4 ms·

> I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinform

> I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing. What you quoted "It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors..." comes from University of Florida and as far as I can tell is not an airtight argument. No valid conflict of interest is presented in the article for for example. If typically has allowed such outside work, if there was not a conflict on a governmental issue, then the University of Florida as a governmental institution is performing 'self dealing', in this case by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse, by limiting/restricting the speech of the professors. Part of why we have the first amendment is to limit the ability of the government to effect the course of public discourse and the University of Florida is definitely doing that.

Consultant32452 5y ago
“You can work here and say things that will harm us, but you can’t accept payment to say things that will harm us.” Feels like a very reasonable position to me.
- davorak 5y ago
  That is the way it works for a private institution, but not for government institutions. It is supposed to a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    That may be so, but the article gives the impression that the professors were forbidden from testifying, presumably under threat of losing their jobs. If they were simply not allowed to take payment for that testimony, the article and title should reflect that, regardless if such a policy is also wrong. And I would have liked for the article to elaborate more on this barring. What would happen if they testified anyway, if they did or did not get paid for it, etc.. It is after all the central issue of the article, and that they leave it so vague is either incompetence or deception.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Consultant32452 5y ago

“You can work here and say things that will harm us, but you can’t accept payment to say things that will harm us.” Feels like a very reasonable position to me.

davorak 5y ago
That is the way it works for a private institution, but not for government institutions. It is supposed to a safety net to prevent the government from consolidating power by putting their thumb on the scale of public discourse.
- chuckee 5y ago
  That may be so, but the article gives the impression that the professors were forbidden from testifying, presumably under threat of losing their jobs. If they were simply not allowed to take payment for that testimony, the article and title should reflect that, regardless if such a policy is also wrong. And I would have liked for the article to elaborate more on this barring. What would happen if they testified anyway, if they did or did not get paid for it, etc.. It is after all the central issue of the article, and that they leave it so vague is either incompetence or deception.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]