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

[Rawne1980]

Not every country has that law. I actually don't know the American (or Floridian) laws pertinent here, but the fact that they don't come up in the article suggests to me that they aren't applicable.

Ahhh.

I wasn't sure if America as a whole or it's states therein had anything similar law wise.

Although Unfair dismissal and Unlawful Dismissal were only properly enforced when the Employment Act was updated in 1996 so it's still a relatively new law.

 

[maxben]

On his personal blog? No. In his lessons to his students? Debatable.

But yeah you're not allowed to fire someone over what they believe. That's retarded. Even if you disagree with what they believe in.

Sure you can. As an employer I can fire anyone in my employ for any reason other than personal bias specifically against their race, sex, sometimes disability, and in some states sexuality. I am allowed t fire them for the views they express. Whether that is moral or not, whatever. The point is that they are ALLOWED

 

[i64ever]

Freedom of Speech protects you from criminal prosecution. That's it. Your employer is more than in their rights to fire you if they believe your comments have negatively impacted their business. He definitely should not see jail time, but if his college fired him for making them look stupid...I wouldn't blame them.

 

[barbzilla]

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.

I have looked at a few of them, isnt their main point that a lot of things seem to have been posted the day before the shootings then removed such as memorial sites and the shooters death certificate?

Yes but It turns out the pages were actually just pages that had already been lying around and renamed. I.e someone just re purposed an already existing page (Created before the shooting).
most of the research has already been done here.

The facebook page I have looked into myself. You can check the activity logs on facebook to show if there were changes to the page, the only change that shows up in the activity log was when it was created on the 12th. This could have been a glitch in the system though, as we all know the internet is not reliable. The other issue being that even though internet mistakes do happen, why are there 6+ different sites/pages all with date errors on them relating to this shooting?

 

[Longstreet]

real simple to answer with 2 questions.

1) Does this somehow, due to the class he might teach, intervene with him doing his job.

2) Does being a professor somehow means that you can't give your opinion anymore (no matter how crazy it might be)

Answer to any of those yes, he should get fired.

 

[barbzilla]

Of course Fox news is on his side, any excuse as long as it means white people can keep their guns. I've read some of his statement: the way he so patronizing danced around calling it an outright hoax "if at all". If he wants the the media to hold itself accountable he should set an example and resign so the school doesn't have to be associated with his ignorant fear mongering.

Who said anything about white people or guns. The article is about a professor keeping his job over personal opinions posted on the internet. The way people want to bring up color or race in threads and articles completely unrelated is a sign of the person being racist themselves, so please leave race out of the discussion. Guns have only a very slight bearing on the discussion as the conspiracy theory seems to think that the hoax was to push the gun laws, but once again not what we are discussing. As for Fox, we know that Fox is slanted and retarded, I used the link because it was the first one I saw on the subject and I wanted to share the news. Even though Fox is retarded I highly doubt they are making this story up.

As for you insinuating that he be fired because he implied that he believes there is a hoax in the first place is relevant, but I think your motivations for firing someone are a little harsh. You don't go out of your way to fire people for their personal beliefs. I don't know where you work, but what if they decided to fire you for your belief that Fox news is slanted and fakes the news? That is a personal opinion, you are posting it on the internet, and many people like fox news (for whatever reason). By your standards you should be fired for having an opinion. Its okay though, because you are going to resign to make sure your employer avoids any potential fall out from Fox news lovers not using their services anymore.

You and I both know Fox only cares about freedom of speech when it suits them. And it suits them to support a guy who claims that Sandy hook was a hoax. The Sandy Hook Truthers believe that the massacre was orchestrated by the government as part of a plot to disarm the populace. The more the right can get people to doubt the "official" story of Sandy Hook, the easier it is to get people to believe the government was behind it. Or have you never heard of the "second gunman" or "9/11 was an inside job". A few puffs of smoke in odd places, one firefighter says he heard a boom before the towers started falling, that's all it takes. From James Tracy's blog:

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.

Yes I do know that Fox only believes in things that suit their purpose, and then only when it suits their purpose as well.

While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place ? at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have describedYeah that's not inflammatory wording at all, especially coming from a COMMUNICATIONS professor ~_~

And I've never thought that just because people believe what they're saying is a reason they should get away with saying it. Just how much are YOU willing to let people get away with? When does reality cease to apply? 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? How does a man in the field of education not understand that people do not start out with all the right information? What does he think of all the "inconsistances" on his student's tests when they get some of the questions wrong? Does that mean the lessons never took place at least in the way academic authorities and the schools class schedule have described?

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

But that's okay, because no matter WHAT the subject, anyone should be allowed to express an oposite opinion and have it not reflect on their ability to do their job.

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).

 

[Susan Arendt]

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.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

 

[wulf3n]

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.

 

[SonicWaffle]

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.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

Oh, agreed. Of course, people could argue that having someone on staff who "buys into conspiracies" is detrimental to the school's image, too. My sole point was that something being on a personal blog does not automatically make it off limits with regards to whether or not someone should be fired. But, no, the two aren't anywhere near close in scope.

 

[Heinrich843]

The 1st Amendment guarantees protection against the U.S. government. That is true, and it does not apply to private institutions.

However- the freedom of speech afforded to professors and educators in college systems falls under the category of the "freedom of expression for educators" bit.

I don't think it's a guarantee or anything, but from his statements- the accusation is hyperbole.

Practicing skepticism in a time of sensationalist media seems to be good practice. I find the "that probably happened" statement questionable, but many of the details concerning the shooting seem to have been blurred or lost for the first couple weeks following the shootings. No one really had any clue what happened- apart from the large death toll.

People wanted to blame someone and blamed anyone they could find. In particular, the Escapist should remember that someone with the same name got blamed for the shooting, and he liked Mass Effect on his Facebook page. This resulted in negative media attention against video games and mob mentality attacking this poor fellow.

I'm not arguing that he should be skeptical about children dying. I'm arguing that media that tries to interview parents of recently deceased children for ratings is not a reliable source of information.

 

[wulf3n]

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business.

Is it though?

Provided the person in question has done nothing criminal, are they not free to believe whatever they want? regardless of what the rest of society thinks?

One might argue that it may lend credence that they're a higher risk than another, but isn't that basically persecuting someone who has done nothing wrong?

 

[Jubbert]

Fuck off, all you people saying he should be fired for this.

How would you like it if someone took offense to something you wrote on Facebook or your blog or even this site and saw fit that you be fired for it?

Unless he's actually trying to tell his students that the shooting was a hoax or he's doing his job wrong, he doesn't deserve to be fired.

 

[SonicWaffle]

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.

Well, hang on. If he wrote on his personal blog how he advocated for NAMBLA, or something, that's certainly his employer's business. So the mere fact alone that it was a personal blog isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. Of course, firing a teacher is actually a pretty hard thing to do, due to tenure.

So long as he's not teaching that Sandy Hook was a hoax, I can't see a reason to fire the man.

Surely that would count as being detrimental to his employer? I'd say there's a big difference between believing conspiracy theories (though from the source, it isn't apparent that the professor even did that much) and advocating sex with children.

Oh, agreed. Of course, people could argue that having someone on staff who "buys into conspiracies" is detrimental to the school's image, too. My sole point was that something being on a personal blog does not automatically make it off limits with regards to whether or not someone should be fired. But, no, the two aren't anywhere near close in scope.

Well, that was why I added the proviso;

As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Someone could argue anything as detrimental. I've seen atheists argue that religious belief is a good reason to keep someone from teaching, as it makes them a detriment to the children's education. I've heard the same thing about atheist teachers from believers.

Just because someone argues that personal beliefs might impact negatively on a school's reputation, that shouldn't influence reality unless those beliefs are provably harmful like your NAMBLA example is.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

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

 

[wulf3n]

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.

Exactly. where's the evidence?

Did you bother researching the professors blog?

If you are to going to make a claim, especially against a persons character, you should provide evidence.

 

[nexus]

Shut your damn face and know your damn place.

You're supposed to let the news tell how you it is, and the only emotions you should feel are terror and despair. What's that? You have questions? Fuck you, you're fired for being crazy. Either think exactly like we tell you, or YOU ARE CRAZY.

He didn't even say it was a hoax.

Who's crazy here exactly? Wait, don't answer that, that would require self-inspection, and none of you are ready for that yet. I swear to God man, the world is being taken over by people surrounded by a bubble, and too drugged out on prescription psychotropics to even UNDERSTAND anything other than WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.

Look, LOOK.. someone who isn't being a brainless monkey like the rest of us! TEAR IT DOWN, throw your feces at it until it goes away!!