• 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!

Should college professors be fired for expressing their views outside the classroom?

Napoleon said:
Free speech doesn’t mean consequence free speech. Companies do it and the government has done it in its capacity as an employer since its founding.
Click to expand...
It's assumed we all know and remember that free speech isn't an absolute right - no right is - for both corps and for government entities.

That said, are you arguing that corporations do not have the right to impose their own regs on their employees, so long as state and Federal laws aren't violated?
 
zincwarrior said:
Bloviating. he has no power.

To the initial question though, thats actually a good one. What if the professor is spewing racist NeoNazi crap? What if the professor is pro Isil or Pro-NAMBLA? Even worse, what if the professor avows the utter insanity that cats are superior to dogs?
Click to expand...

A professor can't spew NeoNazi crap but the TX leg can implement a Nazi policy?
 
zincwarrior said:
Bloviating. he has no power.

To the initial question though, thats actually a good one. What if the professor is spewing racist NeoNazi crap? What if the professor is pro Isil or Pro-NAMBLA? Even worse, what if the professor avows the utter insanity that cats are superior to dogs?
Click to expand...
Those of us who know cats are superior to dogs also know we cannot get away with saying this in public.
 
Pyrite said:
It's assumed we all know and remember that free speech isn't an absolute right - no right is - for both corps and for government entities.

That said, are you arguing that corporations do not have the right to impose their own regs on their employees, so long as state and Federal laws aren't violated?
Click to expand...
No, I’m pointing out the fact that the government has just as much latitude in regulating off-the-clock speech as a condition of employment that corporations do.
 
Napoleon said:
Free speech doesn’t mean consequence free speech. Companies do it and the government has done it in its capacity as an employer since its founding.
Click to expand...

Did you know that free speech is an integral part of exploring a variety of ideas which is an essential purpose of college?
 
Napoleon said:
No, I’m pointing out the fact that the government has just as much latitude in regulating off-the-clock speech as a condition of employment that corporations do.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....I don't know that this has been adjudicated with the result you're claiming.
 
j brown's body said:
One is policy, the other isn't. So you're siding with Nazis on this speech issue?
Click to expand...
I know you’re going for some kind of shock value here but it’s just a tired trope. There is nothing new or unusual about employers - including the government - regulating off the clock speech as a condition of employment.
 
Napoleon said:
I know you’re going for some kind of shock value here but it’s just a tired trope. There is nothing new or unusual about employers - including the government - regulating off the clock speech as a condition of employment.
Click to expand...

Believe me, it doesn't shock me in the least that you support a Nazi policy.

I'm not even struck by your modesty about it.
 
Napoleon said:
I know you’re going for some kind of shock value here but it’s just a tired trope. There is nothing new or unusual about employers - including the government - regulating off the clock speech as a condition of employment.
Click to expand...
Equating the rights of the state with those of corporations re regulating free speech of employees is something I'm not sure has been adjudicated with this result.

Do you have particular court cases in mind?
 
Pyrite said:
Hmmm....I don't know that this has been adjudicated with the result you're claiming.
Click to expand...

This becoming more and more common on the right, where red states are increasingly filling roles in education with politicians and the curriculum, down to what can be said in class, and book banning is being dictated by their legislators.

Some argue that it's acceptable because it's legal. Repression is often legal.
 
Napoleon said:
Pickering v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Napoleon said:
Pickering v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

...Question

Was Pickering’s letter constitutionally-protected free speech?

Conclusion

8–1 DECISION FOR PICKERIN

Yes. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the 8-1 majority opinion holding that Pickering’s dismissal violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court noted that similar speech is not protected if it contains false statements knowingly or recklessly made. There was no evidence that Pickering’s statements were knowingly false or reckless....
 
Napoleon said:
Free speech doesn’t mean consequence free speech. Companies do it and the government has done it in its capacity as an employer since its founding.
Click to expand...

If you don't allow speech you disagree with, you don't support free speech.
 
Pyrite said:
Thanks.


...Yes. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the 8-1 majority opinion holding that Pickering’s dismissal violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court noted that similar speech is not protected if it contains false statements knowingly or recklessly made. There was no evidence that Pickering’s statements were knowingly false or reckless....
Click to expand...
“At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.”
 
Napoleon said:
“At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.”
Click to expand...
Provide the link to this copy and paste.
 
j brown's body said:
It affirmed a teachers right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It established what is now known as the Pickering test for courts to balance the interests of the government as an employer with the first amendment rights of its employees. The government can fire employees for speech.
 
Napoleon said:
“At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.”
Click to expand...

When you're supporting your argument from a court case that contradicts it, your argument has a serious problem.
 
j brown's body said:
Not exactly. He is seems to be threatening to fire them for expressing their views. "The Texas House is putting all state-funded university professors on notice: return to the original purpose of higher education or find another state to employ you."
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in what a TX legislator feels the original purpose of higher education is?

Somehow, I just know they got that question wrong.
 
Napoleon said:
Incorrect. It established what is now known as the Pickering test for courts to balance the interests of the government as an employer with the first amendment rights of its employees. The government can fire employees for speech.
Click to expand...
For false speech. No one here has said otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom