Florida professor could be fired for suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooting was a Hoax.

[MeChaNiZ3D]

ON HIS BLOG.

HIS. BLOG.

For fuck's sake, it's his own personal life. Apparently the school understands that, but some people don't. I don't care how crazy professors are outside school hours, the only things they should be fired for are their teaching and their conduct within the school.

 

[nexus]

...even for Florida, this is stupid. People DIED, you asshat.

Yea, better not have any opinions or further questions.

People died, END OF DISCUSSION?!

 

[wulf3n]

If he says something on his blog that by proxy, paints the school in a negative light, they would be well within their rights to fire him. If you say something publicly (Like say for example, on your personal blog) You need to be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come of that. As someone else wisely stated before:

Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence

How do you define "negative light", it's such a fluid term.

And the whole "Freedom of speech=/=Freedom from consequence" seems like somewhat of an excuse to me.

If a similar situation occurred where a teacher posted in a blog that they recently read the Qur'an and that it made good points, only to be fired because of that statement, I doubt many would say it's their own fault.

 

[Giddi]

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

People need to learn the actual meaning to "Freedom of speech".

You can be free from persecution by the government, but not free from getting fired if they don't like what you say.
For instance - if you insult your boss, he can fire you. That's not him infringing on your freedom of speech. He's just not allowed to jail you for it.

Speech has consequences. Opinions have consequences. You are free to say whatever you like, and other people are free to react to it however they like, including fire you.

 

[wulf3n]

Oh if that happened I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it regardless. I would have to; freedom of speech does NOT apply to the private sector. It's the difference between the KKK holding a rally outside the local library, and another outside a bowling alley. In one case they are exercising their rights as american citizens. In the other they will likely be asked to leave or be forcibly removed by the police if they refuse.

I admire your conviction to your country and its laws.

 

[Giddi]

"Just because I don't have evidence that Obama is trying to burn the christian church to the ground doesn't mean he isn't!"

Seriously though, if you can't back something up, you have no business saying it.

But Obama caused Columbine as well! I'm sure of it!

/sarcasm

 

[wulf3n]

You are free to say whatever you like, and other people are free to react to it however they like, including fire you.

Are they though? if they kill you will they not be punished?

It may be possible for them to react however they like, but they're not necessarily free to.

 

[RedDeadFred]

For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business".

It doesn't matter if it's called his personal blog. If it can be accessed publicly, he needs to make sure that everything he does on it is conducted in a professional manner and that there is no unprofessional content. If he had been using illegal substances and talking about it, he most definitely would be fired. This is the same with anything where your personal information can be accessed publicly. If you post pictures of yourself acting ridiculously at a drunk party, you run the risk of your employer seeing or finding out about them. If this happens, you can and most likely will be fired. Maybe it's different where he lives but this is how it works in Alberta.

What he actually said though wasn't really unprofessional, it was just him wanting the media to ask more questions. He was obviously just trying to get people thinking. So no, I don't think he should be fired.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you actually look at the conspiracy theorists video, a lot of their "evidence" is actually supposition here-say, and flimsy observations that prove absolutely nothing. Also Fox news lol. As to whether he should be fired or not is a bit of a fiddly matter. I'm all for free speech, but what he's saying is fairly offensive. At the end of the day Id probably say because this happened on his personal blog and not through any official channels The guy shouldn't be fired. Just IMO.

You just described all conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, most states are at will employment, and you really don't have free speech regarding keeping your job anyway. I'm not sure if he should be fired, but we've made sure they have every legal right to.

 

[Something Amyss]

For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Key words also include "at will employment" and "no Constitutional protection."

 

[V8 Ninja]

As many have said, the man should not be fired for saying things outside of work on his personal blog.

Now, I DO think the man should be slapped in the head once or twice, especially considering that, from what I've heard, the Sandy Hook shooting was a very real tragedy.

EDIT: Looking at the actual news post, apparently the professor was trying to say that the news may have fabricated elements of the tragedy, which I could believe. Granted, the professor probably worded his arguments poorly, but that's a lesson that should be learned.

Also, on the potential firing; If the man is a professor of the sciences, I see no real reason why one would or should fire him. However, I can see problems that arise from when letting a potential nutcase teaching kids about history or English.

 

[Rylingo]

He should not be fired for saying something offensive. He should be fired for being in a position of learning whilst clearing lacking the intelligence required.

Seriously this is an easy to debunk conspiracy theory. It makes Loose Change look like pure genius. If professor believes in it then he doesn't deserve to be a professor.

 

[nexus]

"Just because I don't have evidence that Obama is trying to burn the christian church to the ground doesn't mean he isn't!"

Seriously though, if you can't back something up, you have no business saying it.

But Obama caused Columbine as well! I'm sure of it!

/sarcasm

I didn't say this at all, so why don't you fix your quote.

 

[barbzilla]

Where was his concern for the truth for any of the other HUNDREDS of events where every news sources did not tell EXACTLY the same story at the same time?

I see you're once again filling in gaps of information with your own bias.

Just because you aren't aware of something happening doesn't mean it didn't/hasn't happened.

Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Or are you just biased against me?

I will answer here, as you level the same accusation against me. We are not implying anything. We said for all you know he may be whatever. You actually implied that he has not by asking where he was during the previous events. That is literally what implying something is. To use your words, your statement is saying something in an absence of evidence. Meanwhile our statements are pointing out the evidence of absence of evidence in your post.

Does that mean that you should disregard information gleaned just because it is leading in a direction that is false? The overall conspiracy thinks there is some big government agenda, but that doesn't mean they don't have a few valid points. Most conspiracies are based on one or two relevant issues that are wrong or make little sense, they then take that and run crazy with it making outrageous claims. However, what if those relevant issues are actually real problems, but the interpretation was wrong. Most of our greatest discoveries are accidental. We get things because we try something where the end result was wrong, but we learned valuable information along the way. This is the way of the world.

Because nobody's ever lied or made an error in recording that information to begin with right? It is precisely because he DID take a few "valid" points and used them to make an outrages claim.

Once again you are implying things you do not know. For all we know he was complaining about other issues. Hell he could be a huge activist trying to get media to only report factual and complete information, but since nobody has made a big stink of it up till this point we haven't heard about it. You make the statement yourself, we do not start with all of the correct information. Great job at proving your own point, and helping to prove my previous point

There's pointing out that media messed up in their reporting, and then there's saying an event never even took place.at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described

And you can't prove he WAS a media activist, so why do I have to prove he wasn't? You're implying things YOU don't know, so you have no grounds for refuting my statement.

He NEVER said that the event didn't happen. He has actually said that he thinks the shooting DID occur. You really need to read the previous posts or do some research on your own, but your entire argument is based off of incorrect assumptions.

As for the fact that people lie, that is why you do your own research. As he most likely did. I don't imagine a communications professor would fail to do any research before lending any supporting statements to something. I can't prove that he researched it, but it doesn't matter.

If you go through your life assuming everyone is lying except the government and the media, I am worried for you. There is absolutely no logic in believing the Media or the Government, who are commonly associated with lying (so much so that they are the subject matter of many jokes), always speaks truth. It is just absurd.

What do you mean express an opposite opinion? This statement doesn't make any sense to me, so I am not really able to debate it. Opposite to who/what?

People should be able to express their opinions, as long as they state it as opinion and not fact (and as long as it isn't hateful, but that is another topic all together).

You don't find calling Sandy Hook a hoax hateful?[/quote]

Once again, he is saying this is either a case of the media dropping the ball on their reporting or the police not doing their job properly. No I don't think this is hateful. Even if he did say that he thought it was a hoax, I wouldn't find it hateful. There is no malice in his statements, no evidence of any hatred in his statements. I am sure some people would be offended, hell I imagine the media personnel who covered the event he is criticizing was offended. However, offending someone on your own personal time, with your personal equipment, on your personal blog is not grounds for any form of termination. You are offending me right now by not researching the information you are arguing. should you be fired? That is the point of what you are saying after all.


I'm sorry I think I may be through trying to debate with you. You are twisting people's word and dancing around meaningful discussion. If you want to come back with a constructive, intelligent response I will be happy to continue. I just see this turning more volatile and I am not interested in that form of communication.

 

[barbzilla]

For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

So the second ammendment is carved in stone and can't be challenged, but screw his first ammendment rights?

He might be an idiot, but last I heard the US was quite proud of being the land of free speech, a free press and being able to have an opinion contrary to the status quo without fear of persecution or prosecution.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, it sounds like you are saying I think he should be fired. I do not, I think he has a right to his opinions and,

You're not wrong. He does have the right to his opinions.

What he doesn't have is the right to a university teaching position when he demonstrates that doesn't know how to think before he speaks.

No one is saying he doesn't have the right to say what he thinks. What we're saying is that he doesn't have the right to immunity from the consequences of saying what he thinks.

I think the relevant factor more than anything else will be if he's tenured.

The university would face public backlash for that, I would call that a consequence of firing him. Also in Florida if you fire someone without just cause you have to pay for the unemployment insurance, causing even more financial issues. There is also the need to replace the professor part way through the semester (not very far in this case though). On top of that, you are saying that he should be fired for what amounts to offending some people on the internet. If that was an offence valid for termination nobody on League of Legends or Call of Duty would have a job right now (major hyperbole).

Unless he insinuates that the university has anything to do with the statement or that the university holds the same views as him, he should not be fired. As it is the university is handling it properly. They have made an announcement stating that the views and opinions of their professors are not necessarily their views (in this particular case, flat out isn't our view) and not firing him. Odds are he didn't even get a slap on his wrist or a black mark on his paperwork. There is just no call for it in this situation.

I do understand what you are getting at over all. He doesn't have a "right" to his job. His job is optional for both him and his employer (unless there is a contract involved) as is everyone else's. The entire point of this thread is if he should be fired, not if he could be fired. I don't think his status as Tenured should even come into it in this situation, as it doesn't call for termination on any level. At most there might be need for a session on public awareness and professionalism. It is because there was a public back lash at HIM that this was even a thing. Nobody was upset with the university over what he did, they were upset with him and the local media got a hold of it and made it a story. Then because of media coverage mentioning the university they became involved. Hell I doubt they (the university) got many if any calls about the incident before the media coverage.

 

[chadachada123]

When he was asked if he believed that 20 children were killed at the sandy hook shooting, he said "most likely took place". His real greif was that the media wasn't holding itself to high standards as far as the investigation went. As a result of that he beleives that they didn't get to the bottom of most of the things (I'm guessing he means most of the things refferenced in the sandy hook hoax video).

It would be asinine to suggest that it's impossible that it was a hoax (in respect to Adam Lanza being framed/planted). The public isn't used to dealing with an intellectual, so hearing "most likely took place" to the public sounds like "20% chance of being a hoax," when in reality, he was just being literal and honest instead of colloquial. Every single event could, possibly, have been a hoax or cover up of some fashion, and the US government has even done research into this (Operation Northwoods), as well as Israel attempting to do this (The Lavon Affair, where Israel attacked US/British/Egyptian stations in Egypt and attempted to make it look as though Muslim extremists committed the act), though Israel was, thankfully, caught.

Most importantly, this professor IS absolutely right that the media did some absolutely horrendous reporting, even now, on this case. Immediately following the shooting, not only was his brother falsely claimed to be the shooter, or working with Adam, there was also several interviews released...from people that were killed during the shooting. Sure, many of these sites retracted those articles after a few days, but the amount of misinformation is absolutely staggering. My 'favorite' one was the interview with the Principal of the school...one of the first victims shot that day.