3 ms·

Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.

potato3732842 1y ago
Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > non-political government office holders ought to not weigh in on politics They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. I mean, I hold the opinion that people "ought not to" be fans of Charlie Kirk. But you'd correctly object if I enforced that opinion with government power. > Before your ilk became dominant in public discourse… Yikes.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. They don't have a right to a government job. Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? Because that's the door this opens. Think a few steps ahead. If you wanna spew politics and keep your LEO or teaching job get elected sheriff or school board.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > They don't have a right to a government job. They have a right not to be fired from their government job for espousing constitutionally protected speech that doesn't affect their duties. (As affirmed by the Supreme Court, regularly!) > Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? No, but "I hate a significant portion of the population in a way that directly relates to my job" and "I didn't like this one specific guy that has nothing to do with my job" are… substantially different things.
adamtaylor_13 1y ago
Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-lawsuit-after-she-was-allegedly-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post/ https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l... The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect. Now what?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    The immediate aftermath of someone's death is not the time to critique them, gently or not. Total lack of decorum and social sense. Not fit to teach young children.
  - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
    Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      The fact that finding a responsive example was so easy doesn’t give you a moments pause? Here’s another. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/ball-state-employee-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post-sues-university/86290047007/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/bal...
      - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
        Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole. The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal? That's a take, I guess.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    [flagged]
viggity 1y ago
Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? I'm against the government jailing a visa holder for their speech, but revoking their visa is not jail.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? There's some current disagreement on that in the courts after Bruen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._Bruen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...)! https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1534/24-1534-2025-07-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24... We'll see. There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though. > revoking their visa is not jail The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.

potato3732842 1y ago

Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
- potato3732842 1y ago
  If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > non-political government office holders ought to not weigh in on politics They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. I mean, I hold the opinion that people "ought not to" be fans of Charlie Kirk. But you'd correctly object if I enforced that opinion with government power. > Before your ilk became dominant in public discourse… Yikes.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. They don't have a right to a government job. Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? Because that's the door this opens. Think a few steps ahead. If you wanna spew politics and keep your LEO or teaching job get elected sheriff or school board.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > They don't have a right to a government job. They have a right not to be fired from their government job for espousing constitutionally protected speech that doesn't affect their duties. (As affirmed by the Supreme Court, regularly!) > Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? No, but "I hate a significant portion of the population in a way that directly relates to my job" and "I didn't like this one specific guy that has nothing to do with my job" are… substantially different things.

adamtaylor_13 1y ago

Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.

ceejayoz 1y ago
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-lawsuit-after-she-was-allegedly-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post/ https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l... The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect. Now what?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  The immediate aftermath of someone's death is not the time to critique them, gently or not. Total lack of decorum and social sense. Not fit to teach young children.
- adamtaylor_13 1y ago
  Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    The fact that finding a responsive example was so easy doesn’t give you a moments pause? Here’s another. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/ball-state-employee-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post-sues-university/86290047007/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/bal...
    - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
      Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole. The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.

ceejayoz 1y ago
So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal? That's a take, I guess.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  [flagged]

viggity 1y ago

Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? I'm against the government jailing a visa holder for their speech, but revoking their visa is not jail.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? There's some current disagreement on that in the courts after Bruen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._Bruen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...)! https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1534/24-1534-2025-07-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24... We'll see. There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though. > revoking their visa is not jail The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.