So the Boston Police Department, having discovered that one of its officers (Justin Barrett) sent a truly revolting email about the Henry Louis Gates arrest to the Globe and some other folks, has suspended him, and is apparently going to try to fire him as fast as they can. The Mayor wants him “g-o-n-e,” saying that he’s a cancer on the department. And so on.
There are still important details to be filled in here — did Barrett use a BPD email account? Did he send the email under his own name, or was it anonymous? And what is the nature of Barrett’s BPD job? Beat cop? Administrative guy? Supervisor? Something else?
Does any of that matter?
Actually, yes. It matters because the First Amendment is not irrelevant in this case. A few years back, an NYPD employee repeatedly sent anonymous racist fliers through the mail. He was found out and fired, and he sued the NYPD claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The Second Circuit rejected his claim.
But Judge Sotomayor dissented. She thought that a searching, fact-specific inquiry was needed to determine whether the department’s interest in firing the guy overcame his First Amendment right to express his views, however offensive they may be. As she explained:
To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like … I recognize that the Pickering test affords substantial deference to government employers, particularly in the law enforcement context. The NYPD’s concerns about race relations in the community are especially poignant. But there are limits. “At some point, such concerns are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 391. The question is on what side of the line does this case fall.
Seems to me that the same issues are in play with Officer Barrett, though it may well turn out that, in Barrett’s case, the factors cited by Sotomayor counsel in favor of his being fired. Nonetheless, how ironic that Sonia Sotomayor, herself derided by some as an anti-white racist, went out of her way to uphold the free speech rights of an actual racist — one who, no doubt, would find the prospect of her elevation to the Supreme Court repugnant.
I was initially troubled by Menino stating that this guy was to be fired. That seemed like an overreaction to, well, free speech.
<
p>But then I read the email (sent from a personal account) to a Globe reporter. I’m stunned that someone could be so ridiculously idiotic — and so blatantly racist.
<
p>So now I don’t know what to think. On one hand, I believe in the right to free speech. On the other hand, this guy laid out so much stuff that it is hard to believe that he can treat Blacks (or perhaps even women) fairly as a police officer.
<
p>Maybe the right thing to do is to do a full review on his policing, and if there is evidence that he carries his viewpoints on Blacks through to his job, fire him for that. If he does his job professionally, then he is entitled to free speech.
<
p>I’d say that he could be problematic on the job because Black citizens would be offended by him, but I don’t think I can quite buy that line of reasoning because such a philosophy would seem to justify not hiring a Black customer service representative because potential customers would go elsewhere.
I wonder how black policemen feel about working with someone with those beliefs. Would you be confident that the guy would risk himself for you? Would you risk yourself for him?
there are limits on your free speech. Not just the “fire!” limits the rest of us have, but other limits. Those include not saying or writing things like the policeman wrote, not raising money or giving money to political campaigns, etc.
<
p> * shrugs *
my take is that the law is otherwise. Public employees below the policy-making level have substantial First Amendment protections for their personal opinions.
Just as an FYI, public employees can give to political campaigns. But they are precluded from raising money.
<
p>I was at a seminar on compliance with OCPF rules. The speaker made the point above and added that he was always getting calls from candidates looking for clarification on that. It seems that some state employees regularly tell candidates that they can not donate. The speaker went on to say, that he sometimes feels like telling the candidates who call, “Can’t you take a hint? This person just doesn’t want to donate!!”
Presumably for publication at the discretion of the newspaper or reporter requires a different level of scrutiny than if, say, the officer were simply talking to his friends at home. After all, he identifies himself as an officer, thereby at least presumably claiming some status from his position. In other words, he wasn’t writing purely as a private citizen. He was writing as a private citizen who is also an officer.
Still, disciplinary action short of termination, to ensure the officer’s bigoted views don’t impair his job performance, would be constitutional. This officer better not overreach and rough up a black person, because he’s just avowed a powerful hate motive for conduct which crosses the line.
<
p>The First Amendment wouldn’t be effective if it didn’t protect offensive speech. It’s the price we pay for living in a democracy.
Barrett did send the e-mail using a BPD server. Not an e-mail account. But that can be the hook to fire him. esp since why would you be using the BPD server if you weren’t working. So doing this on BPD time and using their hardware…
that probaly is enough.
<
p>But I don’t know.
Officer Barret said, according to this morning’s Globe story, that his phrase “jungle monkey” “[was] being used to characterize behavior, not describe anyone . . . I didn’t mean it in a racist way. I treat everyone with dignity and respect.”
<
p>Read the email. Decide for yourself.
<
p>Mayor Menino is doing exactly the right thing in firing this guy on the spot. One wonders what might have happened across the river if Commissioner Haas was in a re-election campaign with multiple participants.
<
p>Yes, the
scumbagofficer in question will have an attorney. Yes, paid for by his union (which means you and me, the taxpayer). Yes, that attorney will claim he wasn’t racist and has the right to say whatever he likes. Yes, the Court may quote Ms. Sotomayer. That’s what “due process” is about.<
p>In my view, the Mayor’s job is to fire the racist pig. He did that. Let the rest play out, and let’s hope the discussion about race, authoritarianism, and prejudice continues.
and I will make no assumption as to what your answer will be…
<
p>What do you think about the DoJ dropping the case against the new black panther party guys who stood outside the door of a philly polling place with nightsticks?
Nice try on the distraction.
<
p>What about THIS email?
being a police officer.
<
p>Your turn.
Let’s stick to this moron who has no place being a police officer. Surely we’ll have other opportunities to debate where we’ll each have something to defend.
dropping the case against the poll place intimidators. I give it thumbs down.
I don’t know anything about the story, and I think it’s a distraction from this thread.
<
p>First off – his union has a legal responsibility to represent him. He is a dues paying member and covered by the collective bargaining agreement. And the Union leadership made it very clear in its statement how offensive they found his email but they still are required to represent him.
<
p>Second, please explain how his union providing an attorney is paid for by “you and me, the taxpayer”.
<
p>Finally – the city can’t fire this guy fast enough to please me.
That’s the whole point of my comment. He’ll be represented, and a judge who, like Ms. Sotomayor, will do everything humanly possible to reach an objective decision. That’s how it is SUPPOSED to work. Many accused criminals are scumbags. They are entitled to and should receive effective representation. That’s a good thing.
<
p>Unless Officer Barrett is independently wealthy, which I suspect he is not, then he draws a salary paid for by the you and me — taxpayers. His fellow officers (and union members) are the same. Union dues go up, their cost of living goes up, they demand and receive pay increases, and — (drumroll here) — our taxes go up.
<
p>That’s how you and me pay for his union’s attorney.
I find it hard to reconcile the email with his statement about it:
<
p>Statement:
<
p>EMail:
<
p>[Note the mock Black talk there – “ax” instead of “ask”].
<
p>I think his misogynist comments about how the female reporter should be serving him coffee, and how that she needs to “get slapped, look in the mirror and admit ‘Wow, I am a failure'” also show that he most certainly does not treat everyone with dignity and respect.
<
p>He also has gone on record stating that he would spray someone with “OC” (whatever that is) for being belligerent and non-compliant — in their house. Is that the Boston Police Department protocol for being “verbally assaulted”?
<
p>I think that Martin Luther King Jr. is spinning in his grave if there is actually serious debate over whether the words used email are racist. Are people actually rooting for this guy to beat the rap? Is this not as plain as day to some people?
You clearly haven’t hung around any white people in New Bedford.
I know that blogs like this can sometimes present a false impression.
<
p>You sound like you’re defending this email. You sound like you don’t find the email (not necessarily its author) misogynist, racist, and offensive at just about every level imaginable.
<
p>Is that what you mean?
in New Bedford, the “ax” as opposed to “ask” is prevalent among whites. It’s a class thing, not a black thing. None of the whites down here can claim a racial inability to pronounce the diphthong.
It has been my experience that when a white person wants to invoke the “ignorant lazy Black” stereotype, he uses the word “axe” in a mocking way. Also, the cop here wrote it, and didn’t just speak it as an informal way of talking. It is obvious to me that its use was deliberate.
<
p>I personally think that arguing that this phrase is somehow not a slam on Blacks is like arguing that invoking a “rap music” stereotype isn’t a slam on Blacks either because of the existence of Vanilla Ice.
It’s just laziness and a lack of enunciation. I know there have been plenty of times when by speaking too quickly “ask” comes out of my own mouth sounding like “ax”. Absolutely nothing is meant by it.
We’re talking about a written communication. No enunciation is involved. Nobody is speaking.
<
p>Officer Barret writes: “I am a former English teacher, writer, …”. I grant you that this letter shows no evidence of same, but still — don’t you agree that he probably does know how to spell “a-s-k”? He does, after all, write “… to which I ask, when did he transcend.”
<
p>In the context of the rest of the ethic and misogynist slurs and of his correct spelling in one fragment, are you really arguing that the others were incidental?
<
p>Sorry guys, that dog won’t hunt.
I hadn’t carefully read the email and I thought previous comments were refering to speaking.
Let’s all start listening to our white friends and white TV/movie/sports personalities and count how many times they say “axe” instead of “ask”!!
<
p>Again, if we want to talk about race then let’s talk about “why” this happens and how do we fix it (yes, fix it since it is an incorrect pronunciation of a word into another completely legitimate word well beyond the ” you say tomato…”) rather than trying to say it doesn’t exist.
Why is the pronunciation of “axe” something that is “lazy” and from a “lack of education” (not your words, the words of Christopher above), and something that needs to be fixed, apparently on a racial level (I’d be curious as to your take on “why this happens”)?
<
p>How many people complain about the use of the pronunciation of the word nuclear as “nu-cular”? How many people complain about mangled words from a Southern drawl? How many people complain about Bostonians talking about “Hah-vahd”? Or Long-Islanders who store their clothes in their “dro-wah” instead of their drawer?
I said “lack of enunciation” not “lack of education”. The former sometimes applies to me; I’d like to think the latter does not.
Quantifying how many of which race say what doesn’t really get us anywhere. Yes, in a perfect world we would all speak clearly and correctly, but we all get sloppy from time to time. I’ve mentioned I occasionally don’t enunciate and I’ve heard it from classmates growing up in a very white town too. You see race way too much JohnD whereas I try very hard to be colorblind.
Axe is only one example and this is a problem. Look, you can bury your head int he sand about this OR try to explain it away but I have hired many people in my life and interviewed thousands of others. There are many aspects of people which will kill an interview (regardless of race). One of them is how people speak and interact with other people. If somebody picks their nose, farts… or uses improper English (“axe”, “ain’t”, “He don’t”, “yo”) then they just lost the chance to work for me or get a thumbs up. Many of you are screaming liberals and are asking how we can get black people to be treated equally. I believe the start of blacks being treated equally is to raise them properly to give them a chance to live the American dream. When Mommy and Daddy “axe” you what you did in school today, they just dropped their children’s chances of a good job by a whole bunch. Rather than try to defend this “bad” behavior why not fix it? If you and others continue with this attitude then don’t be surprised if whites (saying “ask”) get hired before equally qualified whites (saying “ask”). That is a reality!!!!
You’ve made your standards for black candidates clear.
<
p>Do you apply those same standards for other candidates? When Mommy and Daddy raise their children to refer to “Y’all” (instead of “you all”), have they done similarly grievous harm? How about “Oy Vey? Do you demand a similar standard of language excellence for the Asian or Russian applicant for your programmer’s position? Do you insist that the Greek or Israeli applicant for your accounting position have a similar command of the King’s English?
<
p>If you apply your standards of being “raised properly” to blacks only, then you are racist. If you apply them across the board, then you are merely xenophobic.
…but I must say if there were ever a textbook case for the continuation of affirmative action, his name is JohnD.
I may cut some slack to people who are from ANOTHER COUNTRY and don’t speak English as a first language but to English speaking Americans I will demand they speak proper English!!! So I will demand this English language from all.
<
p>Sorry Tom but your way of looking he other way is hurting black people. If Obama or Deval were here, they’d have the same standard that I do. BTW, do either Obama or Deval say “axe”? Would Deval suggest a black person speak that way in an interview? I don’t think so.
The fact that you’ve constructed a set of “rules” to lead you to your (foregone) conclusion doesn’t change the reality: as a prospective employer, your “policy” causes you to disproportionally reject blacks.
<
p>Your policy, as you’ve defended it here, is racist.
Splain that. BTW, you might want to actually consider what I’m saying here concerning the “axe” issue since this is how the world works today. I am not alone in “filtering” out people from jobs based on how they speak. And THAT is based on the reaction to people who would have to interact with the people hired. So a bank manager may have the same opinion I have about hiring someone who axes questions because the customers going to the bank may not want to listen to a teller who axes them questions.
<
p>Do nothing and blacks will continue to not get hired. Your choice!
It doesn’t matter whether you are “alone” or not (you are quite assuredly not alone — which has been the contention of Professor Gates all along). You make the racial tie yourself, in your own conclusion:
<
p>”Do nothing and blacks will continue to not get hired.”
<
p>You can spin it any way you want it, your comment is explicitly racist.
the infidel remark and that such a person should not be writing for a US newspaper, relating to her Lebanese ancestry. Who did he leave out?
<
p>What should cause him to be removed from the police force is his stated intent to pepper spray those who exercise their free speech with him.
from a personal account, I really don’t think he should be disciplined at all. Should people be afraid of being punished by employers for expressing their political opinions, cultural views, or even venting their private frustrations, in their own time- to friends or family, or to others who can either pay attention or ignore them? Is that kind of fear a healthy characteristic of a free and democratic culture? Actions that truly interfere with others’ rights are prohibited by law- “your right to swing your arm ends where your neighbor’s nose begins” and so forth. Speech is just speech- it can be very easily disregarded if you don’t like the speaker or the ideas. Your rights are not being compromised by someone else’s free expression. I’ve always been a little concerned with the insistence of some intelligent people on being anonymous on the internet, using pseudonyms and so forth. Is some of it really due to fear of social or even political reprecussions for exercising one’s first amendment rights? (I understand that there are many reasons why people might choose to be anonymous- but perhaps this fear is still a significant factor)
Things you do and say while at work are your bosses’ business- everything else, short of criminal conduct, should be your own damn concern. Frankly, I don’t want to feel like our employers (private or public) have some kind of veto power over our freedom to think, speak, and act as we choose for every hour of the day. 40 hours a week is quite enough already, if you ask me.
What if, instead of an email to the newspaper the cop inserted his racial slurs into a (bad) novel he was writing, or made sexist jokes in his second job as a (lousy) stand-up comedian? What if instead of using racial slurs he was criticizing the Iraq War? Should he be fired for that?
A high-level cop, Dunford, was busted a few months back for sending sexist jokes or other undisclosed offensive material through his city email account, while on the job- that is, using taxpayer-owned resources on taxpayer time. I don’t think he was even disciplined for this, perhaps because of his close friendship with the mayor. That story kinda died- but the distinction between on the job and private activities seems very important.
What if he published a book arguing that Blacks were an inferior race? What if he argued in that book that a Black person is more likely to commit a crime? Certainly that is anyone’s right to say under free speech. But can’t you then hold that up as proof that he probably is going to not carry out his duties as a cop in a race-neutral way?
<
p>In the end, I think his policing needs to be heavily scrutinized, both in the past and going forward. He is in a position of power where his beliefs could result in discrimination. He is in a position to actually use his racism. Would extra scrutiny be unfair? I don’t think so — it would be like paying extra attention to someone who has a medical condition which could affect job performance.
How about if a police officer goes through an ugly divorce and HATES women… fire him? We find a black cop belongs to an organization which declares white people are bad… fire him? Find a few emails from black police officers with racial comments or jokes against whites… fire him? Find ANY color cop with emails or tells jokes at a get together about gay/lesbian… fire him? How about making comments or attending protests for Pro-Life movement where Pro-choice supports are called “murderers…”… fire him/her? How about the guy that tells jokes about Polish people?
<
p>And this only addresses racial bias. Why do we have no issue with police officers retaining their jobs when they are arrested for drunk driving, domestic violence, substance abuse and other actual “crimes” but we now want to crucify someone for a racial slur?
<
p>Where is the line on what a police officer can say without being fired? Is it ONLY race (and only black race that is protected)?
I would agree with some of your statements — if a police officer states that he hates women or thinks they are inferior or “belong in the kitchen”, then the same scrutiny has to be applied to that officer in his dealings with women.
<
p>Some of the other things (Polish jokes) are both less harmless and less likely to come up, since you usually can’t visually identify someone as being Polish.
<
p>That is why I focused on “action” rather than “words”. If there is a cop who is adamantly pro-life, and his actions are that he does not treat pro-choice demonstrators with the proper respect, then he should be penalized on those actions with the knowledge that they are most likely done with intent.
<
p>You are putting up a strawman though — I haven’t heard anyone argue that a Black police officer who professes a belief that whites are inferior would not be subject to the same treatment.
Even when you agreed with me about a police officer who “hates woman” or is “pro-life”… you also said we need to focus on “actions” vs. “words”. What actions has this Officer Barrett done? I think he is being targeted for his words only. He has no record of any racial slant or complaints from the black community.
…because race has been historically such a charged issue when it comes to policing, I WOULD be inclined to subject this kind of speech to stricter scrutiny. I would also say that community relations need to be taken into account. If I were a police commissioner in a city with a substantial black population I need to think about what is best for developing relationships which might lead to fighting and solving crimes. If the black population is going to be put off by my keeping a cop with such attitudes leading them to be less inclined to co-operate with the department, the greater good would seem to be to cut loose this albatross from around the department’s neck. Because of these circumstances, I’m a little more sympathetic to affirmative action and having a police department reflect the community than I might be in other environments. Maybe one day everybody will trust everyone else regardless of skin color, but we have been painfully reminded lately that we’re not there yet.
<
p>You would allow the cop to keep his job based on the population of blacks in your population? So Barrest could write a racist rant if there were enough white people in his area?
I’d still be personally just as offended regardless of community makeup, but I may see action as being a bit less urgent. Once again, JohnD, you want stubborn consistency and refuse to acknowledge that a whole host of factors come into play. Don’t try to buttonhole me on an exact ratio; that’s not going to work.
minority numbers.
The needs of different communities are different. Isn’t it conservatives who are usually preaching about local decision making? Like I said, if you’re looking for consistancy from me you’re not getting it in this case.
We have chatted on this website about racism and who is a racist and obviously “THIS GUY IS A RACIST”. That said, is racism illegal? Can you fire a person from civil service for being a racist? What ever happened to the First Amendment? There are technically shitloads of people who work for the government (and private industry) that display traits and habits and thought which I find offensive on many many levels but I don’t think they should be fired for them. Was that long ago that people were fired for their color, sexual persuasion or political affiliation. How about being part of NAMBLA??? How about being a regular at the local strip joint?? Have subscriptions to Hustler? How about if a black person were part of an anti-white membership?
<
p>If this guy (who’s a racist) used the police department’s email system then he should face disciplinary charges consistent with other violators who use the email system improperly but if this was his private email system then the city f Boston has no right to fire him for a personal view. What if he HATED Menino, called Menino’s Mother or Daughter horrible names or made remarks about Menino’s Italian heritage… would we fire him?
<
p>Call Alan Dershowitz and ask him for a legal opinion.
When I first read the title of this comment, I thought it was talking about you rather than written by you. I think you have to weigh both facts and context. Here the context is policing and it may well be the case that the exact same email can/should get you fired from some jobs, but not others. As for first amendment, the Constitution only guarantees you can’t face legal penalties for your views; it does not guarantee that you can keep your job or that you won’t suffer other consequences.
it’s not quite that simple. The First Amendment does, in fact, guarantee that the state cannot fire you for expressing your views, under some circumstances. The question here is whether the Officer Barrett situation constitutes one of those sets of circumstances. My guess is that it probably doesn’t (i.e., that BPD is probably within its rights to terminate him), but time (and probably a federal court) will tell.
Sorry if you’ve done this already, but can you cite case law precendent for that? My own interpretation is the language itself says “Congress (and states via incorporation) shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech”. As far as I can tell no law has been made forbidding this speech; it is simply a policy of the department.
The Pappas case, in which Sotomayor dissented. This is from the majority opinion:
<
p>
<
p>The statement of the law seems right to me; the difference between the majority and Sotomayor was the application of and weighing of the various relevant factors.
<
p>First Amendment doctrine goes way beyond the most literal reading of “make no law.”
Cop posts public comment, using private email and private computer on off duty time:
<
p>a: “he’s a banana eating jungle monkey” Fire him because he’s a racist and might well discriminate in the course of his job.
<
p>b: “Christ, those asshole Harvard kids are ruining Cambridge” Fire him? He is after all, apparently biased against Harvard kids and might treat them differently from other residents in the course of his job, even though his job record indicates otherwise.
<
p>c: “If we don’t stop those old people from driving, they’ll wipe out the city. Granny Bluehair better not drive close to me!”
<
p>d: “I hate those friggin conservative bumper stickers. Makes me want to haul the driver’s ass out of the car and ‘explain’ who pays for his safety.”
<
p>Fire him for any of the four, right?
The first of the four options is most concerning to me. I might also want to take patterns into account. Although all four demonstrate a propensity for misanthropy which may render someone unsuited for police work.
i think that everyone needs to be careful on what they say and needs to have a better attitude towards people.
Re Sotomayor, it’s comforting in that it signals her old-school focus on upholding Constitutional rights, regardless the circumstances; this is all most liberals want from a jurist, and is exactly what the right can’t tolerate when the shoe is on the other foot — cries of “judicial activism” notwithstanding.
David, maybe you should warn bloggers here to be careful about what they write since they may get fired if the City finds out about “unacceptable” “opinions”.
Where are the “defenders of free speech”? Where are the bloggers who even recently wrote on BMG about the government invading our personal lives and taking away our freedoms? Where are all the people who were upset about Uncle Sam reading our emails or tapping our phones looking for terrorists but are ok with firing a person for making a slur against a “public” person.
<
p>What does the list look like for “acceptable” and “UNacceptable” slurs????
<
p>Ideology slur…fine.
Italian slur…fine.
Irish slur…fine.
Male slur…fine.
Political party…fine.
White trash slur… still fine.
Sexual promiscuity slur… still fine.
<
p>Race slur…”OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!”
<
p>What does the law say about equal protection?????
<
p>How would all of you feel if every post you ever wrote was examined by your boss? How about if that boss had his/her own bias? This sets a very bad precedent.
The test of one’s commitment to free speech is will they defend the most vile. For example, the ACLU has been known to take up the cause of the KKK in court on the free speech principle even though most of what the KKK has to say probably makes most members of the ACLU cringe if not tempted to strangle someone. Toward the end of the movie The American President where Andrew Shepard defends his ACLU membership and asks his opponent why he isn’t a member he makes an eloquent defense of repulsive speech. I for one try to heed the words of Voltaire: “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Amusingly, that oft-misattributed quotation was actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote under the pen name S.G. Tallentyre. The quotation is from “The Friends of Voltaire,” which is a book about Voltaire.
<
p>It’s too much of an overstatement to have been made by Voltaire himself. “Defend to the death”? Please. So melodramatic.
I guess I should have said “words attributed to Voltaire”. I stand by the substance of the argument, however.
Viewed in the context of his day the statement was less melodramatic. I do not think that Voltaire would ever engage in a duel but they were very common in those days. Due to the amount of people he poked during his career I am sure that he dodged a few of them. It is all about context, Pip talked to Miss Haversham much differently than the Beav talked to June.
I’d like to see some authority for the proposition that people were routinely willing to die to defend other people’s speech. Their own, maybe. Someone else’s, especially if they disagreed with it? I doubt it, but would be happy to be proven wrong.
you are probably right, although Mel Gibson would have in his film “The Patriot.”
Officer Barrett is not being threatened with arrest or criminal prosecution. He is, instead, being told by his employer that he has demonstrated himself to be unfit for his job.
<
p>When a schoolteacher does nude modeling for perfectly legal erotic magazines and websites, he or she is generally fired. NOT jailed, fired.
<
p>Justin Barrett is unfit to be a cop. There’s no first-amendment issue. None.
there is a First Amendment issue. It’s laid out pretty well in Judge Sotomayor’s dissent in Pappas. It may well turn out that, given the facts of Barrett’s case, the BPD is entitled to fire him. But the First Amendment absolutely is in play in this case, as it is — appropriately, I would say — whenever a state entity takes negative action based on speech or expressive conduct.
I suspect his contract has a clause, like most teacher contracts, having to do with “conduct unbecoming”.
<
p>I just don’t see the foundation for a successful First Amendment defense here. I agree, an attorney can perhaps make an “issue” of it.
<
p>So I perhaps mis-spoke when I said there’s “no” first-amendment issue here. What I mean is that the claim is, in my view, baseless.
Has the schoolteacher/ nude model thing ever happened? There would also seem to be a bit of a first amendment issue there.
A few years, on the Cape. I’m still googling for the link. It was a male teacher who operated a perfectly-legal erotic site. He lost his job as a result.
<
p>More recently (again, I’m still looking for the links), a female cheerleading couch at a religious school in the deep south was fired because of her prior career as (nude) model (as I recall). She had disclosed her history during the hiring interviews; she was fired anyway.
<
p>I’ll backfill with links when I find them.
a public school to fire someone on that kind of basis.
I guess those instances are only relevant if the fired people challenged their terminations in court, allowing the courts to weigh in on why or why not their first amendment rights were not violated. Thanks for the response, and for trying to find the links.
The teacher on the Cape was longer ago than I remembered — Robert (Bubba) Wilensky was fired in 1996 from Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School because he appeared in X-rated videos that he produced.
<
p>A high-profile cheerleading-coach firing happened last April, when she was fired from a public school position. Hits from this are obscuring the hits from the earlier Christian Academy episode that I remember from a bit further back.
<
p>You get the point, though.