The right to free speech is NOT the right to get your own, whiny-assed way.

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-right-to-free-speech-is-not-the-right-to-get-your-own-whiny-assed-way/

"No, it’s the right to speak freely. And regardless of Randall Scott’s idiotic claims to the contrary, he has freely expressed himself. Hoo boy, did he ever. And nobody cut off his Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or email accounts. He spoke freely, no question about it. He trash-talked the Prexy in the finest Teabagger tradition, in person and across the Intertubez.

What this jackass little tin god teacher did not get was rewarded for his speech, which included little bon mots like :
Randall Scott @rscottmsg
WOTUS @ OBAMA IS A PUSSY
And
Randall Scott @rscottmsgt
A weed smoking Kenyan is your president. And he is in charge of your health care. Seems normal. If… http://instagram.com/p/k3HdO0E4R5/

Along with other stupid, racist, Teabagging, Birtherbot twaddle. Post after post of this crap, and once again, NOBODY SHUT HIM DOWN. Not ever. Not once.

So why does this Scott Ass Wipe say his rights to free speech have been violated? Because he wasn’t allowed to go and listen to Obama give a speech. Got that? Mr. Scott says that not being allowed to be in an auditorium is the same thing as not being allowed to speak.

Sorry, Randy old son, but you just flunked out of the school you teach in. You freely expressed your odious opinions, and that is what the First Amendment gives you. You didn’t get to go to a speech; you didn’t get a friggin’ pony, either. You got what the law gives us all: nothing more, nothing less.

So quitcherbitchin' boyo."

Source info at the link.

[Feral Child]

1. Righteous rant!

REC

[riqster]

16. Thanks. No pony for him!

[Scuba]

2. They all live in Victimland. Sarah Palin is the Victim in Chief.

[Tom Ripley]

8. +1000

[riqster]

14. Poor widdle cweatures.

[okaawhatever]

3. At least he still his job. Some teachers get fired for:

modeling bikinis and lingerie
http://izismile.com/2013/05/13/the_bikini_photos_that_got_this_florida_teacher_19_pics.html

Being gay
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-catholic-school-teacher-fired-married/story?id=21141075

Unmarried and pregnant
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/catholic-teacher-fired-pregnancy/5208601/

[riqster]

13. Christ on a pogo stick.

Good point.

[FSogol]

4. K & R. n/t

[11 Bravo]

5. Very well said! K&R

[riqster]

12. TY

[MADem]

6. I think in that jerk's case, actions should have consequences.

He's a government employee; employed by the community as a teacher, getting a paycheck paid for by the taxpayers.

I think his behavior reflects upon his employers...poorly!

And I think his employers have the right to tell him that if he wants to keep shooting off his mouth, he can do it outside of the umbrella of employment by that community, because his comments bring disrepute upon them.

It's one thing to say "I disagree with the policies of (insert name of politician)." It's another thing altogether to set a poor example for young minds by slinging invective on facebook and twitter.

[riqster]

11. He's been the subject of student complaints.

He spews that filth during classes, too. Maybe that can be used to can his ass.

[freshwest]

18. If I had a kid in his class, they'd never hear the end of it, until he was terminated. n/t

[Tom Ripley]

7. That jerkwad seems woefully underqualified to be teaching social studies

He doesn't understand the Constitution.

[riqster]

9. Two students have asked to get a different teacher.

Because he cranks that shit out during class, too. That is actually why he was being investigated in the first place.

[Tom Ripley]

10. Good for them; I hope they succeed.

[okaawhatever]

15. You know that a bunch of rwnj think you just said you hope the school leaves the union, right? nt

[Tom Ripley]

17. LOL!

[TeamPooka]

20. He teaches Anti-Social Studies. nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

21. +1!

(Maybe not for much longer)

[riqster]

25. ...

[pipoman]

19. His claim is idiotic. .

Not for the reasons mentioned, because none of us have a right a job. We can exercise free speech, our employers can fire us for what we say.

Oh, of course freedom of speech has never been about speech to the exclusion of expression. Burning a flag for instance is protected as free speech.

[Cha]

22. K&R thanks riqster!

[riqster]

28. Back atcha Cha!

[Cha]

29. ..

[agent46]

23. The meaning of the word "speech"

The meaning of the word "speech" has been gradually modified over the decades by legal precedent to the point of near meaninglessness. Money is now a form of free speech. Money isn't even a thing. It's a symbol of an abstraction of value. People get that now. They see it everywhere. Everything we do or want to do is a form of speech. If money can be free speech so can unimpeded ignorance and even threats of violence.

He's an idiot but his logic is pure.

[riqster]

26. Actually, his logic still sucks.

Because what he is bitching about isn't any of those forms you correctly identify, nor how those manifold definitions of speech are applied and utilized.

He's pissed because he isn't being rewarded for his speech, lauded for it, lionized for it. What has his knickers in a twist is actually the "speech" of others who disagree with him. He thinks his free speech is better than the free speech of anyone else. Unless they "ditto" him.

[agent46]

30. You're right

That's a distinction I failed to make. He's taken the whole free speech thing to its inevitable conclusion at the bottom of the pit of absurdity - down there with most of the rest of so-called American culture. Free speech now means being entitled to rewards for having the guts to be an ignorant public nuisance.

[riqster]

31. This:

" Free speech now means being entitled to rewards for having the guts to be an ignorant public nuisance."

[AverageJoe90]

24. Randy Scott is such an idiotic asswipe.....

I honestly don't know where to begin. Not only is he attacking Obama's heritage, and denying that he is a natural born citizen.....but even attacking him for being "not masculine".....no, just no.

I'm glad this guy's getting shellacked. Deserves it, too.

[riqster]

27. He is, as one of my late great-uncles would have said,

A "Richard Noggin".

[onenote]

32. I'm going to take a contrarian position to the OP

Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

But before I do, let me make it clear that I think if, as it appears, Scott has made statements to his students that are disruptive to the class or create hostile atmosphere for students who don't agree with his extremist views, he could and should have been fired.

But school teachers and other government employees do not surrender their first amendment rights when they accept their positions. And as progressives, we shouldn't want it any other way.

A couple of general points: the first amendment does not protect a person's right to speak against non-governmental consequences of that speech. But the first amendment does protect speakers against the consequences of their speech when those consequences are the product of governmental action. In other words, the first amendment protects a person's right to speak without the government punishing (or rewarding) the speaker based on the content of their speech. To the extent that the government either punishes or rewards speakers on the basis of the content of their speech, it is on thin ice constitutionally.

We are all familiar of the numerous instances during the bush administration in which individuals were turned away from appearances by bush or cheney or other administration figures because of the message on a shirt they were wearing or because the event (not a campaign event but a government-sponsored event) selected the audience solely based on their political views. We were outraged by those instances. And rightfully so.

If a public school decided which teachers get promotions based on their political views, we would be outraged if a teacher who, on blog sites or elsewhere, expressed support for Obamacare, were denied promotions for that reason or if the only teachers to get promotions were those that attended an anti-Obama rally. And our outrage would be justified, because these would be violations of the First Amendment.

The school has exacerbated the situation in the Scott case by giving an explanation that is plainly pretextual -- the notion that Scott was denied access not because of his having posted about Obama on social media but because there was no room is simply not credible. Whether the school could constitutionally instruct teachers not to post about Obama on social media is itself a close question. But if (and admittedly it is just speculation on my part) Scott was not the only teacher to disregard the school's admonition but the only one to be held out from attending the appearance, he would have a strong argument that his first amendment rights were violated because the government was distinguishing between him and other teachers based solely on the content of their speech.

If it was reasonably concluded that Scott's participation posed a threat to the president or even posed a threat of disruption to the president's appearance, the government might have a basis for holding him out. But unless the Secret Service made some attempt to interview him and discern whether he constituted such a threat, that argument also would appear to be a pretext.

I know this post is going to upset some people and I'll probably be slammed for it. But my point is simple: if this had happened to a teacher who posted nasty comments about bush and cheney and that gang during the bush administration would you be defending it?

[riqster]

33. If he had complained about being excluded, that is one thing.

But to claim a first amendment violation is ridiculous. Retaliation, yes; but his right to speak was not infringed. In fact, due to his opportunistic reaction, his message has achieved far wider circulation.

[onenote]

34. if he was singled out for his online anti-Obama crap, it absolutely implicates the first amendment

If a public school decided not to give a teacher a discretionary promotion in "retaliation" for that speaker having posted online material in support of President Obama everyone here would be in complete agreement that the public school was acting in derogation of the teacher's first amendment rights.

[riqster]

35. If you read the articles referenced in the link at the OP,

You'd know that he was already under investigation by the school and its board for his behavior in the classroom: essentially, ranting thusly while "teaching".

It's not just his online activities.

[onenote]

36. the school shot itself in the foot by giving a pre textual excuse for not allowing him in

If the school said that he was not being admitted because of his classroom behavior, they probably would be on solid ground. But that's not what they said. What they said is that there was not room for everyone and that the decision to decide who attended or not was random or based on merit, it was based, in this guy's case, on the content he was constitutionally allowed to make free of retaliation.

[riqster]

37. Yep, that was a whole bucket of stupid there. Although it could be an HR restriction, I guess.

Sometimes there are confidentiality rules about what an employer can say in such situations. But I agree, the school did not do itself any favors with their "explanation".