Sure, but they don’t use Roundup.

The guy’s name is Bob Ruscoe. It says it right on the screen.

Ha, that would be an interesting argument for them to defend in court. Maybe even valid - prima facie evidence of being unfit to teach in her field.

Whether her speech is protected is a legal question; you aren’t making a legal argument when you assert that the public, government-run school has a right to be free from embarrassment. It does not.

Haha, *clap*

Hmm, pronounce it like its spelled... This makes sense, because when I say giant, or giraffe, or gigantic, or ginormous, or gibberish...I get it, good job, the game is up!

You seem to have no understanding or knowledge of the actual legal implications or potential consequences (but happy nevertheless to proclaim related but irrelevant expertise!), so I suppose you’re right.

Never let the friendship and support of an ally get in the way of damning him for some stupid formality he didn’t perform up to your standard of approval.

Huh, I’m guessing your vast experience with adjunct faculty doesn’t come from teaching at a law school. There’s one key difference between speaking in public about a political matter and the various infractions you listed - they are performance related. Certainly, the First Amendment does not protect adjunct lecturers…

I’m not sure you’re completely right about that, counselor. Considering you have no clue whats in her contract, you’ve made a bold assertion. Additionally, regardless of the contract, as an employee of a public institution she does have some rights against being punished for expressing her opinion. If she was speaking…

Nope. Two reasons: (1) you have no idea what the terms of her employment were or what she supposedly violated, if anything, because that information hasn’t been reported. (2) I’m not going to debate case law with someone who thinks ‘the government absolutely allowed her to say it’ in reference to her comments on Fox…

So many members of the Burner family out today... I did not say she can ‘say whatever she wants.’ Where did I say anything remotely like that?

FYI, being in ‘plainclothes’ is not the same as being ‘undercover.’ Undercover literally means working under a cover, i.e. a false identity. These cops are just not advertising to everyone as they walk around that they are cops, they aren’t pretending to be someone else to infiltrate a drug distribution system or…

‘Allowed her to say it’ by firing her afterwards? Prior restraint is not the only form of impermissible interference with protected speech. If it is a public institution, then even if her contract states ‘can’t say controversial things on Fox News’ then the contract is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

It’s a public school, therefore it is a free speech matter. If it were a private institution, you would be correct.

It’s a public college.

Ah, neat. I’ve had a few conversations with Mormons in that way too (and JWs), but mostly talked about doctrinal questions. I don’t get repeat visits though, because they don’t try very hard to convert Jews.

‘The inspiration was apparently inspired by...” Uh huh.

Wow, how do you know all that without being Mormon?

I just drove around a car stopped for an emergency vehicle yesterday. We were on the other side of an intersection and down the road from a fire truck visible in the rearview; the guy in front of me stopped as soon as he saw the lights, and was apparently all set to wait 2 minutes on the side of the road to see if the…