American pastor Terry Jones vows to hold national Koran burning event

from your article, aroundtheworld...this is the whole of it right here. he was fortunate enough to be employed by a public entity.

"Pre-emptive moron perspective alert: If you are thinking of making a comment comparing some private employer's power to fire employees at will to that of NJ Transit, please refrain from doing so. As I noted above, public employers are constitutionally restrained from discriminating on the basis of political views.

If you wish to argue that the American rail system should be privatized, then you can argue that employees can be fired at will. And I will be in total agreement with you. But that's a different, and far better, situation than what we have here in New Jersey."

 

So you also agree that he will get his job back (as his employer was not a private entity)?

Edit: Sorry, dumb question. Re-read your post...yes, you agree.

Where is hydhypedplaya, the man of strong words and convictions?

 

yeah...remember my initial reaction was the other way....and then I realized I'd not read closely enough to realize the guy worked for a public entity. that's they lynchpin of this whole discussion, frankly. it breaks the other way if he's employed by a private entity.

 

Where is this guy's lawsuit? This is a slam dunk case according to you? Why doesn't he want to collect?

That is not for you to say. He may not face customers, but he was identified as working for NJ Transit when he was photographed. That right there is bad press for NJ Transit and cause to fire him. Next, he violated there code of ethics, something he signed and agreed to when he took on the job there. Your rights don't protect you from things you agree to (company policy).

Now, you mind showing me how NJ Transit violated this guy's First Amendment right to freedom of expression?

Did they stop him from expressing himself?

 

You are unbelievably dense. But feel free to keep disagreeing with basically all legal scholars who have spoken out on the case, and still acting like you have a clue (which you absolutely do not).

That statement above alone already shows that you simply have not understood. At all. (Aside from the obvious misspelling of "their"...)

MadMax, could you be so kind to explain it to him...please?

Edit: I think I have found out where all the anger in his uninformed responses comes from:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=125116

 

So no rebuttal, just ad-hom attacks and a thread from three years ago made by my cousin. Keep showcasing why you're the laughing stock of the D&D. Maybe it's time for another name change?

 

"No rebuttal"? Read the posts...instead you keep repeating something that is so obviously wrong that any first-year law student could only laugh at you.

It's like trying to explain "2+2=4" to a kid that keeps repeating "2+2=7, no rebuttal?" angrily.

 

I did... And then refuted them. All you have responded with in return is attacking the poster instead of his argument. You debate like an elementary student.

This is you in a nutshell:
'U R WRONG. NANANANANANANANANA'.

 

How did you refute anything?

From your own link:

Was that somehow not understandable to you?

Yet, you say:

No, "bad press" is not a cause to fire someone if he is a state employee, if all he did was to exercise his constitutional right to free speech.

Your last sentence is simply completely wrong, no matter how often you repeat it.

Don't take my word for it, take Prof. Eugene Volokh's word for it, professor of law at UCLA.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...hecklers-veto-to-suppress-workers-free-speech

You do not understand what the Supreme Court itself has been saying since 1967 (again, from your own link = first Google search result):

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm

 

Seems you missed this part:

"The problem for the Court then became how to balance the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's interest in free expression."

The sociology professor who got fired for her comments on Facebook at East Stroudsburg University would disagree with you. Along with numerous other state employees who have been fired for expressing themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Good job engaging in fallacious reasoning. Poor posters usually make poor (and flawed) arguments.

"The problem for the Court then became how to balance the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's interest in free expression."

NJ Transit obviously saw that the best way to operate most efficiently was by firing someone who brought bad press to the workplace, someone with questionable morality, someone who knew his actions could cause harm to American troops overseas.

 

how about we let the courts decide?

if the guy eventually gets his job back, count me in for $100 in the tip jar

 

No, I did not miss it, in fact I already addressed it in post 238 of this thread:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5580638&postcount=238

It was also addressed by several of the legal scholars who spoke on the subject (none of whom agrees with your ridiculous take on this, by the way):

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...imited-for-public-workers/on-duty-vs-off-duty

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...for-public-workers/a-dangerous-slippery-slope

Once again, you self-owned yourself. Gloria Gadsden, the sociology professor you are referring to, got fully reinstated within weeks, and is back teaching.

http://www4.esu.edu/academics/majors2/programs/sociology/faculty.cfm

Besides, as you would know if you actually had the slightest clue about the law, the facts in each case may be different which may lead to different outcomes. Moreover, just because other state employees may have been terminated in violation of their first amendment rights does not make this firing right.

You are certainly an "expert" when it comes to the bolded part I just quoted above. I quote actual legal scholars - 5 of them, actually, who unanimously agree that this is undoubtedly a clear violation of his first amendment rights, and you try to brush it off by questioning their authority. Again, why don't you tell us your academic and professional background, so that we can weigh your "opinion" against that of a Harvard law school professor, several law school deans, the legal director for the New York Civil Liberties Union, etc. Interesting that you keep dodging this question. But no worries, even if you do not answer it, it is painfully evident that you do not understand a thing about law and civil liberties.

Classic case of circular reasoning. You try to justify the constitutionality of state action by citing state action. If it was that easy, we would not need constitutional courts in the world to review governmental action. It does not matter what "NJ Transit obviously saw" - their action (and by the way, the guy in charge studied philosophy or something like that, not law) violated the constitution. Your argument about the presumed efficiency of the workplace requiring the firing was already addressed (and debunked) above.

 

Good offer.

It may well be (as in Gloria Gadsden's case) that NJ Transit quietly reinstates him, though, as they must have now realized that the dismissal was a violation of his constitutional rights. Or they somehow settle with him with a fat settlement that is more attractive for him than getting his job back, just to save face.

But I will say this, if he ends up challenging the dismissal in court, and ultimately loses, I will double the ante and will donate $ 200 to the tip jar.

 

what if he ends up not even challenging the dismissal in court?

 

Then we should both donate $ 50 to the tipjar .

I'd like to see Hydhypedplaya put his money where his mouth is, too... . In that case, I'd be willing to raise the stakes!

 

No, because it is the government that decides how efficiently their operations run. With or without someone they believe is a cause for concern since he just showed up on national news for doing something highly unethical.

Again with the appeal to authority. Have you never taken an English class and learned about informal fallacies? This is exactly what you are doing:
1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

BTW ATW, maybe you should have read this part from your little quote:
Perhaps New Jersey Transit is concerned that the reaction to Fenton’s expressive speech by jihadist Muslims will be violent, as Prof. Eugene Volokh has hypothesized. That would certainly qualify as an effect on the government’s operations, but how far are we willing to let the threat of violent reaction to peaceful speech and expression go when it is used to curtail First Amendment freedoms?

So let's see, the President of the United States asks Americans not to participate in this "burn a Qur'an" crap as to not put American lives at stake abroad. Then the Commander of US operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus, asks Americans the same thing so that American forces are not put at risk overseas. Then a guy, who works for the government, goes and does exactly that. And here you are (since you hate Islam and will defend anyone else who does) saying the government's ability to operate efficiently will not be affected.

Next, no one curtailed on his First Amendment right. Did NJ Transit stop him from participating in the protest? Did they stop him burning a Qur'an? Not at all. They fired him for violating their code of ethics, which he agreed to. You still can't seem to comprehend this part. He signed and agreed to something when he started working there. He violated that agreement. What happens when you violation an employee agreement AroundTheWorld? Do you mind asking those lawyers what would happen if a government employee violated an employee agreement? I'm pretty sure they'd say the employee would face possible termination.

I misspoke. She was never fired, only suspended. She was punished by the State for freely expressing herself off hours.

No, but it means there is precedence for it. Do you have the slightest clue as to what precedence means?

Once more with the appeal to authority. Lawyers practice law, they do not interpret it. If you had posted opinions from actual civil court judges, whose job is to interpret the law, you might have had a point. But instead you used lawyers, one who is a known hack (Dershowitz) and has been thoroughly owned by Finkelstein. Second, I am not questioning their authority. I am questioning your use of them as infallible.

And the guy who got fired? His actions? They violated NJ Transit's code of ethics.

He agreed to not violate them.

What did he do?

Did something that violated the NJ Transit's code of ethics.

And he agreed not to violate it.

It's fairly simple.

 

Literally everything you posted in the post above is wrong and smacks of a complete lack of basic understanding of constitutional law. The statement "lawyers do not interpret the law" got a chuckle out of me, though.

 

Back at a computer.

And the courts review if the government's decision violates the constitution, if necessary.

If you believe that your credentials warrant a higher credibility than that of several of the nation's top lawyers, let us hear them. There is nothing fallacious or an "undue enhancement" about believing that a Harvard law professor understands constitutional law better than an Islamist poster on a basketball message board, who, through his posting history, has demonstrated nothing than having no understanding of even the basics, and having a tiny wang.

It has nothing to do with Islam. I would be saying the same thing if he burned a bible, or the American or German flag. (The difference being that if he had burned a bible, you would not care, and the ACLU would defend him, while it ignores Derek Fenton's case. As you are an islamist, I can see why you would want violent death threats by violent islamists have an indirect effect on lessening constitutional rights of Americans, though.)

No, quite frankly, you are the one who cannot comprehend. Re-read my post above, in which I quote the Supreme Court (I know you do not accept it as "authority", as you only respect the Sharia, but still, you are acting as if you were arguing on the basis of the constitution, which you clearly do not).

Do you understand English at all? You keep arguing that nobody violated his first amendment right to free speech, because he was not stopped from doing what he did, but fired for violating their "code of ethics". Again, such codes of ethics are just as constrained by the First Amendment as are other state employee policies. Do you not understand this? Do I need to translate it for you? It means that you cannot lose your right to free speech as a government employee by signing a contract with the government that says so. It does not matter that he signed it, because whatever it says cannot take away his right to free speech. Get that into your head.

No, they would not. They explicitly addressed it. Let me repeat it for you:

This means that you CANNOT LOSE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (outside of work time, acting as private citizen) AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE EVEN IF A CONTRACT YOU SIGNED WITH THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SO.

Do you really not understand that? See this in connection with what the Supreme Court said:

If it was so easy that the government could take away their employees' first amendment rights as private citizens by contract, the first amendment rights would be worth nothing.

To simplify it a bit for you: Constitution > NJ "Code of Ethics"

Yes, and the State was wrong to do so, which is why it had to fully reinstate her, so whichever point you unsuccessfully tried to make by citing that case got refuted with authority.

I certainly do, and I have the degrees to show for it. Why don't you share your academic and professional background with us, so we can see what gives you the authority to ask questions in that tone?

How about this precedent by the Supreme Court, for the third time in this post:

Please tell us exactly what you meant by this gem. Lawyers do not interpret the law, but practice it?

Really? A Harvard law school professor is a "known hack"? Why don't you tell us your credentials so that we can see how you have the authority to make such a statement about a Harvard law professor.

I certainly did not say they are infallible. However, if it does not make you think when every single lawyer that has spoken out on the case, no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from says that it is a slam dunk for Fenton, then you should get your head checked. Usually even with two lawyers, you have at least three opinions, but in this case, it is so clear-cut that you have not been able to find one opinion from a lawyer that would argue that the firing was not unconstitutional.

Yes, as I wrote above (and as the lawyers, who are authorities in their field agree), it is simple.

Do you accept the authority of the United States Supreme Court? Yes or no?

Supreme Court says:

Translation: If the government cannot punish you as a private citizen for making use of your first amendment rights, then it cannot indirectly punish a government employee who speaks as a private citizen (and with the other caveats previously discussed in this thread) for making use of his first amendment rights by firing him.

The government can also not circumvent this prohibition to do indirectly what it cannot do directly by imposing a "code of ethics" contractually on the government employee.

 

Florida Pastor gets a car.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39683559/ns/us_news-life/?Gt1=43001


Fla. pastor wins car for not burning Quran
Terry Jones says he'll donate vehicle to charity that helps abused Muslim women

SOUTH BRUNSWICK, N.J. — A New Jersey car dealer plans to keep his word after offering Florida pastor Terry Jones a new car if he promised to not burn a Quran.

Car dealer Brad Benson made the offer in one of his dealership's quirky radio ads, which focus more on current events than cars.

But he was surprised when a representative for Jones called to collect the 2011 Hyundai Accent, which retails for $14,200.
"They said unless I was doing false advertising, they would like to arrange to pick up the car," Benson recalled.

At first he thought it was a hoax, so Benson asked Jones to send in a copy of his driver's license. He did.

Jones, of Gainesville, Fla., did not burn a Quran on Sept. 11 this year as he had planned, but told The Associated Press on Thursday that the offer of a car was not the reason, saying he learned about the offer a few weeks later.

He said he plans to donate the car to an organization that helps abused Muslim women.
"We are not trying to profit from this. We are not keeping the car for ourselves," Jones said by telephone from California, where he was taping television appearances.

The pastor will have to pick up the car at Brad Benson Mitsubishi Hyundai in South Brunswick so he can fill out paperwork. No date has been set for the handover.

Jones had threatened to burn the Muslim holy book on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Muslims revere the book as the word of God and view its destruction as sacrilege.

His plans drew opposition across the world. President Barack Obama appealed to him on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called him personally.

His plans drew opposition across the world. President Barack Obama appealed to him on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called him personally.

Benson, a former New York Giants center, said he originally offered Jones use of a car for a year if he said promised never to burn a Quran.

"I just didn't think that was a good thing for our country right now," Benson said.

He's now giving Jones the car outright because he doesn't want to be connected to whatever the Florida pastor does with it.

"I don't want to be involved in the politics of that," Benson said.

Before he made his decision, Benson asked listeners to weigh in on whether he should honor his promise.

'Be a man'
More than 2,600 people responded by phone and e-mail, and the vast majority, Benson said, urged him to keep his word.

One caller suggested painting sayings from various religious books — the Quran, the Talmud, the King James Bible — on the car.

"What you didn't say was what the car was going to look like when you gave it to him," the caller said.

Another caller told Benson to "be a man" and keep his promise. And some encouraged Benson to pick his own charity to get a car.

In 2003, Benson offered another newsmaker — Saddam Hussein — a new car if he fled Iraq. That commercial wasn't as successful, and Benson pulled the ad after two days, replacing it with one apologizing for any offense that was taken.

The Quran commercial was part of a regular "idiot award" segment Benson has singled out others for, including Lindsey Lohan, Mel Gibson and Roger Clemens.

"We don't have your typical car commercial," Benson said.

But they are memorable — and effective. Three years ago, he was selling 60 cars a month, he said.

Today, that number is between 500 and 600 — making him one of the state's most successful dealers.

 

Oh...now he wants to donate a car promised to him for not burning the Quran to an organization for abused Muslim women?

This guy is such a tool.