05_never_again
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 24,367
- Likes
- 22,247
So a publicly funded university shouldn’t have the right to choose the people who work for and/or represent it? Can those people not be bound by codes of conduct? Should the university be forced to employ people who make bigoted, racist, or otherwise disparaging remarks about protected communities (especially in public settings)?But isn't Huggins' employer the government, or at least a subdivision of the State of West Virginia?
Very true on all counts. Probably why the mods let it stay up. Still, we've seen a clear double standard in so many areas that it makes you very concerned going forward. Just read an article about legislation that's being pushed in Ireland that would give prison terms of a year to anyone found guilty of "hate speech". Canary in the coal mine. You know it's going to come to this country at some point. You also know it's about who will decide what constitutes "hate speech". You also can be certain it won't be applied equally. Like I said....and sexual preferences aside.......it's my main point, it's a damned slippery slope when you start picking and choosing what constitutes free speech. You can't straddle the fence on this one. You either have that critical freedom or you don't.Despite the disagreements between people in this thread over a sensitive subject, I will say that it's been a civil conversation. You don't see that often. That being said, something that was said earlier and that I thought about regarding this subject came to mind. If this was racist (saying the N word) , I believe he would have been fired the day this came up,and rightly so. We can't have double standards. Free speech has it's consequences especially in the public realm in cases like this.Anywho,that's my two cents on the subject.
So a publicly funded university shouldn’t have the right to choose the people who work for and/or represent it? Can those people not be bound by codes of conduct? Should the university be forced to employ people who make bigoted, racist, or otherwise disparaging remarks about protected communities (especially in public settings)?
I’m genuinely curious what line of thinking you’re pursuing here. Huggins didn’t break a law. He just behaved in a way that embarrassed the university and risked damage to its reputation.
Let me flip the question on you—a clear First Amendment expert—to hear exactly how Huggins’ rights were violated. Do explain.I would probably answer your questions the same way you would. So it appears that the government can, in fact, seriously restrict someone's free speech.
I have never represented myself as a First Amendment expert, either overtly or by lecturing. I have never represented that any constitutional right, including freedom of speech, is unlimited. A million dollar salary reduction because of a person's statement is certainly a restriction on that person's speech. It may be a good restriction or a bad restriction, but it is a restriction. Don't be so arrogant as to think you know what would or would not piss me off about Rick Barnes or any other UTK employee. Is there something incorrect in my understanding that an agency of state government may restrict its employees' speech, either by prior restraint of that speech or by punishing that speech after the fact?Let me flip the question on you—a clear First Amendment expert—to hear exactly how Huggins’ rights were violated. Do explain.
I’m sure you’d be pissed at our own university if Rick Barnes got in trouble for saying … oh, I don’t know, that Christians are bad people. Right?
I swear. Some of you might clutch your pearls when you find out that freedom of speech isn’t even technically unlimited.