5 ms·

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

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.

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.