American pastor Terry Jones vows to hold national Koran burning event

so basically you do not believe in self criticism.

 

This seems interesting enough for a different thread, but it's a ****ty and overdrawn topic. Yet the consequences and his situation as a government worker makes it debate worthy.

I normally like people standing up for their beliefs, but this seems like one of those red herrings that are ultimately discouraging. Supporting the American right to be a dumb**** is getting real tiring idealistically...especially with the Tea Party movement and cable news's openness to lie and mislead. But the more I think about it, there should be a pretty good or slick reason for his termination.

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

The protester who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero has been fired from NJTransit, sources and authorities said Tuesday.

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.

Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.

He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.

NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.

"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."

Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.

"He said, 'This is America,' and he wanted to stand up for it, in a Tea Party kind of way," a police source said.

Another police source said Fenton described himself as a "loyal American" exercising his "right to protest."

But the source said Fenton looked like he was having second thoughts as he was released.

"He looked nervous, like he was starting to think it wasn't such a good idea," the police source said.

Described by neighbors as a likable family guy with two children, Fenton was an assistant train-consist coordinator, sources said - a job that entails ensuring there are enough train cars positioned to be put into service. He previously worked as an NJ Transit conductor.

Several neighbors in Fenton's town stood up for his right to express himself with flames.

"Good for him for burning the Koran," neighbor Jacqui Marquez, 40, said.

"Everybody's entitled to their opinion ... by firing him, they're sending a message that there's no freedom of speech. They're completely wrong for doing this."

"He's a family man," neighbor Randy McConnell, 43, said.

"He loves his kids and he loves trains. I don't agree with what he did, but he shouldn't lose his job over it. That's his right."

If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html#ixzz0zfCTyKhp

 

I don't know how all these pseudo "freedom of speech" defenders like New Yorker are not crying out loud, complaining that this is a violation of his right to freedom of speech. How is this a valid reason to fire him, legally (regardless of what you think of his action, morally)?

 

He signed a contract when he was hired agreeing to their code of ethics. He violated that contract and they terminated his employment.

 

He signed a contract that says he waives his first amendment rights while he is off-duty?

 

One question, are you in favor of The French law that bans conspicuous religious symbols in French public (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

If he signs a contract in which he agrees with a code of ethics, he can be fired as a result of breaking the code of ethics. (that being said, I'm not supporting him being fired, but just saying who he can be fired).

 

His employer never owed him First Amendment rights to begin with.

 

True, but this did not happen while he was working, right?

I think the transit is about to be sued, and rightfully so.....the man was protesting and excercising his freedom of speech.

Firing him is cow-tying to the radicals, freedom of speech no matter how adhorent it is to people is protected.

DD

 

I'm just now realizing he was a government worker....I should have read before commenting.

 

private persons don't typically owe you rights to free speech. i didn't realize this guy was working for the government when i first posted. i assumed it was a private employer.

for instance...if you're in a private place of business wearing a shirt with profanity on it, don't expect your right to free speech to matter.

the Bill of Rights is an agreement between the government and the governed. not between individuals.

 

Glad you caught this yourself.

 

do you know that in some occupations, employees sign a code of ethics that specifically prohibit them from having a twitter or fb account without waiving their 1st amendment rights?

 

those aren't holes...the Constitution is essentially nothing more than a set of limits and authorities for the government, itself. not for private entities or persons.

 

You believe that a governmental entity, as part of the employment contract with them, can prohibit you from having a private Twitter or FB account outside of work?

 

if you contract for it, sure.

this isn't the relationship of government to governed...it's the relationship of government employer to government employee. entirely different analysis.

 

maybe people who work in intelligence? or WH spokesman?

my point is there can be some speech/expression prohibitions without having to completely waive 1st amendment rights

 

As above (when you didn't read before you commented), you are wrong.

Do you also believe that "if you contract for it", an employer can prohibit you from having a telephone at home?