• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

You don't have that right to a job. An employer has the right to choose to terminate an employment agreement at any time. I don't care if it was the government; he wasn't arrested, had his property confiscated, or faced any other civil or criminal penalties. His rights weren't violated. He acted stupidly and is facing the consequences.

If that's your view please respond to this:

The public sector issue is the key reason for it.

Do the following....

Replace Koran with:

The Bible
Dianetics
The American Flag
The Confederate Flag
The Mexican Flag
A reprinting USA Patriot Act
A reprinting of the Stimulus bill
The Democratic party Platform
The Republican party Platform
An image of George Bush
An image of Barack Obama
An image of Jesse Jackson
An image of Jerry Farwell
An Obama birth certificate
A picture of the Twin Towers while wearing a Cheney mask

Do any of you think it should be perfectly allowable for a government agency to fire a government employee that is not referencing or using his job in any way to do those things during his off time. If so, which ones exactly would you be fine with?

I'd love to know what other authoritarian acts of government control you support.

Further questions:

Do you all support a government jobs ability to have a "code of conduct" employees must agree to that states they are not allowed to own a firearm?
Do you all support a government jobs ability to have a "Code of conduct" stating employees must attend church every sunday?
Do you all support the governments ability to fire any employee that is found to be expressing political thought that is contrary to what the Presidents or head of the agencies view is?

I just want to find out exactly what constiutional rights you think a "Code of conduct" should allow the government to **** on and which ones you think are worthy of defending.
 
So if Bush fired every single federal employee who disagreed with any administration policy, you think that would be constitutional? What if the government fired every Jewish or black employee?

Hi, Right. You've put forth an excellent argument -- especially the part about you being a Federal employee and clearly knowing what the law is through sessions at work (I think you said). I did notice in your link that there is some wishy-washy wording they may be relying on....and that the ACLU say his rights may have been violated. At any rate, great job. You've 'just about' convinced me. I hope we see more about this online in the future. Bet we do. (I wonder if the Code of Conduct he really violated was that he was supposed to be at work that Saturday. Ha!)
 
That would be stupid and a very bad political move, but yes, he does have that right.

So you contention is that its perfectly acceptable for the government to punish people for political speech as long as said punishment isn't imprisonment?
 
You're blaming me for the fact that you didn't bother to read the thread?

If I missed something while typing a response to the first post I saw directed at me, then point it out, but don't be a smart ass about it -- and don't assume every link or post had value or relevance. Especially here.

I gave my response to the OP, then responded to the first post directed at me. What is your problem?



And again, the government cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the constitution (even if we assume that his actions violate said code).

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...



Thankfully, none of this is relevant under the law.

The testimony of the police who detained him will be extremely relevant. This wasn't a guy carrying a moronic sign -- he took it further and the context, how people reacted, the concern for public satfey, etc. is all relevant.



Again, this is just wrong from beginning to end.

How so? If he didn't get his picture taken, then he'd be at work. Duh.



Defecating on the PR flag = unprotected hate speech
Burning the US flag = protected speech

Interesting theory.

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
 
If you're at an event, and because of the time, place, and people involved the situation becomes volatile and you take some action that is meant to get the ball rolling and enrage people even further... No, that is not covered.

Ah, so you don't support the right of Westboro protesting because it causes situations to become volatile and has caused people to attack them before?

And you wouldn't consider burning an American Flag in front of a number of soldiers who is expressing that it would enrage them because then its no longer "protected" since it would piss people off?

I mean, since your basis for your argument of why SOME political speech should be protected and others isn't is whether or not that the speech is inflammatory to the point that it can make the situation volatile.
 
So you contention is that its perfectly acceptable for the government to punish people for political speech as long as said punishment isn't imprisonment?

OK, now if an employee's actions can cause bodily injury to other employees then their is even more cause to fire him. When Mr. Fenton decided to burn the Qur'an, he accepted the consequences that could potentially arise from that action, including putting his fellow co-workers in danger.
 
OK, now if an employee's actions can cause bodily injury to other employees then their is even more cause to fire him.

How in the world is that even applicable to this situation we're talking about?

When Mr. Fenton decided to burn the Qur'an, he accepted the consequences that could potentially arise from that action, including putting his fellow co-workers in danger.

How in the world do you reasonably reason he put his co-workers in danger?
 
So you contention is that its perfectly acceptable for the government to punish people for political speech as long as said punishment isn't imprisonment?



If that's your view please respond to this:



I'd love to know what other authoritarian acts of government control you support.

Further questions:

Do you all support a government jobs ability to have a "code of conduct" employees must agree to that states they are not allowed to own a firearm?
Do you all support a government jobs ability to have a "Code of conduct" stating employees must attend church every sunday?
Do you all support the governments ability to fire any employee that is found to be expressing political thought that is contrary to what the Presidents or head of the agencies view is?

I just want to find out exactly what constiutional rights you think a "Code of conduct" should allow the government to **** on and which ones you think are worthy of defending.

Do you have the same opinion about private businesses doing this?

No one forced the employee to take the job. He entered into an agreement with the government. Both parties are allowed to renege at any time. If the governments want to self-police and enact laws specifically preventing them from doing this, I don't really have an issue. Right now, I don't view them as different from any other employer. His rights were not violated. He didn't receive any civil or criminal penalties, only what many private sector employers would dole out. Free speech doesn't trump freedom of association
 
Last edited:
How in the world is that even applicable to this situation we're talking about?

How in the world do you reasonably reason he put his co-workers in danger?

Any Islamic extremist could or want to cause him harm. What's to stop some disgrunted extremist from blowing up the place he works at? Look at the South Park episode they aired. They bleeped almost everything because the writers put the creators' lives at stake. They are not and have not infringed on his right to express himself. They fired him for violating their code of ethics.
 
It's all about context. No, burning the Puerto Rican flag is not always covered. If you do it in a manner "Urging or instigating other persons to riot" or otherwise cause a disturbance.

If you're at an event, and because of the time, place, and people involved the situation becomes volatile and you take some action that is meant to get the ball rolling and enrage people even further... No, that is not covered.

Setting fire to something is often the symbolic/literal act of lighting a fuse. And if you are photographed doing this, your boss may feel your services are no longer needed. Clean out your locker.

So because some people may be angry it's not protected speech anymore? How about blame the rioters instead of the people using the first amendment? Your argument is crap, end of story.
 
Do you have the same opinion about private businesses doing this?

Absolutely not. Then again, the constitution largely was set out to limit what the GOVERNMENT can do to people not what other people can do to people.
 
Any Islamic extremist could or want to cause him harm. What's to stop some disgrunted extremist from blowing up the place he works at? Look at the South Park episode they aired. They bleeped almost everything because the writers put the creators' lives at stake. They are not and have not infringed on his right to express himself. They fired him for violating their code of ethics.

I said reasonably.

There's been no major reports that I know of in this country of anyone that has spoken poorly about Muslims having their places of buildings attacked. If you're going for this large of a reach 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.
 
Any Islamic extremist could or want to cause him harm. What's to stop some disgrunted extremist from blowing up the place he works at? Look at the South Park episode they aired. They bleeped almost everything because the writers put the creators' lives at stake. They are not and have not infringed on his right to express himself. They fired him for violating their code of ethics.

Yes, we have rights. Yes those rights are affirmed in the constitution. But there are reasonable limitations to all of those rights. Those limitations come into effect when you are infringing on other's rights in the exercise of your own. Yours don't trump theirs. Your freedom of speech is also limited when it is false or causes harm. The first can get you a civil suit for slander or libel, the 2nd, criminal charges of one kind or another.

Beyond that, you can say whatever the hell you want
 
I said reasonably.

There's been no major reports that I know of in this country of anyone that has spoken poorly about Muslims having their places of buildings attacked. If you're going for this large of a reach 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 not outside the realm of possibility that a terrorist attack could be made on the transit system as a result of this man's actions...just because he's made the transit system a target by his actions. If this winds up in court, I could imagine this coming up.
 
I said reasonably.
That is most certainly reasonable, and their is precedent to validate that. The Jyllands-Posten offices have been evacuated more than once in Copenhagen and Aarhus for bomb threats. Same with Danish embassies abroad.
There's been no major reports that I know of in this country of anyone that has spoken poorly about Muslims having their places of buildings attacked. If you're going for this large of a reach 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.
That is a stretch. What I suggested is not, since their is precedent for it within the last decade.
 
It's not outside the realm of possibility that a terrorist attack could be made on the transit system as a result of this man's actions...just because he's made the transit system a target by his actions. If this winds up in court, I could imagine this coming up.

The transit system was already a target.
 
That is most certainly reasonable, and their is precedent to validate that. The Jyllands-Posten offices have been evacuated more than once in Copenhagen and Aarhus for bomb threats. Same with Danish embassies abroad.

Indeed, a few isolated incidents, all of which are outside the U.S.

That is a stretch. What I suggested is not, since their is precedent for it within the last decade.

You're claiming there's never been an issue where someone has pissed an individual off in some way and they've came to their work shooting?

Hey, I know, code of ethics should bar anyone that's jewish from working anywhere. I mean, there was that crazy guy that shot up a museum because he hates jews. Being jewish is putting people at risk, fire them all.
 
So because some people may be angry it's not protected speech anymore? How about blame the rioters instead of the people using the first amendment? Your argument is crap, end of story.

It's not my argument, it's the Supreme Court. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie house - context.

Incite to riot, public nuisance... ring a bell?
 
It's not my argument, it's the Supreme Court. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie house - context.

Incite to riot, public nuisance... ring a bell?

Burning a Koran is not the same thing as yelling fire in a crowed movie theatre. Not even close.
 
Indeed, a few isolated incidents, all of which are outside the U.S.
Isolated? Almost every incident had to with someone's freedom of speech inciting some form of violence. Their use to freely express themselves put other people's lives at risk. That is reason enough to terminate employment.
You're claiming there's never been an issue where someone has pissed an individual off in some way and they've came to their work shooting?
No, I'm saying it's a stretch to say:
"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.
Hey, I know, code of ethics should bar anyone that's jewish from working anywhere. I mean, there was that crazy guy that shot up a museum because he hates jews. Being jewish is putting people at risk, fire them all.
That is just ridiculous hyperbole. Code of ethics do not discriminate based on race/religion/sex/etc. That would be an oxymoron since it is highly unethical to discriminate based on those criteria. Here are some words that may help you when constructing scenarios such as above: probable, plausible, possible

There's a difference in all of them. Learn it.
 
Burning a Koran is not the same thing as yelling fire in a crowed movie theatre. Not even close.

It certainly can be.

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.
 
It certainly can be.

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.

Basically you're all for people burning the American Flag, because let's face it, pissing on the country is A-OK. But burning the Koran is beyond the pale.

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%
 
It certainly can be.

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.

So would protesting the Republican National Convention not be protected because it could cause people to take further action against persons or property?
 
Back
Top Bottom