Oh look, another YouTube supremacist over here. Are there no safe spaces?!
Ole Miss getting sued...
- Thread starter HotMop
- Start date
In
1A does not protect you from getting fired. A job is a privilege not a right
It absolutely varied based on political spectrum:
3 topics
Guns:
When Trump took office, he relaxed some restrictions on gun purchase to satisfy the gun lobby.
I have a mentally ill relative that has bought so many assault weapons since that day it would scare even you. He has been committed several times, once for stabbing himself in the leg and wondered why anyone had a problem with it. He had just got into a fight with himself and won. He once told me he knew he wasn't Jesus but he had been raised from the dead so he must be Lazarus. His wife left him and escaped with their young child for fear of her life and is running scared right now.
Some people should not be able to buy weapons. Kirk said, unfortunately there will be some deaths. It's the price we pay for freedom. I have several myself. but you can agree or disagree but I say some people should not have guns.
People say the laws don't work, criminals still get them. He couldn't. Now he can. Statistics proved that gun violence had dropped since they were in place.
Kirk a White Supremacist:
Kirk stated Black America was better off under Jim Crow laws. If that doesn't prove he is a white supremacist then I can't help you. I don't care how well a man debates and argues a point. Kirk was good at it, but I can't get around that Jim Crow laws weren't right.
Abortions:
Anyone that cares to know does know that women are dying based on these new laws. Hospitals in many states won't even treat women having miscarriages until whatever is inside them is fully gone. They just lie there in pain and suffering, getting sepsis and even die in some cases. So many women were dying from maternity related deaths in Texas that they stopped tracking how many were dying. They now just say Sepsis and that number is way up.
You don't know this? Why? is it because you only watch FOX news on You Tube TV or is Disney, I forget.
Why would anyone say a prayer for a man like Kirk? I certainly would not but that doesn't mean I advocate for violence or celebrate his death.
Some conspiracy theorist say it was actually a hit put out on him because he was advocating for the Epstein files to be released. Which is a point I agreed with him on but who would have put out that hit? I I don't know, let's release them and see.
Different poll than I saw; was not related to self-defense. I also saw one that analyzed violence right v left. Roughly the last 60-80ish years, it has been primarily far right and recently it has swung dramatically to far left. They speculated that perhaps it was related to who was/was not in power, but were not clear on why that happened. In general, social media/online stuff has bread, at least online, a severe lack of decency with people making fun of everything from hammer attacks to shootings. No violence is warranted or funny. Mistreating others is not warranted or funny.
The same poll says people care more after violence happens to someone in their own party. So this all tracks given polling after Charlie's death. It'll flip when a liberal gets nailed.
Tribal 2 party politics is a mind 17 that makes people talk and act like terrible humans.
What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov
Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.
today.yougov.com
Yep.. the constitution protects your liberty. You will not be put in jail for saying dumbschit. You will maintain your liberty and are free to use it while looking for new employment.
I’m apolitical and generally DGAF and don’t boycott, i understand her restaurant is the best Italian in Oxghanisthan, if i’m ever there I’m loading up on chicken parm.
I wonder where it is that kind of stuff is no longer being taught properly?????
I watched an interesting video a few weeks ago about Charlie and why people were so polarized about him, and it has a lot to do with “the algorithms” and how his videos were framed. I wish I could find it.
It showed one clip as it would have been framed to resonate with a conservative audience, and then another clip designed to make the other side angry. It’s easy to see how someone who only saw the latter would think he was just the worst person alive.
Most of the videos I watched of him (which wasn’t a ton) were from his on-campus debates. I generally found him to be well reasoned, well researched and pretty respectful to all sides.
I have a lot of respect for Charlie. I hate that he’s gone. I have a lot of respect for his wife, who showed a tremendous amount of grace by forgiving his killer. Those words are hard to say even if you’re whispering them and no one hears but God, not to mention on that stage in that moment.
And herein lies the problem. Neither side is willing to just 17ing listen and try to understand the other side. It's all about demonizing and ad homineming anyone who disagrees, and that's it.
This goes for Kirk when he was alive, too. I didn't know much about him before his assassination, but many of the clips of him I've seen since include him saying some ridiculous extreme things, usually about people of color.
But is it a really good law school? I mean it took them over a hundred years to figure out that slavery thing from back in the 19th century.
Well, I was responding to somebody that claimed the 1st amendment prevented government entities from firing employees for speech. I was trying to keep it on a level that they could understand and stick to obvious examples like this one, not get into the nuances of how courts handle borderline cases.
But she can argue that whether people should be murdered for their opinions is a matter of public concern, and I guess she will prevail on that point (certainly somebody would not be fired for arguing against murder of people for their opinions, so even though it seems abhorrent, the question is whether it's a matter of public concern, not whether she has an abhorrent opinion).
But then it comes down to a balancing test. The fact that she says her opinion has generated enough backlash that she had to shut down her small business and then hire extra security when it reopened basically makes the employer's case for it. The viral post was already putting them at risk of the same disruption. Even if her lawyer didn't think she was a ***** and didn't want to submarine her case in the complaint, I seriously doubt that the university would have trouble producing communications from donors that they were going to withhold money before the firing, or if not that, testimony or affidavits from donors saying that they are roughly on the right and would cancel pledges if the University employed people that had publicly expressed an opinion that they deserved to be murder, basically immediately after a murder had in fact happened. It wasn't like somebody using hyperbolic language without a thought of what the actual violence would look like.
We've allowed the political parties to turn our country into one big rivalry...not dissimilar to CFB mindsets...The same poll says people care more after violence happens to someone in their own party. So this all tracks given polling after Charlie's death. It'll flip when a liberal gets nailed.
Tribal 2 party politics is a mind 17 that makes people talk and act like terrible humans.
What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov
Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.
I had to look this up because it was so jarring. I think it was closer to $40k/year; that looks like a secretary position. The executive-level people in those development offices are the only ones who get close to $150k.
It’s not an argument about whether employment is a privilege or a right. It’s about whether speech is a right and whether it’s being infringed by the government. But I can tell you don’t know that.
Im nominating this whole thread for "Bad Legal Takes" on X.com.
I am more surprised by the number of people who are surprised that Americans are violent and condone or advocate it. It's as clear as the nose on your face. We have more guns than we have people. We didn't get to that because this country is full of peace loving get along individuals. The nation was literally formed from political violence. Political violence that we celebrate constantly with coins, statues, and museums, and wax poetically whenever we refer to the founding revolutionaries. We call them revolutionaries for a reason. They started, supported, and advocated a violent revolution. Then about a third of the country celebrates and glorifies a second, but this time, failed politically violent revolution and erected thousands of statues and monuments to it. We impose our political will around the globe through war (political violence). Then we act shocked when some Americans condone or support political violence. It definitely a shame and terrible, but spare me the surprise and shock.
I don't know all the facts here and I don't care to dig. The courts will settle it.
Here's a nice summary from University of Iowa on what is and isn't protected speech for University employees. Some of you with blanket statements might benefit from reading it....
gencounsel.uiowa.edu
Here's a nice summary from University of Iowa on what is and isn't protected speech for University employees. Some of you with blanket statements might benefit from reading it....
Employee Speech
While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affords citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression without undue interference from government, the right is not without limitations. As public employees, the right to free expression must be balanced with the university’s interest in the
Ole Miss is schizophrenic. Their students tend to be conservative pro-Trump TPUSA types, while their faculty and administration favor the Islamo-Marxist agenda.By that person that cheered Charlie Kirk's death.
Ole Miss students react to admin’s wrongful termination lawsuit
A former Ole Miss employee is suing the university's chancellor over her alleged wrongful termination, which she believes violates her First Amendment right to free speech.www.actionnews5.com
Free speech and all that jazz.
I was in the third grade. We were cheering because school let out early........................
Oh, I forgot that the 1st amendment doesn't apply if you might lose donors or you are at risk of disruption.*** Oh yeah, I see right here, where the Chancellor explained how they were worried about threats and loss of donors.
"Yesterday, a University of Mississippi staff member re-shared hurtful, insensitive comments on social media regarding the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk. These comments run completely counter to our institutional values of civility, fairness and respecting the dignity of each person. We condemn this action, and this staff member is no longer employed by the university."
He disagreed with her speech, because he found it "hurtful and insensitive," which is the definition of punishing someone over speech he disagreed with. And the dumb *** posted his reasoning on social media. Don't even get me started on how the Chancellor in Oxford, doesn't even use the Oxford comma. Blasphemy. They will settle.
Well, her job was to support the dean of the department responsible for attracting donors and raising funds, so there’s that. Maybe they should’ve just reassigned her to weed eater duty so she wouldn’t have to interact with donors after what she did?
Y’all both need to chill, it’d probably improve your golf game more than a new driver!
Facts smacks. We feel what we feel.****I don't know all the facts here and I don't care to dig. The courts will settle it.
Here's a nice summary from University of Iowa on what is and isn't protected speech for University employees. Some of you with blanket statements might benefit from reading it....
Employee Speech
While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affords citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression without undue interference from government, the right is not without limitations. As public employees, the right to free expression must be balanced with the university’s interest in the
And this is why I tried to dumb it down for you. It's probably not possible to dumb it down enough for you, but yes, in the context of when a government employee' can be terminated for their speech, how much it disrupts the employers operations is exactly what determines whether the employee can be fired (actually it's one half of a balancing test, but I don't want to ask you to keep two ideas in your head at once. Seems like a recipe for disaster.)
That's nice and all, but the legal test involves the employers interest in the efficiency of their operations. Having to distance themselves from the employee and their asinine comments doesn't change the legal test. If it wasn't at the least hurtful and insensitive, it probably wouldn't disrupt their operations. But they don't get a pass because the content of the speech is what causes the problem. The test is not about content neutral restrictions.
It's always possible they will settle. They'd probably pay nuisance value right now just to get it out of the headlines. Or they might feel like settling with her will just antagonize donors. I think a lot of their donors would rather have money go to legal fees than paying somebody that condoned murder. They will probably consider both sides of that.
Which means she will win her lawsuit. Years ago the SCOTUS ruled that you have a property interest in your job. Also the 14th Amendment states that the government cannot deprive you of property without due process of law. Which it's so hard to fire any of the lazy fuckups in government jobs.
You think her attorney was trying to submarine her case? I don't think that's accurate at all. I think her attorney agrees with the sentiment of the post she shared, or at least that's how it reads to me, because it takes some gratuitous and out-of-context shots at CK.
