Teacher fired for writing "Pepe the Frog" book

[Jester Joe]

Guess we are going to start firing those that make fun of Christianity too? Lol, jk. no. That's kewl.

This keeps getting claimed, yet I see nothing to support it.

And criticism=/=mocking, nor is it quite equal to putting out a children's book aiming to make you dislike any immigrants.

[Cerilis]

I guess you haven't the lovely word "Mudslimes" when referring to Muslims before .

Oh my, I totally didnt get that! That book is really making it too easy! What's next, Pepe and Pede burning down the yews? They could make it a sequel: "Pepe and Pede in sorrow's forest."

[Deleted]

The faculty needs to decide what is in the best interest of the students. Letting someone with a highly skewered view of the world (including left, right, religious, and so on) influence the minds of kids and teenagers is usually not in their best interest.

True but they'd have to prove it takes place in hes class rooms. Hes private life, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal is none of their business.

[Jester Joe]

True but they'd have to prove it takes place in hes class rooms. Hes private life, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal is none of their business.

Publishing a book isn't exactly a "private life" anymore. It's public at that point, he didn't even use a pen name.

[Deleted]

Publishing a book isn't exactly a "private life" anymore. It's public at that point, he didn't even use a pen name.

He didn't publish it in the name of that school so again, whats the problem?

[Azadina]

Publishing a book isn't exactly a "private life" anymore. It's public at that point, he didn't even use a pen name.

I wonder if the would be pen name had been as subtle as the rest. Maybe "Alex Fhhrer"

[Jester Joe]

He didn't publish it in the name of that school so again, whats the problem?

You're moving the goalposts on that one.

It's public knowledge that he published this book. Which reflects badly upon the school, which they are very well allowed to do something about since it causes an issue.

In a nutshell at least.

[Baelic]

Once again, someone who doesn't understand what freedom of speech actually means.

Once again, someone who doesn't understand what freedom of speech actually means.

[Deleted]

You're moving the goalposts on that one.

It's public knowledge that he published this book. Which reflects badly upon the school, which they are very well allowed to do something about since it causes an issue.

In a nutshell at least.

Why does it reflect bad on the school though? If you write a book called "5 reasons why white people are racist" or "the problem with men"... you're golden, but conservative or right wing? You're fired!

Hell just look at the hypocrisy everywhere. People who walk around with Nazi symbols are demonized but soviet communist stuff, you know the guys who killed over 5 times as many people as Nazis are fine? What the hell..

[Endus]

He should probably sue...I mean what he does in hes private life is none of their business. Only way to make them respect the first amendment is when they start losing lots of money.

1> Publishing something means it's not "private life" any more.

2> Your public persona is relevant to your employer 24/7. They are not in any way obliged to ignore it, and it's kind of ridiculous that you'd even suggest they must.

3> This had nothing to do with the First Amendment. He wasn't fired for the content, he was fired for the public attention and outcry he created.

True but they'd have to prove it takes place in hes class rooms. Hes private life, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal is none of their business.

This is just completely wrong. And particularly wrong for educators. As noted above. Your personal life is relevant to your employer when and if it ever becomes public, and is grounds for summary dismissal if it impacts your work.

Making a deal with the cops to, for example, turn over a child-porn ring in exchange for not having charges filed against you, personally, would mean there was never a conviction on your record, but your employer would still be entitled to can you for it. Especially if you work in a school. Your private life isn't private when it becomes public, and your public life is relevant to your employers at all times.

[Deleted]

1> Publishing something means it's not "private life" any more.

2> Your public persona is relevant to your employer 24/7. They are not in any way obliged to ignore it, and it's kind of ridiculous that you'd even suggest they must.

3> This had nothing to do with the First Amendment. He wasn't fired for the content, he was fired for the public attention and outcry he created.



This is just completely wrong. And particularly wrong for educators. As noted above. Your personal life is relevant to your employer when and if it ever becomes public, and is grounds for summary dismissal if it impacts your work.

Making a deal with the cops to, for example, turn over a child-porn ring in exchange for not having charges filed against you, personally, would mean there was never a conviction on your record, but your employer would still be entitled to can you for it. Especially if you work in a school. Your private life isn't private when it becomes public, and your public life is relevant to your employers at all times.

So you're saying making jokes and being right wing or a conservative is the same as child-porn now?

[Jester Joe]

Why does it reflect bad on the school though? If you write a book called "5 reasons why white people are racist" or "the problem with men"... you're golden, but conservative or right wing? You're fired!

Hell just look at the hypocrisy everywhere. People who walk around with Nazi symbols are demonized but soviet communist stuff, you know the guys who killed over 5 times as many people as Nazis are fine? What the hell..

Just because one is allowed doesn't mean the other should be (For the record, I also think similar should happen if that type of situation arouse).

[Endus]

Why does it reflect bad on the school though? If you write a book called "5 reasons why white people are racist" or "the problem with men"... you're golden, but conservative or right wing? You're fired!

You'd be fired for either. Especially if it caused a fuss, as this did.

Hell just look at the hypocrisy everywhere. People who walk around with Nazi symbols are demonized but soviet communist stuff, you know the guys who killed over 5 times as many people as Nazis are fine? What the hell..

If you mean the hammer-and-sickle, it's a symbol that long-predated the USSR, and was used by myriad other groups. So trying to eliminate that symbol solely because of the USSR is pretty darned ridiculous. Nobody's arguing you have to eliminate all swastikas ever; there are swastikas on ancient temples that are left alone.

[Deleted]

Just because one is allowed doesn't mean the other should be (For the record, I also think similar should happen if that type of situation arouse).

Fair enough but in reality it just doesn't. Teachers who promote communism and idolize Stalin don't get fired. Can you imagine a teacher who taught Hitler was a cool guy? He'd be gone in .. seconds.

[Endus]

So you're saying making jokes and being right wing or a conservative is the same as child-porn now?

No, but it's interesting that you've decided to ignore the point of the analogy to claim I was saying something I clearly was not.

[Deleted]

If you mean the hammer-and-sickle, it's a symbol that long-predated the USSR, and was used by myriad other groups. So trying to eliminate that symbol solely because of the USSR is pretty darned ridiculous. Nobody's arguing you have to eliminate all swastikas ever; there are swastikas on ancient temples that are left alone.

You do realize that the swastika was also the symbol of the sun long before Nazis? Yet we can't deny the facts, that the Nazis were .. well pretty evil. They murdered a lot of people. So now that stuff is seen as evil. Well, the soviets and commies, like say Stalin, Mao and others murdered WAY more people, yet their symbols are ok now?

[Machismo]

True but they'd have to prove it takes place in hes class rooms. Hes private life, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal is none of their business.

That's not true at all. Most districts have morality standards. It's why they often fire strippers, and people who scream racist shit on video.

[Santti]

I guess you haven't the lovely word "Mudslimes" when referring to Muslims before .

Thank you. Never heard of "Mudslimes" before. I honestly couldn't tell what the hell was that picture. Thought they were covered in croc-poop or something.

[Deleted]

No, but it's interesting that you've decided to ignore the point of the analogy to claim I was saying something I clearly was not.

Ok, they why is writing a meme.. crude humor reference book a bad thing?

- - - Updated - - -

That's not true at all. Most districts have morality standards. It's why they often fire strippers, and people who scream racist shit on video.

Again whats morally wrong with being right wing or a conservative?

[Endus]

You do realize that the swastika was also the symbol of the sun long before Nazis? Yet we can't deny the facts, that the Nazis were .. well pretty evil. They murdered a lot of people. So now that stuff is seen as evil.

See the last line in what you quoted. You're just flat-out wrong here. The swastika is still used in overtly non-Nazi contexts.

Well, the soviets and commies, like say Stalin, Mao and others murdered WAY more people, yet their symbols are ok now?

Is was never "their symbol" exclusively. If you want to talk about someone flying a USSR flag specifically, fine, but stop acting like the hammer-and-sickle is "bad" because you don't understand the history of communist theory and symbolism.

Ok, they why is writing a meme.. crude humor reference book a bad thing?

Why haven't you read the articles on this? Because it produced enough public outcry that this guy was spending more time handling that than his duties. So since he couldn't do the job, he was moved to another position.

Again whats morally wrong with being right wing or a conservative?

Even if that were the reason (again; it wasn't), then it wouldn't be about anything "right-wing" or "conservative". It would be the use of hateful symbolism and the pushing of an implicitly bigoted and hateful message, using insulting and hateful stereotypes.

I don't identify that stuff as "right-wing" or "conservative". Why do you?