Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/15/2025 9:50:32 AM PST by simpson96
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
She isn’t being silenced at all. She simply can’t say anything she wants that the school doesn’t like as long as she works there. She’s still free to hang out on the street corner and scream Nazi all she wants or go to bluepedo and say what she wants. For that matter she can walk up to DJT and call him a Nazi if she wants. Her speech isn’t being silenced. She’s not being allowed to embarrass her employer.
Looks like a LinkedIn page. She has 3 connections, next to no one likes her, or wants to be associated with her. No surprise.
“I think she might have a case if the school gets any federal funding.”
She was fired by Middle Tennessee *State* University. I’m not a lawyer, either, but this is my (layman’s) understanding of the relevant issues. First Amendment protections *generally* extend to state government employees as long as the speech pertains to “matters of public concern” and does not involve either workplace grievences or speech spoken as part of the employee’s official duties of employment. This is the so-called “Pickering balance test.”
However, there are notable case-law exceptions involving the advocacy of political violence and the potential for the speech to result in workplace disruption. These exceptions seem (to me) to provide an avenue for the university to fire the employee.
I suspect there is also a matter of differences in the employment protections associated with university employment categories. For example, a staff member likely has fewer free-speech protections than a tenured professor.
For those who want to delve into the weeds, here is an interesting article:
She didn't celebrate anything in that post; she simply said she had no sympathy. There was no endorsement of violence.
How about a state university?
A state university did, which is probably why she will win bigly.
She probably has a case; they can’t fire her for speaking her mind, but they can fire her for bringing bad publicity to the college.
And as late as the early 80s when I used to climb the side of the dormitories to retrieve people's Frisbees and stuff.
This woman was a Dean of Students - I suspect one of the legion of DEI hires who've helped bloat college costs throughout the nation - who should have policed her own opinions just as hard as her cohorts police those of the paying students'.
A case where the dragon ends up swallowing it's own tail.
“Do you EVER have a conservative opinion?
Axing for a friend...”
****************************************
Do you ever ask an intelligent question?
Asking for myself...a true conservative does not hide behind an imaginary friend.
Don’t be such an ahole. You seem to belong to a core contingent of tight butt freepers whose motto is “my 99% friend is my 100% enemy.I thought that was a leftist ideology.
I voiced an innocuous opinion about what I thought the law was. Nowhere did I say whether I agreed with any laws or the firing. Not that it matters and I don’t need your validation, but I have no problem at all with her firing.
She brought disrepute in her employer.
That’s reason enough.
L
When you lose Murfreesboro you’re in trouble lol
You're ALWAYS "voicing an innocuous opinion"...
Nonsense. She was free to say what she did. She was not incarcerated or sanctioned by any government.
And her employer enjoys freedom of association and decided they no longer want to be associated with her.
they ALWAYS have these unconventional, hyphenated last names!
She certainly has free speech. but she doesn’t have a right to her job or to embarrass her employer. She want just a worker bee, but someone making policy decisions. So, tough shit for her.
This pretty much sums up the absurdity of the thread.
Trevor Tomesh points out that the one place in society where one should be able to express opinions and ideas is a college campus. Charlie Kirk gets killed by someone who is apparently upset at his opinions and ideas; the woman who posts her indifference to his death loses her job.
No matter whose side you're on, free speech took a step backwards.
She didn't advocate for CK's murder; she simply expressed feelings of indifference to it.
It appears that it's because she hasn't demonstrated obeisance to the deceased that she's being pilloried here.
She’s not dumb enough to outright say he deserved it, but that’s what she said and students in that school looking for validation will see it that way. She’s supposed to be an example there and instead of clearly denouncing Kirk’s murder basically gave a thumbs up to it.
From the early 80’s, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.