NationStates Jolt Archive

...is being exploited.
Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/01/speaker.protest.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/08/speaker.protest.ap/index.html

The message Im getting from these is "You cant fire me/cancel my speech, IM an extremist!"
For Gods sake, its a UNIVERSITY!

For those who dont read the articles, the gist is thus:
The guy (Chruchill) apparently decided that it was 9/11 victems own fault that they died, and that they were 'little Eichmans', in refrence to Adolph Eichman. I figure that most people on NS know who Adolph Eichman is.
After then he apparently talked about the 'combat treams' 'gallant sacrifices' on 9.11. Yup, crashing an airplane into a building full of unsuspecting civilians counts as a 'gallant sacrifice' and 'combat'.
And NOW hes angry and apparently threatened to sue a college that wouldnt let him speak.

It seems the extreme leftist fellows has finnaly found somebody on par with Rush Limbaugh.

...is being exploited.
Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/01/speaker.protest.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/08/speaker.protest.ap/index.html

The message Im getting from these is "You cant fire me/cancel my speech, IM an extremist!"
For Gods sake, its a UNIVERSITY!

For those who dont read the articles, the gist is thus:
The guy (Chruchill) apparently decided that it was 9/11 victems own fault that they died, and that they were 'little Eichmans', in refrence to Adolph Eichman. I figure that most people on NS know who Adolph Eichman is.
After then he apparently talked about the 'combat treams' 'gallant sacrifices' on 9.11. Yup, crashing an airplane into a building full of unsuspecting civilians counts as a 'gallant sacrifice' and 'combat'.
And NOW hes angry and apparently threatened to sue a college that wouldnt let him speak.

It seems the extreme leftist fellows has finnaly found somebody on par with Rush Limbaugh.

I was with you right up to the point where you compared this dispicable dweeb to Rush Limbaugh. I've got lots of "issues" with Mr. Rush, but I don't ever recall him being nearly as extreme as this guy.

Churchill may just be trying to make a name for himself, in which case he has succeeded beyond his wildest expectation. Where I live, the guy is almost universally hated for his incredibly irresponsible statements. If he's not just trying to make a name for himself, he is indeed a truly dispicable person.

Wait ... either way he's still dispicable!

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/no-free-speech-for-ward-churchill-with.html

Sums it up. He may be despeciable in your eyes, but he is protected by a VERY important amendment. Yes, he said something deeply contraversial (three years ago, before Bill Reilly, that sickening fellow happened upon this story), but its his right to do so.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/no-free-speech-for-ward-churchill-with.html

Sums it up. He may be despeciable in your eyes, but he is protected by a VERY important amendment. Yes, he said something deeply contraversial (three years ago, before Bill Reilly, that sickening fellow happened upon this story), but its his right to do so.

In the US, the First Amendment protects you against being arrested for speaking. It protects you against being fined for speaking.

It even protects you as far as speaking in a public place (you have a right to protest in public).

However...

It does not protect you from being fired. There are many people in the US who have lost their jobs because of something they said.

There are some who believe that it may be a blow to academic freedom (of course, you're still free to go to a university where they would probably hire him if the current school lets him go).

He hasn't been silenced - in fact, the brouhaha has probably gotten him more publicity than he's ever had in his entire career. So I don't see that he's been harmed.

And there are plenty of schools that would hire him - and proudly trumpet his arrival.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/no-free-speech-for-ward-churchill-with.html

Sums it up. He may be despeciable in your eyes, but he is protected by a VERY important amendment. Yes, he said something deeply contraversial (three years ago, before Bill Reilly, that sickening fellow happened upon this story), but its his right to do so.

True, but it's still my right to despise him.

True, but it's still my right to despise him.
*points*
Its a sad fact that most people dont realize that freedom of speech is a two way street.

If we start censoring unpopular and unpatriotic speech we become no different than Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and all the other repressive scumbags we helped to fight. (Ok, we technically didn't fight Stalin or Mao, but we did oppose the expansion of their ideologies)

Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. How can you choose who you will vote for if you can't hear all sides of the issues. Those who want to ban free speech are as unpatriotic as theat stale turd, Churchill, who thinks the 9/11 victims were deserving of fiery death.

I was with you right up to the point where you compared this dispicable dweeb to Rush Limbaugh. I've got lots of "issues" with Mr. Rush, but I don't ever recall him being nearly as extreme as this guy.



Agreed. I find that Michael Moore is the left wing Limbaugh.

Agreed. I find that Michael Moore is the left wing Limbaugh.

I thank God every day that Moore doesn't have his own radio show.
It's hard enough to face the fact that Rush has one.

Of course, I chide God for letting Al Franken on the air.

All of which proves to me that there is a God, and she has a sense of whimsy.

If we start censoring unpopular and unpatriotic speech we become no different than Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and all the other repressive scumbags we helped to fight. (Ok, we technically didn't fight Stalin or Mao, but we did oppose the expansion of their ideologies)

Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. How can you choose who you will vote for if you can't hear all sides of the issues. Those who want to ban free speech are as unpatriotic as theat stale turd, Churchill, who thinks the 9/11 victims were deserving of fiery death.

I have no problem w/ free speech. If this schmuck want to go around asking to get beaten, Fine w/ me. The 1st Amendment doesn't state that I'm forced to have to listen to him. Had he worked for me, I'ld fire him. That in no way infringes on his ability to spout BS.

I thank God every day that Moore doesn't have his own radio show.
It's hard enough to face the fact that Rush has one.

Of course, I chide God for letting Al Franken on the air.

All of which proves to me that there is a God, and she has a sense of whimsy.

Definite proof that Eris is the way.

May she ride w/ you, just not in the same car.

I have no problem w/ free speech. If this schmuck want to go around asking to get beaten, Fine w/ me. The 1st Amendment doesn't state that I'm forced to have to listen to him. Had he worked for me, I'ld fire him. That in no way infringes on his ability to spout BS.

Democracy exists in a state of perpetual tension between multiple extremes. The line between the rights of a business owner who built his/her business up from nothing to fire an employee, vs. the desire of the majority to prohibit firing for reasons unrelated to the actual work performed is just one example.

Churchill is only trying to make a name for himself. He sees this as a chance to exploit the harsh reality of the victims. He doesn't know what it means to have to fight. Sure he may be considered a hear to the Native Americans but how can he expect to have others rally to his cause when he claims that innocent people were killed by fanatics who would kill thousands just to enter heaven filled with virgins?

The fact that people are agreeing with his statements show how far america has fallen. They are allowing the twisted individuals of our society begin to gain a hold and then what will come next. Churchill has begun to rally college students to him and they agree with what he says. It's not only what Churchill said but what his followers, even those who were arrested for violence, will do. They are, after all, the next in line for some of our most coveted positions in society. Churchill is only a figure head to a radical revolt of politics versus a rebellious generation. There are already those who dirtied their record for this man, what stops them from going even further to follow this man's belief?

Churchill is only trying to make a name for himself. He sees this as a chance to exploit the harsh reality of the victims. He doesn't know what it means to have to fight. Sure he may be considered a hear to the Native Americans but how can he expect to have others rally to his cause when he claims that innocent people were killed by fanatics who would kill thousands just to enter heaven filled with virgins?

The fact that people are agreeing with his statements show how far america has fallen. They are allowing the twisted individuals of our society begin to gain a hold and then what will come next. Churchill has begun to rally college students to him and they agree with what he says. It's not only what Churchill said but what his followers, even those who were arrested for violence, will do. They are, after all, the next in line for some of our most coveted positions in society. Churchill is only a figure head to a radical revolt of politics versus a rebellious generation. There are already those who dirtied their record for this man, what stops them from going even further to follow this man's belief?

This is where trusting the people to rightly judge what is and is not acceptable comes in. Many of the people who now claim to support Churchill's position will eventually grow up and smell the coffee. Some few will not and will become marginalized into the noisy rabble of those who protest "something" to no avail.

I don't have a problem with letting extremists speak. You just let them speak, vent their rage, work on their issues, or whatever and then calmly you turn around and say "Anyway, as I was saying..."

It's too bad that too many people give these whackos that much importance. It just encourages them.

you have the freedom to make your opinion known. You have no freedom from the reactions that other people have to it, up to and including them firing you from your job.

you have the freedom to make your opinion known. You have no freedom from the reactions that other people have to it, up to and including them firing you from your job.

Perhaps you believe that way, but many states do not permit firing for other than "good cause," which is defined as failure to properly perform the requirements of your job, or repeated behavior "contrary to good order and discipline."

If someone like Churchill worked in one of these states and his extreme positions caused disruption to the workplace, the employer could probably justify firing him for that reason. However, if the employer had a weak case, the firing could be overturned in court.

Frankly, unless his words violated any of the terms within the contract he signed at tenure, or any of the officially posted rules of conduct at the time he made the comments, then he cannot be fired. Well, of course they CAN fire him, however the lawsuit that will result will only make the college look worse.

Doesn't make him any less odious for what he said however.

Frankly, unless his words violated any of the terms within the contract he signed at tenure, or any of the officially posted rules of conduct at the time he made the comments, then he cannot be fired. Well, of course they CAN fire him, however the lawsuit that will result will only make the college look worse.

Doesn't make him any less odious for what he said however.

I remember someone fired from Qwest for merely stating that during the American Civil War, "the South wasn't so bad".

His lawsuit was dismissed before being tried. The court said that there was nothing in the employee's contract to prevent them from firing him for voicing opinions that he may not have known were contradictory to corporate policy. They also said that since Virginia (like many other US states) is an "at will" employer, and since the contract has an acknowledgement of that law, then they can fire you just for looking out the window (i.e., because they feel like it) and you will have NO recourse.

If Colorado is an "at will" state, they could drop him without giving a reason.