American pastor Terry Jones vows to hold national Koran burning event

The ACLU has finally taken his case. It is obvious that they struggled with it as it does not fit their political leanings. However, even they cannot deny what Hydhypedplaya probably still doesn't understand.


---------------------------
‘I disapprove of what you say, but . . .’

By Deborah Jacobs

It is rare to find an American who doesn’t believe in the idea of the First Amendment. After all, we all love the freedom to express ourselves, and most people understand that tolerance of different viewpoints is quintessentially American.
Yet what seems so obvious in theory is tested time and time again when it comes to speech that most people find inflammatory, offensive or hurtful. Suddenly, we’re not so sure we want people saying those things. But while that inclination might be natural, it misses the mark. Provocative speech is exactly what the First Amendment was meant to protect. The fact we cannot pick and choose whose free speech rights are protected, based on whether or not we approve of their viewpoints, is the very essence of the First Amendment.
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is filing a lawsuit to defend just that principle. We are representing Derek Fenton, an 11-year NJ Transit employee who was fired after he attended a Sept. 11 rally protesting the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan. It was his day off and he did not identify himself as an NJ Transit employee. While there, Fenton burned three pages of the Quran. A newspaper published his picture. His employers saw the photo and he was terminated. The ACLU is representing Fenton because NJ Transit’s actions were illegal; public employers generally cannot fire workers for engaging in constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern in their personal capacities.
The ACLU understands that Fenton’s speech falls into that category of speech that is offensive to many. In fact, the ACLU itself has denounced anti-Muslim sentiment expressed during the controversy over the community center. While we may disagree with the sentiments expressed by some protestors, we stand up for the constitutional right to express all viewpoints. The First Amendment protects Fenton’s right to protest just as it protects the freedom to build a religious center at the location of one’s choosing. And it protects his right not to get fired by a public employer for exercising that right.
The ACLU is taking this case because we understand that it is in the hard cases that our commitment to the First Amendment is tested. Mild ideas rarely elicit a challenge. The ACLU has always understood that, and has therefore historically represented individuals whose speech might be viewed as provocative, offensive or hurtful. But once we take away one person’s right to speak, everyone’s liberties are at risk.
When our founders drafted the principles that would guide our fledgling nation, they considered how best to nourish a democracy. Freedom from persecution based on personal belief proved itself to be an essential principle. The antidote to objectionable speech is more speech, not suppression.
Public employees should not have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened for exercising their constitutional rights. No matter what their personal beliefs are, if those beliefs have no bearing on their job, they should have the right to express those beliefs on their own time.
The First Amendment means little if only inoffensive speech merits its protection. The ability of public employees to express unpopular ideas without fear of retribution — including a pink slip — is a sign of a healthy democracy.
Deborah Jacobs is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2010/11/i_disapprove_of_what_you_say_b.html

 

The ACLU frequently takes cases that don't fit with the political leanings of its members. It is an organization that has many Jewish members but has defended Neo-Nazis and KKK members.

 

Have you even read NJ Transit's code of ethics?

If you did, you'd know that Derek Fenton DID NOT file notice with the ethics liaison officer before participating in the protest. That is something he was contractually obligated to do and is cause for termination.

 

C'mon. Really?

Seems like a dumb reason to terminate someone.

 

For disobeying rules and guidelines you agreed to? Seems kind of stupid to do something that is:
a) extremely disrespectful and ignorant
b) against a contract you signed

 

A) You can not sign away your rights in a contract. Any contract that attempts to do so and contradicts federal law is invalid.
B) There is a greater contract - called the First Amendment

So actually, it's NJ Transit who is disobeying rules and guidelines actually. It's extremely disrespectful and ignorant isn't it? And it's against the law of the land.

All the guy did was go to a protest. He didn't organize anything, nor intend to make a public appearance. And it's not like his job was affected by him protesting. Does he really represent NJ Transit? Is he the public spokesman or something? No. It could make sense if he was in NJ Transit commercials.

But this is ridiculous. You know what it is, it's some bozo who disagrees with his views firing the guy because he doesn't like him. That might be ok in the private sector, but not when you are dealing with public dollars.

Disrespectful and ignorant? I think that label applies to NJ Transit.

 

Hydhypedplaya does not understand 1st amendment rights. It's pointless to discuss this with him. He keeps arguing that some code of ethics trumps the constitution. It's like arguing with a donkey.

 

Consider that Olberman was suspended on similar grounds this may not be unusual.

I haven't followed this case closely enough but if his NJ Transit did have a method to allow him to engage in this protest without him getting in trouble at work and he just ignored it the 1st Amendment might not protect him.

If all he had to do was inform them ahead of time, and not identify himself as a transit employee, then its not a matter of them trying to muzzle his rights but a matter of not following company policy.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Olberman: Private entity. NJ Transit != private entity.

 

Except it sounds like that NJ Transit has established a procedure that protects its employee's rights to free speech while also protecting its own right to protect its brand name.

I mean would it be OK if a NJ Transit employee publically announced he was a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association without informing the NJ Transit and also while identifying himself as an NJ Transit employee.

 

Your hypothetical example has nothing to do with this case. And the "procedure" itself is a restriction of first amendment rights. You clearly do not understand that.

 

Sorry, but a procedure is not a restriction of first amendment rights. Nearly every rally, march, protest or gathering requires procedure of getting a license registering for a date etc.

A mere procedure is not deemed to restrict first amendment rights.

 

You are wrong.

The combination of "we establish a procedure for you being allowed to exercise your first amendment rights and if you do not follow it, we can fire you" most definitely intervenes with first amendment rights, without a doubt.

 

got to agree with the ACLU here:

It was his day off.
He did not identify himself as a NJ transit employee
He didn't do anything illegal.

Company policies and procedures be damned. That should be protected.

 

Is declaring a membership in NAMBLA free speech?

 

As I said before, it has nothing to do with this thread, so I am not interested in discussing it.

 

If he didn't identify himself as an NJ Transit employee I think he might have more ground to stand on, as I said I haven't followed the case close enough, but in principle a company even a public company, has rights to control the message of what their company is about. For instance in the Shirley Sherrod case she was fired by the FDA for comments she made on her own private time. Now while it was probably very unwise to fire her I don't think it was a violation of her rights to fire her.

 

If you had actually read the thread, you would realize that much of this was discussed here.

 

Yes it does. It has to do with the ability of an employer to decide how an employee may represent their brand.

You ducking this argument just shows that you realize that is the case but are unwilling to debate it as it doesn't support your argument.

 

Why would I re-hash explanations I have already given, just because you are too lazy to read the thread but yet would like to make smartass comments?

Go read the thread, then come back with your questions, and I will be happy to educate you if you have still not understood by then.