Is @legalboardgenuises a handle on any social media platform?
Ole Miss getting sued...
- Thread starter HotMop
- Start date
The idea that you get pissed off about something you watched on Fox News before your first cup of coffee and are ready to throw down right wing talking points in any social situation is maybe the least surprising thing I’ve ever read on this board, poster with Tim Walz as his avatar almost a full year after the election.
I was saying that somewhat tongue in cheek. Without knowing who the attorney is, I am guessing you're right and her attorney is similarly in a bubble where they are surprised that believing charlie kirk should be murdered for his opinions objectionable to people and so thinks that the impact to her business would make her a more sympathetic client, without thinking about what it meant for the legal merits of her case.
And I don't know how the jury pool in thenorthern distric of Mississippi looks. I would assume it wouldn't look good for her over all, but maybe everybody with real jobs that they don't want to miss do their best to skip out of jury duty and you end up with university employees and baristas from oxford that are sympathetic to AWFLs.
If you actually understood the context of his statement, you would understand that he was not against racial equality, but he believed that some of the bureaucratic policies (i.e. DEI) that flowed from Jim Crow laws were a mistake.
Someone go wake up the charter member - there is a political post he hasn't liked yet.**
I don't think she's going to find a very sympathetic jury pool. The district is comprised of a lot more than just Lafayette County, but it's about as conservative as it gets.
Nothing in 1A protects you from losing your job.
Ha! I didn’t think my post was political. Just an observation.
I don’t think she had one. Think she just retweeted / reposted another quote, which I also never saw.
Shared this with some OM coworkers, and they strongly disagreed. Were very insistent that they were actually an LSU actor***
Couldn’t have said it better and I do believe it’s the generation as well while we might be on here now the difference is most of us grown *** men and women have the ability to concentrate as we grew up before there were cell phones. I still remember rotory phones a little bit. Anyways I grew up hunting, fishing, riding 4 wheelers/3 wheelers first. Sure I had Atari and a Nintendo but I grew up on a family farm that spans about 13-14k acres. Going to the creek and everything else with my 1st cousins who were are really like brothers. Friends as well. I get on SPS at the end of my day. Some other times but rarely which is why I post in the am hours before bed. Had friends and made them the ole school way before the internet. Friends for life. So yea it’s the difference in generations believe I’ve tried hanging out with people 10 or more years younger on me and like they’re talking another language or something. Can’t even to one song for instance or listen to the meaning or any of the words. As some one just told me recently in they’re late 20s “I just listen to the beats etc and 17ery” anyways I digress but your right.
Well that’s a violation of other many other state and federal laws regarding harassment and hate speech in the work place. But that’s not what happened here, so it’s completely irrelevant. 1A is the prevailing federal statute that is in play.
That’s also not what happened. And I don’t agree with the original author’s position by any means. But legally speaking, the person in question didn’t actually even SAY anything. She retweeted / reposted the original author’s comment (without any caption / commentary, from my understanding).
Essentially, she posted a link. And the original author didn’t even say anything about stating they weren’t against violence for large groups of people for beliefs. It was said about one specific person based on what they said publicly, and what they used their platform to do.
And again, I don’t agree with the post, but its a very slippery slope allowing people to be fired by a state / federal entity based solely upon what they post as their individual selves on a private social media account….provided that they don’t claim any association to their employer in the commentary.
Typical. Spewing shi. On false claims.
No search produces any verifiable proof that Kirk said such a thing — and Ballard of course doesn’t link to a single source. The closest clip anyone has pointed to comes from a roundtable debate (1:26:00) about the constitutionality of affirmative action in which Kirk condemned Jim Crow as “evil” before pointing out data that shows black Americans are poorer today than they were in the 1950’s prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act (which effectively ended the Jim Crow laws).
The woman he was debating asked whether Kirk was trying to suggest that blacks “thrived under subjugation.” (At this point, Kirk had pointed out that since the 1965 Civil Rights Act, blacks became poorer, black fathers left the homes in mass droves, and crime rates amongst blacks shot up whereas during the 1940’s and 1950’s those things were opposite).
“The data shows [blacks] were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened? Something changed?” Kirk asked, seemingly referencing Jim Crow subjugation — not slavery.
Another claim widely circulated is that, as put by X user Mayra, “Charlie Kirk said that gun deaths ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment.'”
But that’s a gross distortion of Kirk’s comments, which are in full below:
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry, and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
Kirk wasn’t celebrating or encouraging tragedy. He was recognizing the reality: the Second Amendment safeguards liberty, even though misuse of firearms will tragically occur. His point was clear: banning guns because some people abuse them is like banning cars because some people drink and drive.
maybe it’s simple…if your going to retweet hateful stuff on socials, realize millions of ppl “could” see it, and there is blowback from that. If you say hateful stuff and have a restaurant, realize people may not come to your restaurant any more and you close. That’s still freedom…what she wants is freedom without responsibility for your typed/spoken word. We’re all guilty of saying things we regret, I doubt she regrets it.
It's interesting that she doesn't fight against the name/ origins of "ole miss"
#agenda
#agenda
"She also claims the termination has negatively impacted her life in many ways, including with the restaurant she and her husband own"
This dog won't hunt. The post she made is what negatively impacted her life. She read the room entirely wrong.
I imagine she failed to fulfill the obligation of her contract
This dog won't hunt. The post she made is what negatively impacted her life. She read the room entirely wrong.
I imagine she failed to fulfill the obligation of her contract
The point is that government employers aren’t prohibited from firing employees for speech. You can’t go around using racial slurs outside of the workplace and keep your government job.
And it’s also not a statute. It’s the constitution and case law that will control.
It’s disingenuous to say that she didn’t say anything by retweeting, but if that were the case, it would also gut her claim. She isn’t being fired for the content of her speech at that point. She’s being fired for being stupid.
And the slippery slope argument isn’t really an argument where you are balancing competing interests.
Spoken like someone who has never tried a jury case. They get a jury trial on the damages claim for violation of First Amendment (bench trial for reinstatement claims, if they made them). Arguing technicalities doesn't win with juries. The Chancellor's public statement is all they need to create a fact question, and his statement is far easier for a jury to understand, than the legal treatise you had to write to make your point. Juries, like every member of this board who certainly skipped right over your long winded explanation, glaze right over these overly technical legal arguments, and latch on to common sense. And they will roll their eyes as soon as you start with the "ignore what the Chancellor actually wrote, and focus instead on what we tell you he meant to say". It's not a winning strategy, and they will settle because their lawyers understand this; even if you don't.
You've tried a lot of jury cases have you? And don't know whether the jury or the judge decides a question of law? That seems like that'd be important for you to know...
FWIW a retired federal judge I had dinner with over weekend predicted she will either get her job offered back or quietly get a check.