Koran Burner fired from his JOB (Violation of 1A?)

[SemperFiUSMC]

I find it abhorent the number of people here that are consistently inconsistent. You hate big government. You want rights protected under the BoR. You want personal responsibility. You want a reduction in government entitlements. Then, quicker than you can say States Rights, you want to throw out personal responsibility and have big government come in and grant and protect a new entitlement to someone. I don't get it.

There is no right anywhere, in any document I've read that entitles anyone to a government job. Well, unless you live in Cuba. In fact, I've read that people are not entitled to government jobs.

Now here are the facts. This gentleman exercised his First Amendment rights. Good for him. He was not arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise prevented from exercising those rights. Good for the government. His employer, who just happened to be the state government, fired him. Good for his employer, bad for him.

There is no right or entitlement to a job. Sounds like everything worked to me.

 

[Fargo]

Which seems to me to be entirely about criminal matters and libel. I don't see anything about termination of employment.

The first sentence covers it. Everything past the 1st 2 sentences is limitations upon the ability to punish/prosecute "abuse".

Joe

 

[Expat]

Fletch, I would go along with you if the government workers were not routinely involved in political speech. Their unions collect dues and donate to Democrats all the time, whether the employees approve or not. They are used in voter registration and get out the vote campaigns. Heck they even are used to intimidate enemies of the liberals. So as long as they can be involved in the liberal side, I have a problem with firing someone on the right side.

 

[Fletch]

The argument as I see it:

                         Me            Others
Employer          Private Public   Private Public
Can be arrested:    No      No       No      No
Can be fined   :    No      No       No      No
Can be jailed  :    No      No       No      No
Protected from 
   arbitrary 
   termination :    No      No       No     YES

In my mind, this equates to special privileges for government workers, and I can't support that.

 

[downzero]

Fletch, I would go along with you if the government workers were not routinely involved in political speech. Their unions collect dues and donate to Democrats all the time, whether the employees approve or not. They are used in voter registration and get out the vote campaigns. Heck they even are used to intimidate enemies of the liberals. So as long as they can be involved in the liberal side, I have a problem with firing someone on the right side.

Fairness doctrine or what?

 

[TopDog]

At first I was not even going to get into this. But I'm going to voice my

Public, Private no difference.

Look at this way, if instead of burning pages from a book he was marching in a gay pride parade you think anyone would have DARED to fire him? Hell no, they would be sacred silly to step on his rights. Yet he does something the popular socialist government, the popular socialist mass media and the sheep don't like and he is judged wrong? He was not representing anyone or any organization but himself when he did this. I don't agree with what he did, but he has a right to express himself in such a manner without fear of retribution. He brought no shame on the New Jersey Gestapo. His actions were the actions of a individual and he is protected by law. Again I'm no lawyer but I'm just as certain as Im of the sun will come up tomorrow if he had been exercising his right to express himself as gay instead of burning a book, no one would have the balls to even say a word against him let alone fire him for it. Should he not be given at least as much consideration?

 

[rambone]

Alright ladies, let me give a crack at explaining this one.

This case does not touch on 1st Amendment rights. I personally believe 1A is the most important amendment and will stand up for it every time it applies. But it just doesn't in this case.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

Congress made no law. No one lost their right to speak. What has been made clear is that you do not have the right to a job. You do not have the right to be on the government payroll either. You are employed with the consent of your employer. Your actions can easily result in your boss letting you go. That does not mean that you lost the right to speak.


Does White House Communications Director Anita Dunn have the right to keep her job after giving a speech saying her favorite philosopher was Mao Zedong?

Does the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have the right to keep her job if she says assault weapons are, "Just too dangerous for Missouri families" ?

Does Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano have the right to keep her job if she produces a says NRA members are likely terrorist suspects?

Does the Science Czar John Holdren have the right to keep his job if he wrote a book called Ecoscience about eugenics and forced human sterilization?

Does the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have the right to keep his job after sounding like a blubbering idiot on TV all the time?

Does the President have the right to keep his job if he says "I did not have sex with that woman..." ?



If we had a real president, all these jagoffs would be fired immediately. And their rights would be perfectly intact. The president, the governor, the town council, the school superintendent.... all have the power to fire you, if they hired you, and you go to book burnings in your spare time and dance around in white hoods.

 

[Fletch]

Out of reps, Rambone, since I gave my daily limit to my opponents here, but I'll hit ya when I can.

 

[rambone]

Employers fire people for stuff they do on their own time, all the time. Just ask people who've smoked a joint on their own time and then been drug tested on company time. Or someone who gets tagged for a DUI on their time and their employer finds out. Many jobs have terms of employment and it looks like this guy broke one of the rules for his.

I find it abhorent the number of people here that are consistently inconsistent. You hate big government. You want rights protected under the BoR. You want personal responsibility. You want a reduction in government entitlements. Then, quicker than you can say States Rights, you want to throw out personal responsibility and have big government come in and grant and protect a new entitlement to someone. I don't get it.

There is no right or entitlement to a job. Sounds like everything worked to me.

 

[PatriotPride]

So you see the intimidation that is allowed to develop?


I wonder how many millions of silent protesters would be in the streets if they're OPINION could not get them fired?

If you call losing your job over something lawful and mundane "discrimination", then yes. God bless politics

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

At first I was not even going to get into this. But I'm going to voice my

Public, Private no difference.

Look at this way, if instead of burning pages from a book he was marching in a gay pride parade you think anyone would have DARED to fire him? Hell no, they would be sacred silly to step on his rights. Yet he does something the popular socialist government, the popular socialist mass media and the sheep don't like and he is judged wrong? He was not representing anyone or any organization but himself when he did this. I don't agree with what he did, but he has a right to express himself in such a manner without fear of retribution. He brought no shame on the New Jersey Gestapo. His actions were the actions of a individual and he is protected by law. Again I'm no lawyer but I'm just as certain as Im of the sun will come up tomorrow if he had been exercising his right to express himself as gay instead of burning a book, no one would have the balls to even say a word against him let alone fire him for it. Should he not be given at least as much consideration?

Perhaps the best example.

 

[CarmelHP]

I absolutely did not. But apparently unlike everyone else, I recognize the fact that actions having consequences is not the same thing as actions being prohibited. To be legally prohibited from speaking, on threat of arrest and/or imprisonment, is one thing. To speak and have someone else take offense and change their relationship with you as a result, is another.

As an experiment, call your mother up and tell her she's a worthless whore. When she gets pissed, tell her not to infringe on your First Amendment rights, and that you didn't agree to giving up your constitutional rights just by having a mother.

Do you recognize that Constitutional prohibitions, for the most part, apply to state actions and that NJ Transit is a state actor, while your mother is not? If he was fired for expressing a viewpoint, off the job, that did not have anything to do with his work, do you see how that could implicate 1stA protections?

 

[Fletch]

Do you recognize that Constitutional prohibitions, for the most part, apply to state actions and that NJ Transit is a state actor, while your mother is not? If he was fired for expressing a viewpoint, off the job, that did not have anything to do with his work, do you see how that could implicate 1stA protections?

Yeah, my retort was not very well thought out, and that's my bad. See my "how I see it" post, above, for an attempt to distill the argument into the essential conflict.

 

[CarmelHP]

That's perfectly fine, but most people don't work for the government, and if the content of his speech is what he was fired for by a government official, there are some pretty serious (potential) problems with that.

That said, there is no "right" to government benefits, so I'm not sure that the First Amendment could apply in any way to this man's actions. You don't have a property interest in your government job, either, so it'd seem that no genuine constitutional issue is in play here.

In Indiana, by statute, state workers who are part of the merit employee system who have gone beyond their probationary status have a property interest in their job.

 

[downzero]

In Indiana, by statute, state workers who are part of the merit employee system who have gone beyond their probationary status have a property interest in their job.

If that's true, then there'd be a due process problem then, no?

I still fail to see how the First Amendment would apply, in any case.

I'd also say that I personally am opposed to anyone having a property interest in their government job, but if that's the law, that's truly sad.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In Indiana, by statute, state workers who are part of the merit employee system who have gone beyond their probationary status have a property interest in their job.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY OUT POLITICAL SYSTEM SUCKS AND WE ARE GOING BANKRUPT!!!! Oh God, the PAIN in my head!

Governmers, mayors, all chief executive should be able to fire who they want and hire who they want to conduct their will (of course within the confines, context, and color of law). All these laws that guarantee that you can't be fired from a state job do is ensure that the Ponzi scheme that is state employment in the end pulls everyone into the swirrly (is that a word) water.

 

[CarmelHP]

If that's true, then there'd be a due process problem then, no?

I still fail to see how the First Amendment would apply, in any case.

I'd also say that I personally am opposed to anyone having a property interest in their government job, but if that's the law, that's truly sad.

Many states are similar, Connecticut springs to mind from a law school exercise we did on this topic. Most Northeastern states have very strong provisions protecting government workers and I would be surprised if New Jersey did not.

The First Amendment would apply to viewpoint discrimination by a government actor, the State of New Jersey, in taking adverse employment action against an employee and there was no bona fide connection between the viewpoint and his job. For example, if the Director of the NJ Equal Opportunity Commission was a KKK member, there would likely be a bona fide reason to believe it impacted his job. A railroad worker, though, not so much.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Based on my experience in New Jersey and things my brother-in-law (who lives there) has told me, New Jersey state workers are unionized and pretty well protected. Unless the government agency can prove that this guy had multiple violations of employee conduct, had been counseled, written up (multiple times) and placed on probation, it will be tough to sustain the termination.

 

[downzero]

Many states are similar, Connecticut springs to mind from a law school exercise we did on this topic. Most Northeastern states have very strong provisions protecting government workers and I would be surprised if New Jersey did not.

The First Amendment would apply to viewpoint discrimination by a government actor, the State of New Jersey, in taking adverse employment action against an employee and there was no bona fide connection between the viewpoint and his job. For example, if the Director of the NJ Equal Opportunity Commission was a KKK member, there would likely be a bona fide reason to believe it impacted his job. A railroad worker, though, not so much.

So then no government employee is an at-will employee? Is that what you're saying?

I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Fletch]

So then no government employee is an at-will employee? Is that what you're saying?

I find that very hard to believe.

When I worked for the state of Oklahoma, it was at-will, and explicitly stated as such. So yes, there are government employees under these terms. It's my assertion that all should be.