Flag-stomping teacher has no regrets, wants student punished

[Kasierith]

The problem with that argument is that this is a public school, meaning the administration is the government. They can't fire a teacher for First Amendment expressions, not unless they breach the teaching code of ethics (this doesn't) or somehow breaks their union agreements (haven't looked at those, but would be flabbergasted if this were covered there)

The response to your statement legally is.. maybe? American schools and such are pretty gray. The counter argument against you would be that there is precedent that a public school teacher is acting in the capacity of a job, not as a private citizen, and as such their first amendment rights are not as extensive in terms of whether or not they can be removed or such.

ex: http://www.nea.org/home/20713.htm

[Zecora]

It's... been this way for forever. At will termination is far, far from a new thing. The primary protection from at will termination is unionization and collective bargaining, and the way the school board is moving I don't believe that he is part of a union.

If you don't understand the concept of at will termination, which is basically a staple of how American job contracts function, you really have no business stating your thoughts on the legality of firing him.

Oh I understand it fine. I just happen to think that the practice is a barbarian one better suited to some third world sweatshop, but that is besides the point. Even in the US, a public school firing someone for using his freedom of speech to demonstrate what freedom of speech entails is going to be problematic when no rules, laws or contracts have been broken.

And like I said, it is a non sequitur to direct the statement at me. I suggest you look up the term.

And as I said, just because I put my statement in a reply to your statement, it doesn't mean it was directed at you personally. Having some trouble understanding that not everything written in a reply has to be directed at the person you reply to, aren't you?

Near the drapes and next to yours would be lovely.

Haven't got any. I suggest you put it in the garbage bin next to your claim on how attempts to get someone fired is "freedom of speech".

[Ragedaug]

Oh I understand it fine. I just happen to think that the practice is a barbarian one better suited to some third world sweatshop, but that is besides the point. Even in the US, a public school firing someone for using his freedom of speech to demonstrate what freedom of speech entails is going to be problematic when no rules, laws or contracts have been broken.

I think having professional implications to his free speech was the perfect cap for that lesson. You won't go to jail for expressing your freedom of speech by you can expect professional and social repercussions if your free speech is offensive.

- - - Updated - - -

how disgustingly american

What does that even mean, "disgustingly american"?

[Kasierith]

Oh I understand it fine. I just happen to think that the practice is a barbarian one better suited to some third world sweatshop, but that is besides the point. Even in the US, a public school firing someone for using his freedom of speech to demonstrate what freedom of speech entails is going to be problematic when no rules, laws or contracts have been broken.

Well as we're talking about an incident in the US, so expressing disdain for how at will termination works is pointlessly tedious. They do not have to demonstrate that he violated his contract to terminate him. As for the response, the response in the local area seems to have been largely against him. You can go on about how backwards that is if you'd like, but ultimately the local population and school board is what matters to them, not people typing on the internet.

And as I said, just because I put my statement in a reply to your statement, it doesn't mean it was directed at you personally. Having some trouble understanding that not everything written in a reply has to be directed at the person you reply to, aren't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Here you go. Have at it.

Haven't got any. I suggest you put it in the garbage bin next to your claim on how attempts to get someone fired is "freedom of speech".

Can you present with evidence that when the student claimed the teacher was unpatriotic, he did not believe his own statements?

[Zecora]

How do you think Alex Jones and Limbaugh and co have gotten away with things so long? "It isn't defamation if I am stating what I personally perceive to be true." It might be morally reprehensible depending on one's point of view, but it doesn't fall under legal defamation for that reason.

That seems to be a VERY selective case in the US, given that several people have been sued (and found guilty) when they stated that they believed this-or-that product to be hazardous to health...

[Ragedaug]

That seems to be a VERY selective case in the US, given that several people have been sued (and found guilty) when they stated that they believed this-or-that product to be hazardous to health...

That means that the court case found evidence that they had intention to deceive.

[Kasierith]

That seems to be a VERY selective case in the US, given that several people have been sued (and found guilty) when they stated that they believed this-or-that product to be hazardous to health...

You would have to present that on a case by case basis. Again, this is specifically through legal defamation; the way the first amendment exceptions work in the US si that it has to fall under a specific category, ie defamation, libel. If we are arguing about a defamation suit, a base requirement of it is that false information was knowingly spread to damage another's character or reputation.

[Zecora]

Well as we're talking about an incident in the US, so expressing disdain for how at will termination works is pointlessly tedious. They do not have to demonstrate that he violated his contract to terminate him. As for the response, the response in the local area seems to have been largely against him. You can go on about how backwards that is if you'd like, but ultimately the local population and school board is what matters to them, not people typing on the internet.

As I said, it was besides the point. And as I also stated, even in the US, firing someone over this matter is going to be problematic at best, and is probably going to end up being a PR nightmare for the school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Here you go. Have at it.

I am starting to suspect that you have trouble reading...

Can you present with evidence that when the student claimed the teacher was unpatriotic, he did not believe his own statements?

To some people in the US, not saluting the flag every morning is "unpatriotic". However, even they should be capable of understanding the difference between conducting a lesson about freedom of speech, and actually stomping on a flag for the hell of it. Now can you present evidence that the student did NOT undertake his actions in order to get the teacher fired? Because his actions strongly indicate that.

- - - Updated - - -

That means that the court case found evidence that they had intention to deceive.

Or that one side could put enough lawyers in the courtroom to twist the case.

- - - Updated - - -

You would have to present that on a case by case basis. Again, this is specifically through legal defamation; the way the first amendment exceptions work in the US si that it has to fall under a specific category, ie defamation, libel. If we are arguing about a defamation suit, a base requirement of it is that false information was knowingly spread to damage another's character or reputation.

And the student's actions would seem to fit that pretty well.

[Ragedaug]

Or that one side could put enough lawyers in the courtroom to twist the case.

Sure, without being there and without having any idea of what happened there, lets assume the lawyers and judges were corrupt and wrong...so you are using libel to prove libel?

[Rhaide]

High school isn't the right time or place. Everyone has to go to high school.

College is fine.

Glad someone understands this. All the idiots harping about 'free speech'. Free speech protects our right to speak our minds and perform actions to express ourselves and our beliefs so long as they don't harm others.

The first amendment is NOT intended to allow radicals to attempt to indoctrinate children in a school they have NO CHOICE but to attend.

If this was college, I'd roll my eyes and say "whatever, who cares, another idiot professor", but it's not. This behavior has no place in a mandatory institution of learning.

[Zecora]

Sure, without being there and without having any idea of what happened there, lets assume the lawyers and judges were corrupt and wrong...so you are using libel to prove libel?

Since when is it libel to observe that whichever side that can put significantly more lawyers in the courtroom tends to win cases in the US?

- - - Updated - - -

Glad someone understands this. All the idiots harping about 'free speech'. Free speech protects our right to speak our minds and perform actions to express ourselves and our beliefs so long as they don't harm others.

The first amendment is NOT intended to allow radicals to attempt to indoctrinate children in a school they have NO CHOICE but to attend.

If this was college, I'd roll my eyes and say "whatever, who cares, another idiot professor", but it's not. This behavior has no place in a mandatory institution of learning.

This just in! Teaching students about what you can and can't do under the freedom of speech now makes you a "radical".

Seriously...are we talking about the US or the USSR here? Because one is starting to look much like the other to me...

[Ragedaug]

Since when is it libel to observe that whichever side that can put significantly more lawyers in the courtroom tends to win cases in the US?

It's libel since you did not observe anything and assumed the judge and lawyers were corrupt, then posted it online that they were corrupt so you could prove your point.

[Kasierith]

]As I said, it was besides the point. And as I also stated, even in the US, firing someone over this matter is going to be problematic at best, and is probably going to end up being a PR nightmare for the school.

The school board does not care about what some random person typing from across the world thinks. What does matter is the local area and the administration above them, and the overall tone on media, and even a brief glance demonstrates that firing him is a pretty publicly popular move. In fact, the negative PR against him that induced action from the school board is what this discussion is all about.

I am starting to suspect that you have trouble reading...

It's quite simple. You quoted me and made a statement about people in general in the thread, and I responded that it was a non sequitur in reference to me. That's.. about it. You can run off and have a fit if you want, but you're blowing a simple noncommital response to your oh so elaborate quip completely out of proportion.

To some people in the US, not saluting the flag every morning is "unpatriotic". However, even they should be capable of understanding the difference between conducting a lesson about freedom of speech, and actually stomping on a flag for the hell of it. Now can you present evidence that the student did NOT undertake his actions in order to get the teacher fired? Because his actions strongly indicate that.

That statement is completely unrelated to how defamation works. The student can operate under an agenda to get him fired, and it would be unrelated to the outcome of such a suit.

And the student's actions would seem to fit that pretty well.

Claiming that he found the teachers actions to be unpatriotic was not something that he felt was a true statement?

[Zecora]

It's libel since you did not observe anything and assumed the judge and lawyers were corrupt, then posted it online that they were corrupt so you could prove your point.

I'm rather glad I don't live in a country where that is considered libel, even if what you presented there was a strawman rather than a real representation of my actions and motives.

[Ragedaug]

I'm rather glad I don't live in a country where that is considered libel, even if what you presented there was a strawman rather than a real representation of my actions and motives.

Well then, I'm glad that you are glad. I wouldn't want you to have to live in a country where you might have the feeling like you need to stomp on it's flag or some such.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Really? You have no concept or understanding of symbolism? You might want to retake that middle school English class- you missed some things.

Sounds like you need a safe space, away from anything that might offend you. Especially things like flags being stepped on!

[Zecora]

The school board does not care about what some random person typing from across the world thinks. What does matter is the local area and the administration above them, and the overall tone on media, and even a brief glance demonstrates that firing him is a pretty publicly popular move. In fact, the negative PR against him that induced action from the school board is what this discussion is all about.

Which will make it all the more interesting to see how this falls out. Will the right-wing "SJW's" win out, or will the correct understanding of what the freedom of speech win?

Regardless, I stand by my statement that he'll have a damn good case if he ends up getting fired over this, as well as the statement that now when this is known to the wider world, the PR fallout for the school will be disasterous. Which they seem to have understood since they haven't actually fired him yet.

It's quite simple. You quoted me and made a statement about people in general in the thread, and I responded that it was a non sequitur in reference to me. That's.. about it. You can run off and have a fit if you want, but you're blowing a simple noncommital response to your oh so elaborate quip completely out of proportion.

You could have had a point, except YOU are the one that keep bringing it up. Despite the statement not being aimed at you, it seems to have cut you pretty deep.

That statement is completely unrelated to how defamation works. The student can operate under an agenda to get him fired, and it would be unrelated to the outcome of such a suit.

If his actions are undertaken specifically to get the teacher fired, it is a strong indication that any claimed belief as to the teacher being "unpatriotic" (seriously, WHERE else in the world would that even be an issue? Apart from North Korea that is...) is secondary at most. But THAT would be up to the court to decide, and I strongly doubt you have the kind of expertise needed to accurately predict how such a case would fall out (despite almost everyone I meet on these forums being both legal experts, millionaires, self-made men, olympic weightlifters and so on, all rolled up into one).

Claiming that he found the teachers actions to be unpatriotic was not something that he felt was a true statement?

More likely a convenient excuse to get back at the teacher.

[May90]

I was mostly focusing on the "wants student punished" thing. It just seems... so horribly backwards to publicly express ones right to freedom of expression to entice a reaction for others, and then to barrel down and attack a kid with legal threats for essentially doing the same.

I'm not sure about the details, but if, as he claims, the student indeed violated the rules, then it makes sense.

[Zecora]

Well then, I'm glad that you are glad. I wouldn't want you to have to live in a country where you might have the feeling like you need to stomp on it's flag or some such.

Oh, I would probably not do that any more than I would make a caricature of Mohammed. Having the freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can't be polite enough not to insult others on purpose, and being polite enough not to insult others on purpose doesn't mean that you can't defend other people's freedom to do so if they wish.

[May90]

Well then, I'm glad that you are glad. I wouldn't want you to have to live in a country where you might have the feeling like you need to stomp on it's flag or some such.

Flag is just a piece of cloth, whether you like it or not. You can live in a country, be happy living there, and still want to stomp on a piece of cloth for whatever reason.