"any employee that has ever cut someone off or told a customer "no" should be fired for violating their code of ethics because that person could become enraged, come back to the business, and shoot up the place."
It's possible, but not probable.
There's a difference in all of them. Learn it.
Stop playing games, I never made that direct comparison to this particular story. I pointed out that in the context, this guy was pushing the limit, coming close. And we have very few details about how it all went down.
Burning a Koran, if it incites those around him to take further action to persons or property... that's what 'fire in a crowed movie house' means, context and the direct result of the speech. Thankfully the police stopped him and took him out of the mix.
That's fine you have the right to espouse that view, you can even say it's good and right this guy was fired, cause you don't like what he had to say. Hey you got that right.
But none of those factors make you right. For you are most certainly in the wrong here. 100%
⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
the former employee brought disrespect upon his employer by his actions
nothing deprived him of free speech ... he was free to say what he wanted, and he did
it was the potential loss of the public's faith in his government employer - for what he freely communicated - that caused him to lose his job
it was that expression of religious intolerance which the employer could not abide
muslims - or Christians, jews, taoists - followers of any religion, have a reasonable expectation that their use of the transit/government facilities will not be impaired because their religious beliefs
should that former employee have retained his position, the muslims using the public transit system had a legitimate basis to question whether they would be treated equitably by the transit staff. this muslim hater cannot be allowed to remain in a position to deprive people of their equal rights
the former transit employee engaged in protected speech ... but he remains responsible for the legitimate consequences of what he had to say
maybe some reich wing business owner intolerant of the muslim presence in the USA will give the former transit employee a job ... because he will need one. no way he will get his job back, or prevail in court
You're not even close to paraphrasing what I've said so far. But you don't care.
And thus, the intelligent conversation comes to end.
Okay, my Constitutional scholar friend, then you explain the 'harm principle'... 'imminent lawless action'.But none of those factors make you right. For you are most certainly in the wrong here. 100%
Why don't you tell us everything you know about limits on free speech? 'Miller test, anyone'??
And as Teabrains remind us everyday, speaking when you have no clue what you're talking about is covered.
From Garcetti v. Ceballos:
It is well settled that "a State cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression." Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 142 (1983).
I also look forward to seeing more about this, and given the evidence that I've seen, I would be surprised if this guy doesn't succeed in his suit with the NYCLU behind him.
Again, that's not the legal standard. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will never be any less wrong.The code of conduct doesn't stop anyone from posing nude or burning a koran. But if you do it in public (or playboy) in a manner that reflects negatively on the office you work for...
The Volokh Conspiracy » New Jersey Public Transit Employee Fired for BlasphemyThe relevant First Amendment test for when the government may fire an employee for off-duty expression on a matter of public concern (such as the expression here) is unfortunately quite vague: The government may restrict such speech, but only if the restriction is “necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively” (with “necessary” being read a bit loosely). It’s hard for me to see much of an argument that Fenton’s expression interferes with the employer’s effectiveness by undermining public confidence in the employer; Fenton isn’t a spokesman for the employer, or in a position where the public must be able to count on his fairness in exercising discretion with regard to members of the public (e.g., a police officer).
If I were putting words in your mouth, they wouldn't be so consistently wrong.Context. Read the whole post and don't try to put words in my mouth with your typical feeble straw man b.s.
Burning the U.S. flag at a hippy war protest = protected.
Burning the Puerto Rican flag at a protest with Puerto Ricans and counter protestors present = not protected
Originally Posted by Volokh
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.