9/11 was an inside job". A few puffs of smoke in odd places, one firefighter says he heard a boom before the towers started falling, that's all it takes. From James Tracy's blog:

While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place - at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described

Yeah that's not inflammatory wording at all, especially coming from a COMMUNICATIONS professor ~_~

And I've never thought that just because people believe what they're saying is a reason they should get away with saying it. Just how much are YOU willing to let people get away with? When does reality cease to apply? Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time? How does a man in the field of education not understand that people do not start out with all the right information? What does he think of all the "inconsistances" on his student's tests when they get some of the questions wrong? Does that mean the lessons never took place at least in the way academic authorities and the schools class schedule have described?

But that's okay, because no matter WHAT the subject, anyone should be allowed to express an oposite opinion and have it not reflect on their ability to do their job.

Revolutionary:

FelixG:

Revolutionary:
If you actually look at the conspiracy theorists video, a lot of their "evidence" is actually supposition here-say, and flimsy observations that prove absolutely nothing. Also Fox news lol. As to whether he should be fired or not is a bit of a fiddly matter. I'm all for free speech, but what he's saying is fairly offensive. At the end of the day Id probably say because this happened on his personal blog and not through any official channels The guy shouldn't be fired. Just IMO.

I have looked at a few of them, isnt their main point that a lot of things seem to have been posted the day before the shootings then removed such as memorial sites and the shooters death certificate?

Yes but It turns out the pages were actually just pages that had already been lying around and renamed. I.e someone just re purposed an already existing page (Created before the shooting).
most of the research has already been done here.

The facebook page I have looked into myself. You can check the activity logs on facebook to show if there were changes to the page, the only change that shows up in the activity log was when it was created on the 12th. This could have been a glitch in the system though, as we all know the internet is not reliable. The other issue being that even though internet mistakes do happen, why are there 6+ different sites/pages all with date errors on them relating to this shooting?

real simple to answer with 2 questions.

1) Does this somehow, due to the class he might teach, intervene with him doing his job.

2) Does being a professor somehow means that you can't give your opinion anymore (no matter how crazy it might be)

Answer to any of those yes, he should get fired.

DVS BSTrD:

barbzilla:

DVS BSTrD:
Of course Fox news is on his side, any excuse as long as it means white people can keep their guns. I've read some of his statement: the way he so patronizing danced around calling it an outright hoax "if at all". If he wants the the media to hold itself accountable he should set an example and resign so the school doesn't have to be associated with his ignorant fear mongering.

Who said anything about white people or guns. The article is about a professor keeping his job over personal opinions posted on the internet. The way people want to bring up color or race in threads and articles completely unrelated is a sign of the person being racist themselves, so please leave race out of the discussion. Guns have only a very slight bearing on the discussion as the conspiracy theory seems to think that the hoax was to push the gun laws, but once again not what we are discussing. As for Fox, we know that Fox is slanted and retarded, I used the link because it was the first one I saw on the subject and I wanted to share the news. Even though Fox is retarded I highly doubt they are making this story up.

As for you insinuating that he be fired because he implied that he believes there is a hoax in the first place is relevant, but I think your motivations for firing someone are a little harsh. You don't go out of your way to fire people for their personal beliefs. I don't know where you work, but what if they decided to fire you for your belief that Fox news is slanted and fakes the news? That is a personal opinion, you are posting it on the internet, and many people like fox news (for whatever reason). By your standards you should be fired for having an opinion. Its okay though, because you are going to resign to make sure your employer avoids any potential fall out from Fox news lovers not using their services anymore.

You and I both know Fox only cares about freedom of speech when it suits them. And it suits them to support a guy who claims that Sandy hook was a hoax. The Sandy Hook Truthers believe that the massacre was orchestrated by the government as part of a plot to disarm the populace. The more the right can get people to doubt the "official" story of Sandy Hook, the easier it is to get people to believe the government was behind it. Or have you never heard of the "second gunman" or "9/11 was an inside job". A few puffs of smoke in odd places, one firefighter says he heard a boom before the towers started falling, that's all it takes. From James Tracy's blog:

Does that mean that you should disregard information gleaned just because it is leading in a direction that is false? The overall conspiracy thinks there is some big government agenda, but that doesn't mean they don't have a few valid points. Most conspiracies are based on one or two relevant issues that are wrong or make little sense, they then take that and run crazy with it making outrageous claims. However, what if those relevant issues are actually real problems, but the interpretation was wrong. Most of our greatest discoveries are accidental. We get things because we try something where the end result was wrong, but we learned valuable information along the way. This is the way of the world.

Yes I do know that Fox only believes in things that suit their purpose, and then only when it suits their purpose as well.

While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place - at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described

Yeah that's not inflammatory wording at all, especially coming from a COMMUNICATIONS professor ~_~

And I've never thought that just because people believe what they're saying is a reason they should get away with saying it. Just how much are YOU willing to let people get away with? When does reality cease to apply? Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time? How does a man in the field of education not understand that people do not start out with all the right information? What does he think of all the "inconsistances" on his student's tests when they get some of the questions wrong? Does that mean the lessons never took place at least in the way academic authorities and the schools class schedule have described?

Once again you are implying things you do not know. For all we know he was complaining about other issues. Hell he could be a huge activist trying to get media to only report factual and complete information, but since nobody has made a big stink of it up till this point we haven't heard about it. You make the statement yourself, we do not start with all of the correct information. Great job at proving your own point, and helping to prove my previous point

But that's okay, because no matter WHAT the subject, anyone should be allowed to express an oposite opinion and have it not reflect on their ability to do their job.

What do you mean express an opposite opinion? This statement doesn't make any sense to me, so I am not really able to debate it. Opposite to who/what?

People should be able to express their opinions, as long as they state it as opinion and not fact (and as long as it isn't hateful, but that is another topic all together).

SonicWaffle:

barbzilla:
For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

DVS BSTrD:
Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time?

I see you're once again filling in gaps of information with your own bias.

Just because you aren't aware of something happening doesn't mean it didn't/hasn't happened.

Susan Arendt:

SonicWaffle:

barbzilla:
For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

SonicWaffle:

Susan Arendt:

SonicWaffle:

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

Oh, agreed. Of course, people could argue that having someone on staff who "buys into conspiracies" is detrimental to the school's image, too. My sole point was that something being on a personal blog does not automatically make it off limits with regards to whether or not someone should be fired. But, no, the two aren't anywhere near close in scope.

The 1st Amendment guarantees protection against the U.S. government. That is true, and it does not apply to private institutions.

However- the freedom of speech afforded to professors and educators in college systems falls under the category of the "freedom of expression for educators" bit.

I don't think it's a guarantee or anything, but from his statements- the accusation is hyperbole.

Practicing skepticism in a time of sensationalist media seems to be good practice. I find the "that probably happened" statement questionable, but many of the details concerning the shooting seem to have been blurred or lost for the first couple weeks following the shootings. No one really had any clue what happened- apart from the large death toll.

People wanted to blame someone and blamed anyone they could find. In particular, the Escapist should remember that someone with the same name got blamed for the shooting, and he liked Mass Effect on his Facebook page. This resulted in negative media attention against video games and mob mentality attacking this poor fellow.

I'm not arguing that he should be skeptical about children dying. I'm arguing that media that tries to interview parents of recently deceased children for ratings is not a reliable source of information.

Susan Arendt:
Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business.

Is it though?

Provided the person in question has done nothing criminal, are they not free to believe whatever they want? regardless of what the rest of society thinks?

One might argue that it may lend credence that they're a higher risk than another, but isn't that basically persecuting someone who has done nothing wrong?

Fuck off, all you people saying he should be fired for this.

How would you like it if someone took offense to something you wrote on Facebook or your blog or even this site and saw fit that you be fired for it?

Unless he's actually trying to tell his students that the shooting was a hoax or he's doing his job wrong, he doesn't deserve to be fired.

Susan Arendt:

SonicWaffle:

Susan Arendt:

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

Oh, agreed. Of course, people could argue that having someone on staff who "buys into conspiracies" is detrimental to the school's image, too. My sole point was that something being on a personal blog does not automatically make it off limits with regards to whether or not someone should be fired. But, no, the two aren't anywhere near close in scope.

Well, that was why I added the proviso;

As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Someone could argue anything as detrimental. I've seen atheists argue that religious belief is a good reason to keep someone from teaching, as it makes them a detriment to the children's education. I've heard the same thing about atheist teachers from believers.

Just because someone argues that personal beliefs might impact negatively on a school's reputation, that shouldn't influence reality unless those beliefs are provably harmful like your NAMBLA example is.

...even for Florida, this is stupid. People DIED, you asshat.

wulf3n:

DVS BSTrD:
Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time?

I see you're once again filling in gaps of information with your own bias.

Just because you aren't aware of something happening doesn't mean it didn't/hasn't happened.

Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Or are you just biased against me?

barbzilla:
Does that mean that you should disregard information gleaned just because it is leading in a direction that is false? The overall conspiracy thinks there is some big government agenda, but that doesn't mean they don't have a few valid points. Most conspiracies are based on one or two relevant issues that are wrong or make little sense, they then take that and run crazy with it making outrageous claims. However, what if those relevant issues are actually real problems, but the interpretation was wrong. Most of our greatest discoveries are accidental. We get things because we try something where the end result was wrong, but we learned valuable information along the way. This is the way of the world.

Because nobody's ever lied or made an error in recording that information to begin with right? It is precisely because he DID take a few "valid" points and used them to make an outrages claim.

Once again you are implying things you do not know. For all we know he was complaining about other issues. Hell he could be a huge activist trying to get media to only report factual and complete information, but since nobody has made a big stink of it up till this point we haven't heard about it. You make the statement yourself, we do not start with all of the correct information. Great job at proving your own point, and helping to prove my previous point

There's pointing out that media messed up in their reporting, and then there's saying an event never even took place.at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described

And you can't prove he WAS a media activist, so why do I have to prove he wasn't? You're implying things YOU don't know, so you have no grounds for refuting my statement.

What do you mean express an opposite opinion? This statement doesn't make any sense to me, so I am not really able to debate it. Opposite to who/what?

People should be able to express their opinions, as long as they state it as opinion and not fact (and as long as it isn't hateful, but that is another topic all together).

You don't find calling Sandy Hook a hoax hateful?

DVS BSTrD:

wulf3n:

DVS BSTrD:
Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time?

I see you're once again filling in gaps of information with your own bias.

Just because you aren't aware of something happening doesn't mean it didn't/hasn't happened.

Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Exactly. where's the evidence?

Did you bother researching the professors blog?

If you are to going to make a claim, especially against a persons character, you should provide evidence.

Shut your damn face and know your damn place.

You're supposed to let the news tell how you it is, and the only emotions you should feel are terror and despair. What's that? You have questions? Fuck you, you're fired for being crazy. Either think exactly like we tell you, or YOU ARE CRAZY.

He didn't even say it was a hoax.

Who's crazy here exactly? Wait, don't answer that, that would require self-inspection, and none of you are ready for that yet. I swear to God man, the world is being taken over by people surrounded by a bubble, and too drugged out on prescription psychotropics to even UNDERSTAND anything other than WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.

Look, LOOK.. someone who isn't being a brainless monkey like the rest of us! TEAR IT DOWN, throw your feces at it until it goes away!!

ON HIS BLOG.

HIS. BLOG.

For fuck's sake, it's his own personal life. Apparently the school understands that, but some people don't. I don't care how crazy professors are outside school hours, the only things they should be fired for are their teaching and their conduct within the school.

DVS BSTrD:

wulf3n:

DVS BSTrD:
Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time?

I see you're once again filling in gaps of information with your own bias.

Just because you aren't aware of something happening doesn't mean it didn't/hasn't happened.

Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Or are you just biased against me?

"Just because I don't have evidence that Obama is trying to burn the christian church to the ground doesn't mean he isn't!"

Seriously though, if you can't back something up, you have no business saying it.

MeChaNiZ3D:
ON HIS BLOG.

HIS. BLOG.

For fuck's sake, it's his own personal life. Apparently the school understands that, but some people don't. I don't care how crazy professors are outside school hours, the only things they should be fired for are their teaching and their conduct within the school.

If he says something on his blog that by proxy, paints the school in a negative light, they would be well within their rights to fire him. If you say something publicly (Like say for example, on your personal blog) You need to be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come of that. As someone else wisely stated before:

Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence

Gearhead mk2:
...even for Florida, this is stupid. People DIED, you asshat.

Yea, better not have any opinions or further questions.

People died, END OF DISCUSSION?!

Devoneaux:
If he says something on his blog that by proxy, paints the school in a negative light, they would be well within their rights to fire him. If you say something publicly (Like say for example, on your personal blog) You need to be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come of that. As someone else wisely stated before:

Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence

How do you define "negative light", it's such a fluid term.

And the whole "Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence" seems like somewhat of an excuse to me.

If a similar situation occurred where a teacher posted in a blog that they recently read the Qur'an and that it made good points, only to be fired because of that statement, I doubt many would say it's their own fault.

wulf3n:

Devoneaux:
If he says something on his blog that by proxy, paints the school in a negative light, they would be well within their rights to fire him. If you say something publicly (Like say for example, on your personal blog) You need to be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come of that. As someone else wisely stated before:

Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence

How do you define "negative light", it's such a fluid term.

And the whole "Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence" seems like somewhat of an excuse to me.

If a similar situation occurred where a teacher posted in a blog that they recently read the Qur'an and that it made good points, only to be fired because of that statement, I doubt many would say it's their own fault.

Oh if that happened I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it regardless. I would have to; freedom of speech does NOT apply to the private sector. It's the difference between the KKK holding a rally outside the local library, and another outside a bowling alley. In one case they are exercising their rights as american citizens. In the other they will likely be asked to leave or be forcibly removed by the police if they refuse.

SonicWaffle:

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

People need to learn the actual meaning to "Freedom of speech".

You can be free from persecution by the government, but not free from getting fired if they don't like what you say.
For instance - if you insult your boss, he can fire you. That's not him infringing on your freedom of speech. He's just not allowed to jail you for it.

Speech has consequences. Opinions have consequences. You are free to say whatever you like, and other people are free to react to it however they like, including fire you.

Devoneaux:

Oh if that happened I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it regardless. I would have to; freedom of speech does NOT apply to the private sector. It's the difference between the KKK holding a rally outside the local library, and another outside a bowling alley. In one case they are exercising their rights as american citizens. In the other they will likely be asked to leave or be forcibly removed by the police if they refuse.

I admire your conviction to your country and its laws.

Devoneaux:

"Just because I don't have evidence that Obama is trying to burn the christian church to the ground doesn't mean he isn't!"

Seriously though, if you can't back something up, you have no business saying it.

But Obama caused Columbine as well! I'm sure of it!

/sarcasm

wulf3n:

Devoneaux:

Oh if that happened I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it regardless. I would have to; freedom of speech does NOT apply to the private sector. It's the difference between the KKK holding a rally outside the local library, and another outside a bowling alley. In one case they are exercising their rights as american citizens. In the other they will likely be asked to leave or be forcibly removed by the police if they refuse.

I admire your conviction to your country and its laws.

Thank you sir, I appreciate the compliment.

Giddi:
You are free to say whatever you like, and other people are free to react to it however they like, including fire you.

Are they though? if they kill you will they not be punished?

It may be possible for them to react however they like, but they're not necessarily free to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked