State attorney launches bizarre Internet war on openly gay college student

[D H]

It seems you have missed the point of those of us that disagree with you. It's not the right to free speech we disagree with. I fully support his right to free speech, and oppose any restrictions on it.

It is precisely those rights that you are disagreeing with. I've tried giving history lessons, citing Supreme Court decisions, and the Michigan code of conduct, all to no avail.

I've tried giving you an out, that freedom of speech does have limits. Harassment and stalking are not protected speech. Fighting words are not protected speech. You don't care about those limits. You continue to go after his words alone. Those words, as ugly as they are, are protected. He cannot lose his job over them.

If I choose to sever my association with my plumber because I don't like something he said, it's not a violation of his free speech rights. It might be a breech of contract if there is one, which may require a monetary payment. It might even violate some state law.

But a claim that I violated my plumber's free speech rights by choosing not to associate with him any longer is just fallacious logic.

The fallacious logic here is yours. I provided some Supreme Court rulings a while back. Try reading them. The Supreme Court has deemed multiple times that firing a government employee solely because of speech/written words is an illegal violation of that employee's freedom of speech. It is settled law.

 

[Al68]

It is precisely those rights that you are disagreeing with.

No, I have not. There are two different rights you are claiming he can exercise simultaneously. One is free speech. It's the other one I am disagreeing with: a right to employment.

I've tried giving you an out, that freedom of speech does have limits. Harassment and stalking are not protected speech. Fighting words are not protected speech. You don't care about those limits.

Yes, I care, but that's a different aspect of the issue altogether. My position assumes that his speech is protected speech.

Those words, as ugly as they are, are protected. He cannot lose his job over them.

Sure he can. And he might lose his girlfriend over them. Or his wife. Or his maid. Or his best friend. None of which would violate the first amendment. Because the first amendment does not deprive other parties of their freedom to decide to end their relationship with him because of what he said.

The fallacious logic here is yours. I provided some Supreme Court rulings a while back. Try reading them. The Supreme Court has deemed multiple times that firing a government employee solely because of speech/written words is an illegal violation of that employee's freedom of speech. It is settled law.

My claim is that the first amendment does not require employment, not that the Supreme Court agrees with me.

Are you changing your claim from "firing him would violate the first amendment" to "the Supreme Court has ruled that firing him would violate the first amendment"? Those are two different claims that you seem to have confused.

 

[D H]

Are you changing your claim from "firing him would violate the first amendment" to "the Supreme Court has ruled that firing him would violate the first amendment"? Those are two different claims that you seem to have confused.

I am claiming that firing him because of his words alone (rather than his acts) would constitute a violation of his first amendment rights. Many of you are claiming the opposite, that it would not. My opinion doesn't really count for a hill of beans, and neither does yours. The only opinion that does count is that of the Supreme Court. Now obviously, since Chirvell hasn't even been fired yet, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on this particular issue. They have weighed in on similar cases and have found that terminating government employees for what they say outside the bounds of work is a violation of those employees' civil rights: Those terminations are illegal. The employment has to be reinstated.The confusion here appears to be yours. Do you even understand what the first amendment is about? Given this earlier post, I suspect not:

But a claim that I violated my plumber's free speech rights by choosing not to associate with him any longer is just fallacious logic.

Your choice of a plumber has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. As another example, freedom of speech does not exist at this website. We ban spammers on sight, we don't allow discussions of conspiracy theories, we don't allow people to post their own personal theories of physics, we filter out curse words. So how do we get away with our utter trouncing of the first amendment? Simple. Physics Forums is a privately-owned website. We in fact are not trouncing all over the first amendment. How can we? The first amendment does not apply to us.

The first amendment is not a constraint on people or private entities. It is a constraint on the government. Since the state of Michigan is a part of the government, the first amendment does apply to it, and very much so.

 

[G037H3]

The first amendment is not a constraint on people or private entities. It is a constraint on the government. Since the state of Michigan is a part of the government, the first amendment does apply to it, and very much so.

good job :)

 

[Evo]

I think we've flogged this to death.