Teaching Fired for a Tweet...

#51
#51
ClearwaterVol said:
She works for the government which makes this case different.
Click to expand...
yeah, and she was fired from her government job. this had nothing to do with her private citizen's rights.

bad mouthing your boss/their decisions, and breaking protocol will get you fired. again your rights don't invalidate voluntarily contracts you enter. Sign an NDA, and break it. you are practicing your free speech, but you can still get slapped with lawsuit. Say something that is Top Secret, and you are going to jail, even though you were just exercising your free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and NurseGoodVol
#54
#54
Sandman 423 said:
^^^^Holy biblical thread derailment ^^^^
Click to expand...


"The single "Faith," in particular, came to Parton "out of the heavens."

“[Galantis] sent the song to see if I’d be interested, and I just loved it,” she recalled. “So I did it. Now it’s out and people are really responding to it. It’s more of a dance song, as you know. But it’s a very spiritual message. It’s like God saying, ‘Have a little faith in me.’ So I was proud to be part of that whole thing.""

Dolly Parton reveals why she started making Christian music: 'God was calling me into that' | Fox News

AS a reminder to Ms. Parton and those who listen to her messages, regarding the original message/intent of the rainbow and faith in God's promises:

Genesis 9:12And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
 
#55
#55
LouderVol said:
yeah, and she was fired from her government job. this had nothing to do with her private citizen's rights.

bad mouthing your boss/their decisions, and breaking protocol will get you fired. again your rights don't invalidate voluntarily contracts you enter. Sign an NDA, and break it. you are practicing your free speech, but you can still get slapped with lawsuit. Say something that is Top Secret, and you are going to jail, even though you were just exercising your free speech.
Click to expand...
She signed a contract and broke the terms of the contract. That’s why they can fire her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and rekinhavoc
#56
#56
LouderVol said:
yeah, and she was fired from her government job. this had nothing to do with her private citizen's rights.

bad mouthing your boss/their decisions, and breaking protocol will get you fired. again your rights don't invalidate voluntarily contracts you enter. Sign an NDA, and break it. you are practicing your free speech, but you can still get slapped with lawsuit. Say something that is Top Secret, and you are going to jail, even though you were just exercising your free speech.
Click to expand...

Interestingly --

The Bible (God's word / to and from His Son, His prophets, psalms and Apostles) is one of the most publicly-known 'publications' of all time -- those who stand and speak its truths are speaking centuries-old truths.

In America, it was once taught in all institutions of higher-education. Even many of our presidents looked to it for wisdom and guidance:


b. "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
Theodore Roosevelt

a. "“(in addition to its adherance to teaching the Bible) Harvard was always resolute in maintaining a liberal arts focus (such that)

In contrast (ALSO), Harvard President Charles Chauncy in 1655 had declared that ‘all truth is God’s truth,’ including those components of a classical education that come from ‘heathen’ authors,” Shoemaker said."
Harvard’s religious past – Harvard Gazette
 
#57
#57
Vol8188 said:
Paid for what? If you bash your bosses on the internet, you’ll probably get fired. Welcome to reality.
Click to expand...
The issue at hand is more complicated than that ....

Pickering v. Board of Education

Pickering v. Board of Education - Case Summary and Case Brief
  • The Board of Education fired a teacher for a letter he wrote that was published in the local newspaper.
  • The teacher sued, claiming that his letter was protected by the First Amendment.
  • The Board countered that his firing was because the letter was detrimental to the local school system.
  • The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the Board was not justified in firing the teacher. It reasoned that the truthful comments can not justify termination, and the false statements, because they were not knowingly or recklessly made, also are protected by the First Amendment because they were statements on a matter of public concern.
Based on precedent, it comes down to :

1) Whether or not the statements made on social media are considered to be false?

2) If so, were they knowingly or recklessly made?

3) Was this a matter of public concern?

Just my two cents, but I think she was fired for giving an opinion, which was neither right or wrong ... and for describing the reaction of her students to the news that a song they had been rehearsing was not going to be performed. As to whether or not it was a matter of public concern? Debatable .... but these kind of topics have been in the news cycle for the better part of two years now.

Based on the Supreme Court precedent of Pickering v Board of Education, which was linked up above ... I think she would have a very good case for wrongful termination, if she decides to pursue it.
 
#60
#60
There were policies in place. She failed to follow protocol. I assume if she followed protocol to begin with they would have less of a leg to stand on.

"According to Tempel’s lawyers, the school teacher's venting on social media violated board policy because she did so before discussing her grievances with supervisors."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and allvol123
#61
#61
rekinhavoc said:
There were policies in place. She failed to follow protocol. I assume if she followed protocol to begin with they would have less of a leg to stand on.

"According to Tempel’s lawyers, the school teacher's venting on social media violated board policy because she did so before discussing her grievances with supervisors."
Click to expand...
Once again, Supreme Court precedent could supersede those policies and protocol.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
BowlBrother85 said:
The Supreme Court precedent of "Pickering v. Board of Education" could potentially supersede the terms of any such contract.
Click to expand...
The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.[2]
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#64
#64
BowlBrother85 said:
Based on precedent, it comes down to :

1) Whether or not the statements made on social media are considered to be false?

2) If so, were they knowingly or recklessly made?

3) Was this a matter of public concern?

Just my two cents, but I think
Click to expand...

Orangeslice13 said:
He’s been lost since we took his thread away
Click to expand...

1) statements made in the other thread (now reportedly known as "we" "took" "away") regarding Acts 2 were shown to be true (i.e. the Council of Nicea proved it)

2) the statements were made accurately (not "recklessly")

3) the statements made were generally quotations (not opinion, and of public concern -- the men of Israel reported it and heard it from one another, and the Council of Nicea (seemingly) wanted the world to hear it)
 
#65
#65
#66
#66
NurseGoodVol said:
The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.[2]
Click to expand...
Garcetti’s Impact on Teachers ✦ OnLabor

Not entirely correct. If what you said was true ... then we couldn't have cops like Frank Serpico, publicly exposing police corruption.

Garcetti v. Ceballos did not overturn Pickering v. Board of Education ... it just made it more difficult to invoke. This is where the question of whether or not the teacher was acting as "a citizen upon matters of public concern" is critical.

If yes, then the court proceeds to balance the employee's free speech interest against the government employer's interest in efficiency and stability.

If not, then when employees speak "pursuant to their official duties," they don't speak as "citizens for First Amendment purposes", and thus lack Constitutional protection.

It is complicated ... but I believe that she was discussing a matter of public concern.

However, as what I just posted says ... when applied to public education, the teachers usually lose.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
UT-Rex said:
Daniel 3:
8At this time some astrologersd came forward and maliciously accused the Jews, 9saying to King Nebuchadnezzar,
Click to expand...

Sandman 423 said:
^^^^Holy biblical thread derailment ^^^^
Click to expand...

Orangeslice13 said:
He’s been lost since we took his thread away
Click to expand...

malicious, adjective (Merriam)
as in vicious
having or showing a desire to cause someone pain or suffering for the sheer enjoyment of it


Hopefully, the 2 sides of the Subject complaint will work amicably, for overall good of the community (not to cause pain or suffering to one another, but to look at the facts).
 
#71
#71
Sandman 423 said:
^^^^Holy biblical thread derailment ^^^^
Click to expand...
Orangeslice13 said:
He’s been lost since we took his thread away
Click to expand...

Sandman 423 said:
^^^^Holy biblical thread derailment ^^^^
Click to expand...
Orangeslice13 said:
See what I mean.
Lol
Click to expand...

^ That you keep bringing it up, that is an interesting, Biblical thought -- "took ... away" :

regarding the temple (which God took away) and God's church / Christ's church (which Christ established)

a. Daniel 2 speaks of the great "stone"
b. Jesus said "upon this rock" I will build "My church"

c. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed

d. Peter said to Christians / to the church: "But you are A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR GOD’S OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"

^^ i.e. where is a nation (be it in Antarctica or Israel), without Christ Jesus of Nazareth as its king.

^^ it is the church, which proclaims the excellencies of God.

Replacement theology ? God gave us the church.

Perhaps this school board incident reminds Dolly Parton to consider her Biblical roots, regarding the true meaning of the rainbow as per Genesis 9:12-13.
 
#75
#75
BowlBrother85 said:
Garcetti’s Impact on Teachers ✦ OnLabor

Not entirely correct. If what you said was true ... then we couldn't have cops like Frank Serpico, publicly exposing police corruption.

Garcetti v. Ceballos did not overturn Pickering v. Board of Education ... it just made it more difficult to invoke. This is where the question of whether or not the teacher was acting as "a citizen upon matters of public concern" is critical.

If yes, then the court proceeds to balance the employee's free speech interest against the government employer's interest in efficiency and stability.

If not, then when employees speak "pursuant to their official duties," they don't speak as "citizens for First Amendment purposes", and thus lack Constitutional protection.

It is complicated ... but I believe that she was discussing a matter of public concern.

However, as what I just posted says ... when applied to public education, the teachers usually lose.
Click to expand...

About the Alliance - Alliance for Education in Waukesha (alliancewaukesha.org)

^^ Per Yahoo, it looks like AEW is advising the teacher ; looking at their agenda statement, it's quite clear the connection to the particular song (considering the scope of heterosexual lifestyle in that community in context of performances such as "Rainbowland" "which may be the subject of intense public argument, disagreement or disapproval") ;

(seeing as how the board -- prior to the tweets -- banned the performance based on the approved written code) this private organization could have and still can rent a facility and invite the classroom to put on the performance outside of school time (i.e. non-school related).

Wisconsin Teacher Fired After Criticizing School District's Ban of Student 'Rainbowland' Performance (yahoo.com)
" per a statement of support for the educator released by the Alliance for Education in Waukesha (AEW).
"This superintendent and board began the march toward marginalization last year," an AEW spokesperson noted in the statement. "And it has only served to stoke fear and sow distrust in the Waukesha community, which has yielded a pattern of bullying against anyone who calls out the district's bias and harassment.""

^^ "bullying" ?? seems harsh language in this case (per even Yahoo's reporting of the facts) The school board has a written protocol and standards, regarding school performances.

IF INDEED, Leviticus 18 is true

22You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
23You must not lie carnally with any animal, thus defiling yourself with it; a woman must not stand before an animal to mate with it; that is a perversion.

then

it is the school board (in context of the song and its association to the rainbow in context of meaning behind "Rainbowland") which is looking after the good of the students (based on ancient understandings that any Christian or Hebrew / Israelite / person of the tribe of Judah would support).

Daniel 3:
8At this time some astrologersd came forward and maliciously accused the Jews, 9saying to King Nebuchadnezzar,
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top