Teaching Fired for a Tweet...

[UT-Rex]

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.
Garcetti v. Ceballos

" Judge O’Scannlain specially concurred. Agreeing that the panel’s decision was compelled by Circuit precedent, he nevertheless concluded Circuit law should be revisited and overruled. See id., at 1185. Judge O’Scannlain emphasized the distinction “between speech offered by a public employee acting as an employee carrying out his or her ordinary job duties and that spoken by an employee acting as a citizen expressing his or her personal views on disputed matters of public import.”

Id., at 1187. In his view, “when public employees speak in the course of carrying out their routine, required employment obligations, they have no personal interest in the content of that speech that gives rise to a First Amendment right.” Id., at 1189.

" Pickering provides a useful starting point in explaining the Court’s doctrine. ...

The Court found the teacher’s speech “neither [was] shown nor can be presumed to have in any way either impeded the teacher’s proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally.” "

 

[InVOLuntary]

No I haven't. I don't even care if public schools do a section on creationism.

Weird that you ignored the part about religious Christmas songs still flying.

I apologize if I mischaricterized your position. Another question for you, do you think that creationism class should be mandatory or elective?

 

[UT-Rex]

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.
Garcetti v. Ceballos

" Pickering and the cases decided in its wake identify two inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech.

The first

requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See id., at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the speech.

See Connick, supra, at 147. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. "

 

[Orangeslice13]

If you say "I am racist" you aren't getting fired for exercising your right to speech. You are getting fired for being racist from a job that cannot tolerate that. I'm not saying that confederate flag attire certainly means you are racist, but these days that's how it is interpreted by almost everybody.

I don’t buy the “It’s heritage not hate “ argument either.
The “confederate flag” that everyone talks about isn’t the confederate flag. It’s the battle flag of the northern Virginia army. And that flag now stands for hate. It’s interesting that Georgia did away with the Starts and bars in their state flag and replaced it with the actual confederate flag and errbody is happy.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The actual confederate flag for anyone interested in history

 

[UT-Rex]

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.
Garcetti v. Ceballos

by referencing GvC, you expose the truth so as to show the public that the School Board (supervisors) clearly acted efficiently and properly (whereas, based on teacher's employment contract and other evid, teacher and council will have to look for "inefficiency and misconduct") ;

e.g.

a. it reviewed the artist's background so as to determine the artist was inappropriate for the age-group (see SB's comments ; see Miley Cyrus' VMA performance blasted by Parents Television Council - CBS News )
b. it timely approved / recommended / communicated the name of another song to the teacher (see Kermit the Frog )
c. it permitted the students and teacher to perform other song


" (c) Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. "

 

[UT-Rex]

Teacher fired after wanting students to sing Miley Cyrus, Dolly Parton song 'Rainbowland'

Teacher is about to get paid.

While your thread is about to has morphed into / is turning to discussions of conf. fl-g Vs. your thread's Subject matter, and while the Subject matter tweets show some wording was exposed,

Do you have any evidence, of " inefficiency and misconduct " by supervisors / school / board members (regarding: "about to get paid") ?


Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
" (c) Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. "

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.

Pickering v. Board of Education
Garcetti v. Ceballos

 

[n_huffhines]

I apologize if I mischaricterized your position. Another question for you, do you think that creationism class should be mandatory or elective?

Not a class. A section. There is no evolution class in k-12, that I'm aware of. A creationism class is way overdoing it.

BTW, I don't think Christians are gonna love science teachers teaching creationism. You'll probably want to leave that to the local parson.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

If you say "I am racist" you aren't getting fired for exercising your right to speech. You are getting fired for being racist from a job that cannot tolerate that. I'm not saying that confederate flag attire certainly means you are racist, but these days that's how it is interpreted by almost everybody.

Soooooo because YOU interpret something in a certain way, MY job should be at jeopardy. And that is why SJWs will hopefully fade into obscurity soon.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Not a class. A section. There is no evolution class in k-12, that I'm aware of. A creationism class is way overdoing it.

BTW, I don't think Christians are gonna love science teachers teaching creationism. You'll probably want to leave that to the local parson.

I agree. I think we should leave the lbtq out as well.

 

[UT-Rex]

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.

Pickering v. Board of Education
Garcetti v. Ceballos

Do you have any rulings to here-provide, in favor of State(s).

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
" However, the Court’s precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing (persons') job. Pp. 13–14. "

 

[UT-Rex]

The wording that matters, is that of the two Supreme Court rulings which I have referenced.

Pickering v. Board of Education
Garcetti v. Ceballos

consider considering their wording here --

Garcetti v. Ceballos
Held: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Pp. 5–14.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Not sure how a government entity terminates employment for social posts, even ones critical of the school board UNLESS they have a published policy covering that and the tweets violated the policy.

It’s called “social media guidelines” and most public and private contracts have it. If you signed it, you agreed to it.
It’s been in several of my contacts in the last 8 years.