You know what, lets cut away all the straw in Dre's arguments and look at exactly what it is we're arguing.
Is what she said and her sacking against free Speech?
Here's the various descriptions of Free Speech:
American Constitution Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There was no attempt made to silence this woman (her FBook post I would imagine is still up, unless she removed it herself), so no sign of any impingement. But lets look wider.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"
We could probably argue that she didn't 'respect the rights or reputations of others' and since she's a teacher, her being sacked could fall under 'protection of public health or morals'
But lets go back to the oldest law for free speech
England's Bill of Rights.
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Wow. Well that pretty much covers it exactly. "You're free to say what you want, but expect to be held responsible"
Her freedom of speech wasn't restricted.
Mic, this is a case of "should" period, the fact that she can't be let go because of this incident. This is settled case law, again see Pickering v Board of Education and Rankin v. McPherson.
If you're talking about should (and I hope you are, because the universal declaration on human rights is irrelevant to american law, and the common law principal you cited is what informs our case law on the matter, as such you can't enforce it without enforcing the case law that defines what it means), lets discuss what the implications are of what you're proposing.
What you're saying is that the government has a right to hold you responsible for absolutely anything you say. While in current case law, the idea is that while the government can hold you responsible for the actual comments (in other words, the construction and implications of the comments) if they constitute an incitement to a criminal act or a few other narrowly defined things, the content (the idea contained within the statement) is immune from prosecution unless it's obscenity (a very narrow legal category).
However, you say that the government can only hold you responsible as long as they do not attempt to silence you. Yet you say that loss of position and other direct punishments are not attempts to silence, you are merely "being held responsible for your actions". Her facebook post was never taken down, so no attempt to silence her occurs, right there, you set up your standard.
Reductio Ad Absurdium time, well I'll be nice and rather then taking your standard of "as long as they don't actively suppress the viewpoint in the media that it was already put out in" I'll take that, plus "they prevent her from communicating her viewpoint further".
This means a whole host of ways to "hold her responsible" are still completely and totally legal. For example, the government could jail her for as long as they wanted, as long as she was still allowed to use facebook while in prison, heck they could still allow her to schedule public appearances but only under armed guard, and right back in prison after that.
Beyond prison, they could blacklist her from working in the United States. They could fine her mercilessly, they could bump up her tax bracket, they could prevent her from getting housing, they could confiscate all her possessions. Under your original implied standard, they could even execute her.
If we take your position, that the government may hold people responsible for the content of their remarks in general, it pragmatically kills free speech. Sure, the woman can still speak her opinion for all intents and purposes, but when the law permits the government to socially, economically, and legally ruin a person just based on the content of their remarks (again, obscenity exempted) then free speech is dead.
Is anyone here aware of what
stereotype threat is?
I would imagine that those who propose that holding contempt for a particular demographic has no effect on the teacher's ability to perform his or her duties has never heard of this phenomena before.
Heh? Stereotype effect is when a teacher makes a stereotype salient in the classroom, and makes the performance lean towards the performance expected in the stereotype.
Firstly, there aren't particular negative homosexual stereotypes in regards to academic performance that I'm aware of, and this teacher certainly didn't express any. Her objection was merely moral. This means that there was no real reason to expect her to express such a stereotype in class.
Secondly, choosing to express disapproval or negative stereotypes of homosexuals in class is part of her professional activities and would therefore not be covered under freedom of speech and a valid reason for dismissal.
I haven't read it, so thanks for the heads up.
Don't worry, most SCOTUS cases don't have hundred page decisions, this particular case has a quite short decision. I'd guess equivalent to 4 or 5 pages in a standard word document.
Basically, let me put it this way. A person who told one of his coworkers "I hope they get him next time" in regards to a presidential assassination attempt. He was a public employee, specifically in the county constable's office.
This remark was overheard by a third party, and he was dismissed. He sued and the court decided that the government had absolutely no right to punish him for expressing a political opinion about the president.
Anecdotal, so take it as you will: No one I've ever known who was in the military was ever comfortable in a phone conversation in which politics and government criticism came up, and they never gave their opinions. I'm going on that when I speculate that regardless of what is on paper, the culture of the military acts as its own censor.
And you'd probably be correct, military culture does have an authoritarian bent. At the same time, this isn't any sort of direct directive. They don't do it because they don't.
Yes, but I am not convinced that this would set a precedent. This types of situations have come up well before facebook. It's common knowledge that employers often search the names of people they interview before deciding whether or not to hire them. Things from your private life, when you show them to the public, become fair game for criticism.
Not so for most public employment including teachers, it's all done through the public service exam to avoid the issues of machine politics. Granted dismissal or removing from the pool of candidates, but the reasoning for both is identical and very strictly legally defined for very obvious reasons.
I don't advocate that this individual be fired, but I only say that because of lack of experience in school administration. The only thing I disagree with in your list is the notion that bigotry is unrelated to the job of a public school instructor. Employees in public service, whether it's the DMV, the library, or EMS, are told to expect to encounter all classes of people. They are also told that they can't discriminate against anyone. This is part of their job criteria. So when an employer finds information that suggests that a person may not be able to perform their job, to me, that is good reason to investigate further. It may not require a dismissal, or even a reprimand, but it asks to be looked into.
If someone were snooping in her private files, hacking into her account, or something, and found information that way, then that would be a clear violation of privacy. But if it is information that was posted online, then it is information that has been made public. It is fair game for criticism.
While I don't necessarily disagree, the it needs direct evidence of "on the job" discrimination to be legal. In that sense, it's worth some inquiry, but not worth removal, in and of itself.
This is not about punishing someone for their opinions, unless I've misunderstood the topic. This is about using information attained outside of the workplace to judge whether an individual is capable of performing their workplace duties.
Losing a job at the DMV as a driving tester because you are blind is not governmental bias against the disabled. It's a matter of whether or not you can perform your job duties. If I am your employer and I hear rumor that you are going blind, while I can't access your medical records because of confidentiality laws, I am probably going to ask you if the rumors are true. If you say they're not, I'm going to have to let that go, but I'm going to be watching you to make sure. Yeah, you may feel singled out and picked on, but at risk of you causing an accident, it would be irresponsible of me not to ask and follow up by keeping an eye on you.
I'm not sure if we are square as to what constitutes government reprisal. Student protesters executed in Libya faced government reprisal. Advocates under house arrest in China are facing government reprisal. Someone fired for voting for the Firefly party in a Rainbow Dash party dominated district is facing government reprisal. Being fired for being unable to perform your job is not reprisal. Being questioned and criticised as to whether or not you can perform your job is also not reprisal.
Which is fair enough, the issue is that no speech on the basis of content (again, in the legal sense meaning the idea behind it).
Legally, any negative consequences for the person caused by the government on the basis of the content of the idea is considered reprisal. Studying the teacher's interactions with LGTBA students is not considered reprisal, and is a fair result.
Again, this is off in a major tangent, but a worthwhile discussion regardless.
