American pastor Terry Jones vows to hold national Koran burning event

I agree the courts will decide it. I am just laying out a possible line of reasoning from NJ Transit's POV that would work with the legal citations presented. I myself have no idea if that would work and given what has been presented the odds aren't good, but I wouldn't say Fenton's firing being unconstitutional is a slam dunk.

 

No, it will not work.

 

I think that will be for the courts to decide.

 

FB and I discussed this a bit back.

I would *hope* an employer would need a strong work related reason to put a barrier to someones free speech on their own time in their own capacity. A news network would have a much stronger case then a transit company. Drug use should be treated differently then legal participation at an even. NAMBLA (assuming it's legal?) should be OK for a transit guy or architect, but possibly not for a teacher or judoka coach (sorry RJ).

The lawyers will argue the technicalities -- including the whole public/private thing, but the concept seems pretty clear....and this policy seems to be at odds with most understandings of free speech. I'm surprised there's anybody supporting NJ transit on this.

 

Technically I am employed by a public employer, University of Minnesota, and as it happens have a similar code of conduct like NJ Transit. No problems regarding NAMBLA as I would kick my own ass if I was associated with them but if I ever decide to burn a Qu'ran I might look into hiring Around the World.

Yeah I think the odds are against NJ Transit but I will stand by that the employer still has a right to free speech which in this case means dissociating themselves from speech that they think will reflect negatively. This is why I brought up the NAMBLA example as something that is practically universally offensive. I think with burning the Qu'ran that isn't the case. In the situation of where an employee that is engaged in speech that will legal is one that is universally reviled I think it is a legitimate question regarding the principle of free speech about what impact that has on the employer.

 

Part in italics is nonsense.

Want to make a bet? I pay another $ 100 to the tip jar if he ultimately does not get his job back (provided that there is an actual court decision, no settlement, etc.). If he loses, you pay.

 

I'm curious about this.

Would you have to inform them if you attended the Stewart or Beck events in Washington? Or a teaparty rally (talk about embarrassing!)?

(do they know about this place -- and did they make you change your moniker!).

(and all that Texas gear for the cooking show -- almost got your butt kicked on TV -- but could it have cost you your job too?).

 

As I said I think the odds are against that argument so I won't take the bet, although I encourage you to donate anyway, but the links that you have provided do show that argument is there. Do you deny that the citations do show that or that an employer doesn't also have a right to control their own message?

 

No they didn't make me change my moniker. As far as political expression I will have to go back and read my U of MN code of conduct again but my understanding is that they can fire me for something like saying I am member of NAMBLA as that would be advocating a position contrary to the sexual harassment policy of the university. According to the guidelines of USA Judo I should refrain from political or religious discussion with students.

There was a previous coach who was fired by the university about 20 years ago for expressing beliefs that were counter to the University's mission but at the sametime there might've been more to it.

Perhaps if the situation arises I will look to retain Around the World's services.

Also my position is through the U of MN Sports Clubs which are officially student run organizations and I am not a paid faculty of the U of MN so my position operates in a gray area.

 

As a public employee, there have always been limits to the political behavior of the agency and the employee spelled out in the Texas Government Code:

§ 556.004. PROHIBITED ACTS OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS.

(a) A state agency may not use any money under its control, including appropriated money, to finance or otherwise support the candidacy of a person for an office in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of state government or of the government of the United States. This prohibition extends to the direct or indirect employment of a person to perform an action described by this subsection.
(b) A state officer or employee may not use a state-owned or state-leased motor vehicle for a purpose described by Subsection
(c) A state officer or employee may not use official authority or influence or permit the use of a program administered by the state agency of which the person is an officer or employee to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination of a candidate or to achieve any other political purpose.
(d) A state employee may not coerce, attempt to coerce, command, restrict, attempt to restrict, or prevent the payment, loan, or contribution of any thing of value to a person or political organization for a political purpose.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (c), a state officer or employee does not interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination if the individual's conduct is permitted by a law relating to the individual's office or employment and is not otherwise unlawful.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1498, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Agencies have the further option of adding additional restrictions. Depending upon the type of services administered, there may be additional Federal restrictions.

 

I expect you to be a man of your word.

And re-reading this thread after he now got his job back as I always predicted, it's still mind-numbing how stupid some of the arguments made by Hydhypedplaya, rocketsjudoka, FranchiseBlade and some others were.

 

I'll cover that

 

Terry Jones arrested for exercising 1st Amendment:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region...-terry-jones-to-arrive-in-metro-detroit-today

Spoiler

Yes, that's right, if you get death threats from others for speech you plan to engage in, you can be arrested for intending to engage in said speech, a priori.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/...for-attempted-protest-outside-islamic-center/

 

Dangerous case law, this sets a precident that we wouldn't be able to protest anything

So much for freedom of speech