• 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

I would like to point out I've been on this guys side the whole time. So please, don't paint such a broad brush.


I understand that. But correct me if I am wrong, are you not also defending Islam in attacking their perception of injustice?

I asked yesterday if you condemn Hamas, and never got a response that I saw....Could you answer that? I have to hit the road now but will check Friday. Thanks.


j-mac
 
I think that if he were revealing that this center was going to be built, then he would be expressing something of public concern. However, this is already common knowledge.
The actual content of his expression is rather small. The only new information he is providing is that he is personally opposed to it and doesn't care for Islam. Neither of which seems to be a matter that concerns the public.

I guess I just don't see how this differs from any other sort of protest or expressive speech. It's very rare that someone's speech actually reveals something new that involves the public. Far more common is that someone "merely" expresses their own objection to it. If I walk out into the park and say "I am opposed to the Iraq War," I'm certainly not telling the public anything new about the war itself. However, that is absolutely a matter of public concern and is absolutely protected expression.
 
I understand that. But correct me if I am wrong, are you not also defending Islam in attacking their perception of injustice?

I asked yesterday if you condemn Hamas, and never got a response that I saw....Could you answer that? I have to hit the road now but will check Friday. Thanks.


j-mac

I defend Islam in that the majority of the people are not terrorists, or hold the same views as terrorist. I defend their right to practice because I believe in the first amendment.

Also if you asked me if I condemn Hamas, I didn't read it. Can you provide me a link? But to go ahead and answer the question I don't like them, and they are running a despicable form of government.
 
The Harm Prinicple. You are the only one I've seen allude to it. Do you think the harm principle applies to Derek Fenton's hate speech?

I read somewhere....that at a prison guard was fired for making anti-Semetic remarks while he was off duty.

Violating NJ Transit rules??? Just wtf are these rules? Does anyone have a copy of the specified rule that was violated?
 
Remember folks.

Burn specific pages from a holy book = Hate Speech
Burn another countries flag = Hate Speech
Burn your countries flag = Patriotic American expressing himself in a wonderful and protected way

:roll:

All the above are symbolic acts of protest meant to send a message to the state. It's only hate speech when it targets an individual or a specific group of people in order to offend, discredit, promote fear and hate or provoke a violent reaction.

Hate speech undermines democracy because it stirs up nationalism and jingoism and usually doesn't contain any political message. So as a civil society we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on hate speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm to people and property. If society chooses the former over the later then I don't think it's possible to have or live in a civil society.
 
Last edited:
A little devils advocate

Should I be allowed to go down the street shouting out your real name, your address, your phone number, your social security number, your credit card, bank account numbers and PINs? How about I publish a one page ad in the paper with your personal details and advising all your neighbors that you are a tier 3 multipe sex offender and child pornographer?
 
A little devils advocate

Should I be allowed to go down the street shouting out your real name, your address, your phone number, your social security number, your credit card, bank account numbers and PINs? How about I publish a one page ad in the paper with your personal details and advising all your neighbors that you are a tier 3 multipe sex offender and child pornographer?

Giving out someone's private information without their permission is not protected free speech, nor is advertising false information, slander or child pornography. Case in point.....

Woman sentenced to jail for bestiality flier | The Salt Lake Tribune
 
Last edited:
What??!! He NEEDS to SUE! His being fired for exercising his freedom of expression and speech is unconstitutional! The courts have deemed flag burning as an act of free speech!
 
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.

Both parties entered into an agreement. Both should have the right to leave that agreement at any time. Freedom of association is a two way street.

DA, do you really want to allow government officials to fire non-political workers who don't agree/support/vote for them? You'd be giving certain officials immense power to force government employees to do their political bidding. Normally, I'd support the employer's right to terminate at will, but given that we're talking about the government individual political freedom trumps the government's right to hire at will.

What if a boss of a private company fired everyone who disagrees with him politically? Does a person fired from a private sector job for saying something political have their rights violated Pyschoclown? Doing this would be incredibly stupid and unpolitical, but that is their right. This person is free to say whatever they want; the government didn't punish them as a criminal. They just backed out of the once mutual agreement. If legislatures want to self-police and explicitly put forward legislation saying governments can't do that as they have in many situations, I don't have a problem with that.

That's just incorrect. The government cannot fire people for exercising constitutionally protected rights or for being members of a particular race or religion in the vast majority of situations. From Garcetti v. Ceballos:

I know what the Supreme court says; I disagree with them. The Constitution doesn't protect government jobs
 
I know what the Supreme court says; I disagree with them. The Constitution doesn't protect government jobs

But it restricts the government, and the government may not discriminate along these lines. It was not appropriate for the government to fire this man for exercising his rights. It's still use of government force against the free rights and liberties of the individual and that action has been significantly restricted and regulated. Had he committed a criminal act, ok. But less he does that, the government may not discriminate upon him for his exercise of his rights. It's open and shut in terms of government intervention.
 
Ok...hmmmmm

Has anyone ever been fired for burning the Holy Bible?

I don't know. But people have probably been held in contempt of court for not swearing on the bible or taking an oath that said, "so help me God". But these days courts don't use swearing on the bible oaths much anymore. But then that isn't what I responded to when you were playing devils advocate.
 
But it restricts the government, and the government may not discriminate along these lines. It was not appropriate for the government to fire this man for exercising his rights. It's still use of government force against the free rights and liberties of the individual and that action has been significantly restricted and regulated. Had he committed a criminal act, ok. But less he does that, the government may not discriminate upon him for his exercise of his rights. It's open and shut in terms of government intervention.

Do I like governments discriminating based on political belief, no, and I think that laws should be passed that specifically address this, but the government did nothing to violate his rights. They decided that they don't want to associate with him. You have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to a certain job.
 
Last edited:
He should. They are making a mockery of his right to free speech.

Just because the dude exercised his freedom of speech, it doesn't mean he has freedom from the consequences of his speech. He isn't in jail for it, so I really don't see a violation of his constitutional rights occurring. Businesses and employers have freedom of speech too.

Nobody has a constitutional right to a job, to get a job, or keep a job.
 
Last edited:
Unless you want to argue that every single government employee represents the government 24/7, this guy was not there representing NJTransit.

Step away from this situation and imagine what would happen if the position you're arguing for were actually the law. Imagine if GWB had decreed that anyone employed by the federal government in any capacity would be fired if they ever objected to any administration policies in public. Under your theory, because no one has a right to work for the government, that decree would not violate anyone's first amendment rights. That's clearly not how the first amendment was designed to work.

I have heard that people in the armed forces are under some oath to not speak about the president badly in public. I was really shocked when I learned that, but I see why that maybe necessary.

But that GWB comparison isn't really fair. This is a guy's supervisor firing him, right? The president firing people who work for the government over speech, especially when they are NOT connected to his office is out of line. Why should the pres have authority over firing somebody working a transit in NJ.

Remember when Obama's admin fired that woman over her speech at the NAACP? Where were these arguments then? Was that a violation of her freedom of speech? There wasn't any outcry over her freedom of speech... wtf

How is this any different from that?
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
This isn't a statute, it's the Constitution. The Constitution binds the government, not individuals.

OK.. I am trying to see it from you're point of view, but I can't see it yet..

I agree the constitution binds the government, not individuals... but this isn't a government policy to fire people in NJ, NY, and all the other 50 states for this "crime." This was a guy in NJ getting sacked by his supervisor.. it's not government policy to fire all these people. How much protection do government employees have to their job? How much authority to gov supervisors have over their subordinates?

I know some European countries have all these laws making impossible without firing somebody for a job without a "good reason." I don't know what those good reasons are, but I have heard that almost nobody gets fired... is there something like that going on that restricts government supervisors?
 
If new jersey is like louisiana, it's a right to hire and fire state. You can be fired for any reason, just so it's not based on race or religion, which this is not. You embarass your company? You get the boot, don't come crying to me.

I agree he was wronged but in a court case it will either depend on how good the employee hand book spelled out the rule under which he was fired or in whether he can convince a jury he was wronged.

I think he has a chance because the Country will for the most part think the first Amendment out weighs the Co. rules. Besides if it's like California and it doesn't require all 12 in the jury for a fining in a civil case. so he has a chance.

We're for the most part tired of the claims of Tolerance in favor of Muslims and to hell with Christians.
 
We all have the same rights. None of us can be punished by the government for protected speech. All of us can be punished by private individuals for protected speech.

I know this is complicated. I have seen people fired from public and private schools over speech though.

Private schools are not government funded, so it's cool to fire somebody at a Catholic school saying a bunch of anti-Christian stuff, being pregnancy and unwed (has happened), and being a member of an atheist org outside of work

Public schools are a little harder to fire somebody over speech.. but it happens. I remember a story about a teacher who was in some kind of porn. Not a movie but a pictorial that her students were accessing it online. They found it without her knowledge and it started going around, and her job was on the line for it. But the argument wasn't over free speech, it was over her intentions saying "I screwed up, but I learned. See Imma good role model." Something like that.. I don't know what the outcome was.

And is over something that occurred in the past.. not even the present

Thoughts?
 
Unless you want to argue that every single government employee represents the government 24/7, this guy was not there representing NJTransit.

Step away from this situation and imagine what would happen if the position you're arguing for were actually the law. Imagine if GWB had decreed that anyone employed by the federal government in any capacity would be fired if they ever objected to any administration policies in public. Under your theory, because no one has a right to work for the government, that decree would not violate anyone's first amendment rights. That's clearly not how the first amendment was designed to work.

Remember when Karl Rove fired a bunch of U.S. attorneys because they didn't tow the party line instead of the law?.....

"The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage....."
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well, I have been reading more about this... I am starting to think this might be an issue for the supreme court to listen to. I think their arguments might like

Quran burner could argue that this was protected speech and make all the same arguments on this board, but the supervisor and the transit may argue that they saw his actions as threatening to the troops. The Pentagon, the president, military leaders like Gen Petraeus have stated that burning the Quran would put the troops endanger.

Freedom of speech is restricted when it may threaten the safety of the troops and war efforts, right?

And I did read that he violated ethics of his job...

Just doing some reading on the issue :)

but because I am sick, I have to quit for now... baiiiiiii
 
He was not thrown in jail now was he?

Freedom of speech does not prevent you from losing friends from being a moron, or having people boycott your business or stop your employer from deciding he/she does not want you working for them anymore

It means the government will not arrest you, fine you, or confiscate your property when you exercise your freedome of speech

You're totally missing the point, dude. If the government can fire a civil service employee, for excercising his right to free speech, today; then the government can throw someone in jail for the same offense, tomorrow.
 
Well, I have been reading more about this... I am starting to think this might be an issue for the supreme court to listen to. I think their arguments might like

Quran burner could argue that this was protected speech and make all the same arguments on this board, but the supervisor and the transit may argue that they saw his actions as threatening to the troops. The Pentagon, the president, military leaders like Gen Petraeus have stated that burning the Quran would put the troops endanger.

Freedom of speech is restricted when it may threaten the safety of the troops and war efforts, right?

And I did read that he violated ethics of his job...

Just doing some reading on the issue :)

but because I am sick, I have to quit for now... baiiiiiii

I'm just curious; who would be defending this dude, if he displayed the Ten Commandments, on NJ Transit property and was fired for his refusal to romove them?
 
I'm just curious; who would be defending this dude, if he displayed the Ten Commandments, on NJ Transit property and was fired for his refusal to romove them?

Totally not the same thing at all.
 
You're totally missing the point, dude. If the government can fire a civil service employee, for excercising his right to free speech, today; then the government can throw someone in jail for the same offense, tomorrow.

If you look back in this thread, you will see some fine arguments outlining and proving with links why you seem to be exactly right. Government employees specifically cannot be fired for exercising their freedom of speech unless it interferes with the operations of their branch/whatever. Since he simply organized trains, the logic went, his having burned the koran wouldn't interfere. Just thought I'd pass on previous thread discussion. Mr. Vicchio, Zyphin and RightInNYCity put up some convincing evidence to that effect starting at Post #51. Just FYI. Seems gvmt employees are treated very differently re constitutional rights than in the private sector.

My thought is that they can say he interfered by endangering US troops, whatever....it'll be interesting to see this play out.

Originally Posted by RightinNYC
We all have the same rights. None of us can be punished by the government for protected speech. All of us can be punished by private individuals for protected speech.
 
Back
Top Bottom