Wisconsin? Needs More Gaddafi.

Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox was canned today. Good riddance.

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana…

In his nonpolitical tweets and blog posts, Cox displays a keen litigator's mind, writing sharply and often wittily on military history and professional basketball. But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an "incompetent and treasonous" enemy of the nation to comparing "enviro-Nazis" to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi "brownshirts" on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as "a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up" by local police. A "sensible policy for handling Afghanistan," he offered, could be summed up as: "KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!"

Does it count as violent right-wing anti-government rhetoric if the guy actually worked for the government?

And that's really the scary part. For the last 10 years, this guy has had the power to put people in prison.

Comments

[Federal Dog]

These guys are all heart.

Mike Capuano up here in in Boston told union agitators to get out on the street and get bloody, as necessary. His office heard a few choice words from me.

[Paul]

I see these Winsconsin protests a bit like the Islamic Revolution in Iran. "Up with people" and all that, but we secular liberals are sure gonna hate it if they win.

[Chris Future]

Actually, these protests are much more aligned to the protests against the austerity programs that Greece had to implement. It's government employees asking for less cuts to their wages and perks. Madison is more Athens than Cairo.

[Mr. FIFY]

I'd still give a months' pay for a massive riot started by a union thug.

[prolefeed]

Was he canned for saying really awful and ugly things on his private computer during his time off from work?

Or were these comments done using state equipment or time?

I have a bit of a First Amendment problem with the former, and say "good riddence" if the latter.

[Jim]

I've actually grappled with this issue quite a bit. On the one hand, you're absolutely right, that there is a 1st amendment issue at play if he did this on private equipment and time. And I've always supported employees in other cases where employers fired them for "tweets" or facebook posts made from their residences.

On the other hand, the rules may be different for public officials with law enforcement authority. Even if it's from his private residence, on his own equipment, should the people retain as a representative someone who evidently favors mass murder as a means to quell populations he disagrees with? If he's supposed to represent the people of Indiana, and the vast majority would balk at such rhetoric, then isn't it right to remove him?

I'm not advocating either way here, just saying I think it's a very interesting question that should be explored further (as regards public servents, esp. when making comments in a public forum like the internet).

[Neu Mejican]

Was he canned for saying really awful and ugly things on his private computer during his time off from work?

Would you have a problem with a private company firing an employee for making the company look bad with his inane tweets? Even if on his own time. This guy was tarnishing the name of everyone he worked with and for...whether on his own time or not. Seems like a firing offense to me. He can now go on tweeting as much as he likes. It is not like they are putting him prison for it.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Neu Mejican,

Would you have a problem with a private company firing an employee for making the company look bad with his inane tweets? Even if on his own time.

This is correct. Some companies do penalize their employees for tarnishing the name of the company either in their own time or the company's time. If it's stipulated in the company's Code Of Ethics, one can get in trouble for talking trash about the company with other coworkers or in front of clients/customers.

Seems like a firing offense to me.

I agree with this. But let's see what his union says... he he he!

[Paul]

Are deputy attys general Union? If they are, this country is more fucked than I imagined.

[prolefeed]

He can now go on tweeting as much as he likes. It is not like they are putting him prison for it.

Neu, I thought liberals argued that if you take away someone's job, they are not REALLY free? =)

My First Amendment problem with this firing is that, first, the guy tweeted with what appears to be an assumption of privacy and was outed by someone at Mother Jones, and second, that firing someone for expressing political opinions at a public job is different from a private employer firing someone for any damn reason whatsoever.

Would you have a problem with a Republican governor threatening to fire any public worker if, on their own time and on their own computer, they expressed any degree of support for the people protesting what the Republicans are doing in Wisconsin?

This is kind of personal for me, since when I was working at the state Capitol one session, on my private computer on my off-work hours I printed a letter to the editor, as a private citizen and not as an employee of the state senator I worked for, in said letter to the editor ripping a new one for another state senator for being a total crap-weasel. (I worded it more diplomatically than that in the letter.)

And, of course, the state senator who I criticized tried to get me fired, and my wishy-washy boss tried to muzzle me, and we had a terse discussion where I said, go ahead, fire me, but I have the right to do what I did.

My boss backed down.

Anyway, yes, a complicated question, which is why I phrased it as a "bit of" a First Amendment problem, not as absolute opposition to the firing.

[Jim]

There's NEVER an expectation of privacy on the interwebs.

[Facebook user]

There's NEVER an expectation of privacy on the interwebs.

That's crazy talk!

[Myspace user]

Ha! Suckers- hold on got another rap artist friend request..

[LarryA]

the guy tweeted with what appears to be an assumption of privacy

Then he's too stupid to be deputy AG.

[Neu Mejican]

the guy tweeted with what appears to be an assumption of privacy

Assumption of privacy for a tweet?
Really?

I agree that there is a line for which this would be the government doing indirectly something it can't do directly (censorship). His speech, however, seems to cross into territory where he would be hampering his department's ability to do their work. If he was a government janitor...I'd be with you on the 1st amendment protection for what he said. But he is an AG recommending deadly force against peaceful protesters. Seems different somehow.

[Chris Mallory]

His real name and location are listed on his Twitter page, along with a link to a now closed blog.

From reading his tweets, he is a "Somalia!!!! Roads!!!! Social Contract" type.
There are no links to pictures of him fucking goats, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

guy tweeted with what appears to be an assumption of privacy

Um, whut?

That is an oxymoron. How the fuck can you "tweet" with any expectation of privacy?

That argument is a total non-starter.

[Fatty Bolger]

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I find your response to be interesting. Does this mean you would have no problem if the protesting teachers were fired for making their employer look bad? What about just the ones who had nasty Hitler signs?

[Paul]

teachers were fired for making their employer look bad?

I would argue they have for decades.

[Neu Mejican]

What about just the ones who had nasty Hitler signs?

Hmmm...I'll think about it. I said on the last thread that I don't think government employees should have the same right to strike as private sector workers...I think a mass firing would be inappropriate, but on a case by case basis????

[cynical]

Yep. Government workers should be fired for doing thing that make the state look bad, like using (for reals, this time) violent rhetoric, or staging protests and striking in violation of the law, and shit like that.

[Mr. FIFY]

NM, should students be punished for making fun of teachers if they do it off school property?

[Mr. FIFY]

No, I'm not defending what this guy said.

[Neu Mejican]

Mr. FIFY,

No.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

should students be punished for making fun of teachers if they do it off school property?

Apples =/= oranges.

[Tulpa]

The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-coercive relationships, in particular those between the government and its workers. Dismissal from employment is not coercion.

[ClubMedSux]

I think the distinction I would draw is dismissing somebody because you disagree with their speech versus dismissing somebody because their speech demonstrates that they are unfit to fulfill the duties required of their job.

[Jim]

I think that's the best way for me to sort out the mixed feelings on this subject that I expressed in an earlier post. Well done.

[Tulpa]

We don't require private employers to make that distinction. prolefeed's position would give extra rights to government employees that private sector employees don't have.

[ClubMedSux]

Tulpa, I don't look at it as giving government employees extra rights. I see it as a limit on the government's power. After all, an individual employer can only do so much harm by, say, firing workers who speak out in favor of drug legalization. The government, on the other hand...

[Tulpa]

Was the end of your post eaten by the squirrels? Because I would love to know what the horrible consequence was supposed to be.

[Bryan C]

How so? The First Amendment restricts government action, not private action. Is it correct to argue that a government employee has fewer rights than any other private individual when dealing with the government?

[dfd]

Either way, the distinction isn't a First Amendment issue. The 1st only protects you from being subject to laws which restrict your speech, it has nothing to do with employer / employee relationships so regardless of their intent it isn't a First Amendment case

It may still be worthy to draw that distinction of disagreement vs. fitness from an ethical standpoint, and I'd agree, but it not from a constitutional standpoint.

[ClubMedSux]

The Supreme Court would disagree with you.

[robc]

The Supreme Court is often wrong on constitutional issues.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

The Supreme Court would disagree with you.

Um, no. In that case, the guy was fired "solely due to his political beliefs" - i.e., control of the legislature had switched from Team Red to Team Blue, and this guy was fired soley because he was Team Red and not Team Blue. He had done nothing at all that would call into question his suitability for the position.

Not the case here.

[DNS]

I think the distinction I would draw is dismissing somebody because you disagree with their speech versus dismissing somebody because their speech demonstrates that they are unfit to fulfill the duties required of their job.

Should employees, either public or private, be compelled to provide FB passwords as a condition of employment, either new or continuing?

[MattXIV]

I don't think that would be a good rule. Recieving benefits from the government is a non-coercieve relationship, but I think a "shut up or lose your Medicare" policy should properly run afowl of the first amendment.

Whether a goverment employee should be disciplined for a view (assuming it's expressed with his/her own time and resources) should be determined by whether the view is relevant to the employee's ability to do their job effectively. Thus, in this case, since he's an deputy AG and advocating illegal and unnecessary violence by the police, the viewpoint casts doubt on his willingness to effectively do his duties when certain parties are victims or offenders, whereas if he was a bus driver, it would not be relevant.

[Neu Mejican]

I concur with your take on this case.

[Tulpa]

Social Security and Medicare are coercive systems on the whole. You don't get to decide whether to contribute to the system.

If the govt wants to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint for the disbursement of moneys from the general revenue fund, I don't see any First Amendment problem. (Of course most such disbursements are unconstitutional anyway, but that's for another thread).

[Zeb]

Assuming he works at the pleasure of the governor (or AG or whoever is in charge), I don't see a problem with this. If he expressed a ridiculous opinion about something not at all relevant to his job, I might have more sympathy, but since he works in law enforcement, calling for police to kill non-violent protesters crosses a line in my estimation.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

It matters not one whit whether he was using his own computer on his own free time or using official state computers while at work - the dude was a fucking deputy AG for the state.

Would it matter if the Governor had isused a tweet like that on his personal computer in his own spare time?

The guy held high office. The fact that he used a Twitter account for spewing idiocy like that calls into question his judgment and temperament and therefore his suitability to be in such a position.

There is no First Amendment issue here - the government is not preventing him from saying what he wants to say. Sure, he has the right to say it. But he does not have a right to be deputy AG.

[affenkopf]

Whoever wins we lose.

[Episiarch]

True, but it's still a small win when a shithead DA like this gets sacked, ape head.

[GILMORE]

I am concerned with Reason's style guide regarding the spelling of Libya's leader - the inconsistency hurts me brain.

[ChrisO]

Don't worry about it. The proper Arabic characters probably wouldn't work correctly on any of our computers, anyway.

[Rob McMillin]

The Reason nanny disallows non-English UTF-8. So, no, they don't.

[Spiny Norman]

It's spelled "Gaddafi," but it's pronounced "Throat-Wobbler Mangrove."

[Episiarch]

Raymond Luxury Yacht? Is that you? I haven't seen you since you got that nose job!

[Mainer]

Upper class twit of the year, if I recall.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Anti-semitism!

[Invisible Finger]

Sounds more like an upper-class tweet of the year.

[Brown Trouser Job]

He asked me! He asked me!

[Pro Libertate]

I choose to believe that they each agreed to use a different spelling at the last staff meeting. Right after the narrow vote to not ban SugarFree.

[JW]

I thought the vote was whether to spank SugarFree? He kept going on about how naughty he was and rightly deserved it.

Whatever it was, the vote was unanimous that he needs to shave his feet more often.

[Episiarch]

STEVE SMITH NOT UNANIMOUS! STEVE LIKE NUTRASWEET HAIRY FEET! IT LIKE RAPING BILBO BAGGINS, OR POSSIBLY FRODO AND SAM AT SAME TIME! STEVE FIND TOLKIEN TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY, WHICH IS WHY NEED LUBRICATION!

[SugarFree]

My feet are delightful, you nincompoop.

[Hugh Akston]

I'm just checking: is there any remaining doubt at this point that Nutrasweet is somehow involved in the Crush Video industry?

[Episiarch]

NutraSweet doesn't crush small animals, he trains them to attack Tippi Hedren.

[SugarFree]

I did invent a penis sneaker, but the laces never worked right. And it was pulled from the market after a few unexplained fires.

[Kool]

You guys are hilarious.

[Old Mexican]

For the last 10 years, this guy has had the power to put people in prison.

The really scary part is that pretty much ALL the A.G.s in each state has the power to put people in prison for whatever reason they fancy.

[Happy Jack]

Law enforcement is considered one of the "legitimate" functions of government.

Ready to come to the dark side of anarchy Radley?

[mike]

If this were a Ron Paul type he would be in Federal detention right now with no bail and probably facing terrorism charges.

Why are there no charges against this dolt?

[lies!]

we are all terrorists now.

[hmm]

And there it is the mid-week shot to the groin.

[Cox's Attorney]

Mr. Cox, a devoted public servant, obviously meant rubber ammunition, but Tweeted "live" in order to reduce the number of characters.

We intend to fight both his termination and the ridiculous restriction imposed by Twitter.

[Orel Hazard]

Golf clap.

[Hugh Akston]

"She tweeted this, he blogged that, 'OMG' he replied on my facebook wall."

This is the future of journalism.

[ClubMedSux]

LOL!!1!

[JW]

Yeah, the "I tweeted back" was a bit much to take.

Future generations will only laugh at us when they examine our records.

[Future Scholar]

What records?

[Facebook User]

"She tweeted this, he blogged that, 'OMG' he replied on my facebook wall."

This is the future of journalism.

What?

[Libertarian]

I will say, in his defense, that he criticized Robert Reich.

[Mainer]

Gotta agree with you on that.

[Ragin Cajun]

Of course, that only proves that his IQ is at least room temperature.

[Jim]

I would say, "so what, that's like pushing a retarded kid down the stairs, easy pickings", but the scary part is, so many people think that retarded kid is some kind of genius.

[ClubMedSux]

That's how I feel about Lady Gaga and Will.I.Am (though, if push comes to shove, I'll admit that the Gaga is far more talented than that hack Will.I.Am, not that it's saying much).

[A Hipster]

Please...

[Russ 2000]

At least Will.I.Am ruined U2. Gotta give him some props for that, they overstayed their welcome.

[Paul]

I'm of two minds on Will.I.Am-- that whole group was way better during the Kim Hill era. It's been downhill ever since. And Kim Hill saw it coming.

[Zeb]

Funny. Reich just came on the radio as I read that.

[Paul]

Is All Things Considered on now?

[Old Mexican]

The mind of a Statist:

Re: Tony,

Ownership is not a concept that exists in the structure of nature. It has to be defined legally for it to mean anything but whatever is kept and held by force.

Defined "legally"? And that's not circular thinking because....?

Therefore, if government (whose law defines ownership) taxes you, those taxes are taken legitimately and not by theft[.]

Because, you see, the same government that defined what's yours said it is not theft!

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

[Jim]

Then presumably he would have no objections whatsoever to a bill which specifically takes 100% of Tony's wages and possessions. I mean, as long as it's passed legally, that shit isn't yours anymore, right Tony?

[SugarFree]

Tony has admitted that he doesn't believe that he has any right to defend himself from even deadly force.

He a moral idiot of the highest order.

[Old Mexican]

Re: SugarFree,
Not only that, he is an inconsistent moral idiot. You see, he's willing to accept that property rights exist by government fiat, but not collective bargaining rights - get it?

[SugarFree]

To be fair, he only denies the existence of negative rights.

[Tony]

I most certainly have never claimed that. I just object to OM's "god is on my side" defense for everything he believes.

[SugarFree]

Dumbass.

SugarFree|7.2.10 @ 3:32PM|#
If you and I were on a desert island together, far, far from the government you love so, so much, would you have any objection to me beating you to death with a fishing net full of broken seashells? Would you try to defend yourself? Would you even make a peep?

reply to this
Tony|7.2.10 @ 3:57PM|#
I'd object and I'd defend myself, what's your point?

reply to this
SugarFree|7.2.10 @ 4:00PM|#
On what basis to you object?

reply to this
Tony|7.2.10 @ 4:00PM|#
Survival instinct.

reply to this
SugarFree|7.2.10 @ 4:02PM|#
No, you defend yourself through survival instinct. On what basis do you object?

reply to this
Tony|7.2.10 @ 6:14PM|#
On the basis that I don't want to die. I don't formally object, as there is no law to appeal to. I just object.

reply to this
SugarFree|7.2.10 @ 9:08PM|#
Stubborn in your ignorance to the very end.

[WTF]

Wow - I missed that one. Tony is even stupider than I realized.

[Tony]

So you have the right to defend yourself because... God says so.

[Tony]

So ownership does exist as a natural phenomenon? Do you have a coherent description of this phenomenon?

You're mocking a perfectly coherent idea and the only thing you have to offer as a counter is appeals to magical forces and Stuff With Capital First Letters.

[Mr. FIFY]

Some people worship "gods", Tony... and some worship Godvernment.

[Fatty Bolger]

Of course it does. As any 2 year old can tell you, "MINE!"

[Bronwyn]

So ownership does exist as a natural phenomenon?

Territorial animals don't call the cops when someone intrudes on their turf. Of course its natural.

[Jeff P]

True, his accusations of thuggishness are simply puerile. But confronting a large, angry mob that is already worked up about the governer being a tyrant with deadly force sounds pretty reasonable to me. That whole "public safety" thing falls into that "legitimate function of governemnt" we go on about.

[Axman]

The mob is large and angry, true. But not threatening violence. They are exercising their rights under the First Amendment "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The policy promoted by that Indiana jerk shows why the Second Amendment follows immediately.

[P Brooks]

For me, any First Amendment considerations are trumped by the content of that message; this person is demonstrably too stupid to hold that position.

[Neu Mejican]

What first amendment issues?

[Paul]

You know, censorship, like... like THIS!

[P Brooks]

The First Amendment issue of censoring political speech.

Now that he is no longer in a position of responsibility (until reinstated by a Board of Review and/or arbitration), he is free to say dumb shit like, "Defend those hallowed halls to the last drop of Imperial blood."

[Neu Mejican]

How are they censoring his political speech?

[Rhet Orical]

He evinces contempt for political opponents?from labeling President Obama an "incompetent and treasonous" enemy of the nation to comparing "enviro-Nazis" to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi "brownshirts"

He's a "libertarian"?

[Old Mexican]

Hmmm, more like a Limbaughrite.

[Rhet Orical]

Agreed. Real "libertarians" never engage in hyperbole.

[SugarFree]

That's hilarious. Did you think of it yourself?

[Episiarch]

It's pulling the strings and you dance, NutraSweet! It's like Bela Lugosi in Glen or Glenda!

[Old Mexican]

He masturbated over several male health magazines until he had his "eureka" moment.

[Kool]

Rhet got us, SF, it hurts sooo much. I think I'm dying!

[Rhet Orical's Short Bus]

All aboard!

[Rhet Orical's Short Bus]

Six seats left!

[Rhet Orical's Short Bus]

Puppets get a discount!

[Pinocchio]

Do I have to lie, then teabag and sniff ass at the same time again?

[Rhet Orical's Short Bus]

Tell ya what, Puppet Boy...Sit on Episiarch's lap and you ride for free. Deal?

[Old Mexican]

Showdown in Milwaukee: PATCO Revisited
by Gary North

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north950.html

Excerpt:

THE PATCO SHOWDOWN: 1981

The symbolic showdown between the Federal government and a government union came in 1981, Reagan's first year in office. The head of PATCO, the air traffic controllers' union, called a strike. This strike was illegal. He did not care.

Reagan had for years been president of the Screen Actors Guild. He knew how to deal with unions. He knew that the voters would not tolerate blackmail: "Deal with PATCO or we will shut down the friendly skies." He issued a deadline. They had to be back at work on a particular day or else lose their jobs. A few of them went back to work. Most did not. The government hired replacements, and PATCO was busted. No Federal union has attempted anything like PATCO's walkout since then. They got the memo.

There is a huge teacher glut nationally. (Glut: oversupply at an artificially high price that is set by the government or a government-licensed monopoly.) The ability of Wisconsin's school districts to replace every teacher on strike with a certified teacher over the summer would be easy. They could probably replace them at 70% of today's benefits package.

The union's leaders know this. They know that the benefits reflect the privileged position of the union-restricted access to bidding. If every qualified teacher in America who wanted to bid was allowed to bid, the compensation packages offered to teachers would fall like a stone.

If Reagan could replace over 11,000 PATCO workers out of 13,000, without shutting down the airlines, think of how easy it would be to replace every striking teacher in Wisconsin.

We are back to Blazing Saddles.

[...]

The teachers' union members are acting as though they are convinced that the New Deal's attitudes toward unions in general did not die in the 1970s. They are wrong. We are no longer living in the 1970s.[...]

Union membership is lower today than in the 1990s. This is from the United States government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.

CONCLUSION

Sally Field won an Oscar for Norma Rae, a 1979 film about unionizing a nearly bankrupt textile plant in the South. The film won 9 Oscars and had nominations for six others. That movie was a classic example of Hegel's statement, "The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk." He meant that the justification of a practice peaks at the end of that practice's dominance. So it has been with trade unions. In 1979, the movement was in steep decline. After 1981, it collapsed, except for government unions. Now a government union is trying to pull off a Norma Rae. It is way too late.

[Rhet Orical]

Fascinating!

[P Brooks]

It's pulling the strings and you dance, NutraSweet!

He's the mouse in the cartoon who says, "See? I've got that guy in the lab coat trained!"

[DNS]

He's the mouse in the cartoon who says, "See? I've got that guy in the lab coat trained!"

As the mouse is pointing from its cage that is, running on a wheel...

[Pro Libertate]

I recall from my First Amendment seminar that there is a whole line of cases dealing with government as employer. I can't recall the specifics, but I do have a vague memory that the government didn't get a complete pass to fire people based on their speech. Maybe there's some special test or something--no idea.

[Rock Action]

Yeah, we covered it in Public Education Law as a sort of side issue one day. I think if you comment on a matter of "public concern," you're okay, and there's a test, but I also don't know it.

Then I found this:

http://www.las-elc.org/factsheets/government.html

[Pro Libertate]

That makes sense. If I'm an official and state that I'd like to kill, kill, and kill again, I can be fired. If I advocate non-imminent killing on my blog, my speech (and job) is protected.

[Rock Action]

I also think it makes sense to have some protection for speaking out as a citizen.

I don't feel too sorry for this guy, though. Seems like a lot of public figures are figuring out that immediately typing whatever comes to one's mind might not be the greatest career move. See: Rosen, Nir.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

A factor, however, is the person's position in which he is employed within the government.

There is a difference between the effect of a tweet from a desk clerk at the DMV office and one from the deputy AG for the state.

As an attorney, the deputy AG also is bound by ethical regulations of the state bar (headed by the state Supreme Court), so there are additional considerations that are inapplicable to various other state employees.

[Pro Libertate]

The state bar enforces ethics? Really? Who knew?

[waffles]

Today was a good day for screeching, hooting, and hollering. Clearly, these are stressful times. The world watches, anxiously.

[Think of the chilluns]

Are the schools still closed in Wisconsin? All these news stories about the poor teachers, but the only time I heard about the schools being closed was they day 40% of the teachers called in sick. Never heard if the schools were back in session.

[DNS]

Never heard if the schools were back in session.

And how many of those little angels receive subsidized school breakfast and lunches? The horror! The unions are taking food out of those little chilluns mouths. Very selfish of those teachers.

[cynical]

Oooh! Good rhetoric. I have to remember that one.

[P Brooks]

Just wait 'til the schools have to go into extended session in the spring due to missed days, and the collective bargaining agreement requires extra pay for teachers and staff.

Win!

[Matt]

Clearly the 1st amendment is clearly a protection from criminal prosecution only. Not from termination of employment. Even, in my opinion, if that employer happens to be the federal government.

There is no "religious test" for public office, but calling for wanton slaughter of peaceful protesters isn't part of any religion.

[Tulpa]

I would generally agree, though criminal prosecution does not encompass the whole of coercive relationships. For instance, the FCC revoking the license of a broadcast television station because it criticized the president would still run afoul of the 1st.

[Max]

"Does it count as violent right-wing anti-government rhetoric if the guy actually worked for the government?"

Doesn't the anti-government racist Ron Paul get a government paycheck provided by black and white tax payers?

[Episiarch]

You know, if I woke up looking like Edward, I would run towards the nearest living thing and kill it.

[Hugh Akston]

What would he do if we surrounded him with mirrors?

[Episiarch]

Forgot the audio clip.

[Hugh Akston]

Ugh, I should have known. From now on I'm just going to assume everything you say is a reference to that asinine show.

[Mr. FIFY]

Bullshit, Max.

[P Brooks]

that asinine show.

Let me guess: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia?

[Neu Mejican]

IASinP is not asinine...

Aquateen Hunger Force however...yeah, it's Bridalplasty asinine.

[Episiarch]

That's ironic coming from someone who recommended Wild Zero.

[Neu Mejican]

Love has no borders, nationalities, or genders!

[Episiarch]

All very true. And very fun. And very asinine at the same time.

[Neu Mejican]

1st Amendment test:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p.....hment.html

I think he fails #5.

But I guess he had a better 1st Amendment case than I would have thought...if he wants to say that they are "indirectly" censoring him, he might be able to make the case.

[hmm]

Balko has gone from reporting on nut punch worthy topics to actually participating? Conspiracy?

[Fidel and Hugo]

We 'HEART' Kaddafi -- he is one of the great leaders of our time in the fight against BushObama America.

[eddie]

So Radley thinks it's a good idea to fire government employees who, acting in their private capacity, express political opinions using rhetoric that he finds offensive?

You really should reconsider your position here.

[Pro Libertate]

It's one thing to say something as a citizen; it's another to say something as a government official. Should we fire someone at a high level who suggests (seriously, for our purposes) rounding up people of a certain ethnicity and tossing them into camps?

I suppose one way to look at this is that government doesn't have rights, but people and organizations of people do.

[Neu Mejican]

I suppose one way to look at this is that government doesn't have rights, but people and organizations of people do.

FIFY

[????? ??????]

Thanks