Journalism prof placed on leave after anti-NRA tweet

[Major Nikon]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by pinto (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: AP

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - A University of Kansas journalism professor was placed on indefinite administrative leave Friday for a tweet he wrote about the Navy Yard shootings which said, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."

David W. Guth, an associate professor of journalism, made the comment on Twitter after Monday's shootings in Washington, D.C., in which 13 people died, including the gunman. The tweet didn't attract much attention until Campus Reform.org posted a story Thursday, sparking a social media backlash that's spilled over into some state lawmakers calling for his dismissal.

...

Kansas Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, said Thursday he was "appalled" by the tweet and called for the university to remove from Guth from the faculty.

...

Bruce has received $2,500 in campaign contributions from the NRA since 2004, including $750 in 2012, according to the online database maintained by the state Governmental Ethics Commission. Hildabrand received a $500 contribution last year from the Kansas State Rifle Association.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/journalism-prof-placed-leave-after-anti-nra-tweet-4B11222083

[onehandle]

1. Blood is on the hands of all allied with the NRA. nt

[jakeXT]

2. Tweeting is dangerous

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A Sacramento County Democratic Party leader has resigned after being thrown into the national spotlight for tweeting a death wish for a Republican staffer’s children.

He didn’t just tweet that he hoped for her children’s death, but tweeted he wished for a horrific one.

Sacramento Democratic Party spokesperson Allan Brauer’s tweet was in response to speechwriter Amanda Carpenter’s tweet about defunding Obamacare.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/09/20/sacramento-democratic-party-leader-resigns-after-tweeting-death-wish-for-republican-staffers-kids/

[obama2terms]

9. Wishing death on a politician's children is too much

They don't choose what their parents support. I'm not one for bringing politicians children into politics unless the child of the politician is in politics themselves. I'm against defunding Obamacare but he could have said something different. Besides sometimes politicians children have completely different views than their parent, heck look at Ron Reagan, he's a perfect example of that, and his father is the republican party idol!

[Crunchy Frog]

3. So the NRA is then definitely ANTI 1st Ammendment.

That's interesting to know.

[skydive forever]

4. You're right

There is only one amendment they care about.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Nonsense. Just because DU doesn't condone assassinating children of politicians doesn't make

Just because DU doesn't condone assassinating children of politicians doesn't make the NRA anti- First Amendment for the same condemnation any more than DU is anti- First.

[hack89]

13. Wish for the death of children may be legal

but it is repulsive and guaranteed to offend people regardless of political beliefs.

[disidoro01]

5. Wishing death

on children is stupid and detracts from the points that a person wants to make.
If I wished death on someone here, I probably would be banned. Wouldn't that show that DU doesn't believe in the 1st amendment?

[sulphurdunn]

8. Death threats

are not protected speech.

[Igel]

16. Not a death threat.

Then again, speech is protected from government laws that would ban it.

Speech is not protected from popular calls--or even calls by politicians--for another organization take action.

[sulphurdunn]

20. Well, I suppose

you could argue that just writing that you wished someone was dead is protected speech, unless you suggest you're gonna made it so. I stand corrected.

[BlueJazz]

28. I think he was talking about the original post not the killing children one.

...at least, I hope he was. ???

[SecularMotion]

6. I agree, blood is on the hands of the NRA.

But the death wish for "your sons and daughters" was over-the-top.

[primavera]

10. It was, but it's understandable

Few of us scrutinize every word we say with a lawyer's attention to detail, particularly not when we're understandably outraged by the continuing carnage caused by guns and enabled by their champions. I rather doubt that this guy seriously wants to see the NRA's sons and daughters gunned down, he was probably just pissed off and chose an unfortunate way of expressing it.

[enlightenment]

15. Which is why, in an age where the words

can become instantly quotable, repeatable, and irretrievable, we need to be very conscious of what we "say" in print. You cannot adequately express emotion in print - yes, he was probably very upset and the words a meaningless expression of his frustration, but all that is on the page are the words. Readers assign the emotion that we best believe fits the words and that's a dicey proposition.

A Journalism professor should know better.

[Android3.14]

7. I guess this is Kansas,after all, Toto

NT

[mtasselin]

12. admendment

The only amendment the nra cares about is the 2nd and if you don't think so where were they when the anti=patriot act was passed after the bombing of 2001.

[Paladin]

14. If that college backed the 1st Amendment like the NRA backs the 2nd,.......

....that professor would be having a campus building named after him, right now.

[Igel]

17. That's confusing freedom of speech with nihilism.

Nobody's going to arrest the guy. Thus the constitution is upheld. The 1st amendment is completely irrelevant because it regulates the government's response to speech.

Now, if you want to say that the Constitution requires that everybody be quiet and make no demands of others regardless of what they say, then DU would have much reduced traffic because most of DU is complaining and calling for action based on others' speech.

If a politician uses an ethnic slur, hey--it's guaranteed speech, nobody can call for any penalty. Right?

Offensive speech is protected from government action. However, it's not protected from societal action. Don't like offensive speech and make a stink, suddenly it makes your organization or business less attractive. So you do something about it--possibly short term, possibly long term. We'll just have to stay the course to find out who the winner is, won' we? Perhaps the university will rescind his suspension, perhaps they'll find some way to make his life unpleasant so he'll migrate elsewhere.

This is something that school teachers know full well. One teacher was fired for using the word "negro." Granted it was a Spanish class, and granted she was teaching colors--and insisted on brown-skinned people being called "moreno". Still, the very use of a word that caused offense to the uneducated and ignorant was sufficient grounds for her dismissal. But the publicity made the school look bad and to defend the student would have pitted administrators against angry parents.

In this case, though, it's somebody who expressed the wish that innocent kids be killed for their parents' views of the 2nd amendment over an incident that didn't directly involve him.

[Paladin]

22. Pro-gun policy in this country has devolved to the point of full-scale nihilism.

I stand by my previous comments.

[petronius]

24. Arrest isn't the only concern though, right? UK is a public school, and so

the government in this case took action against him in response to his speech. They argue that the suspension was to avoid disruption and in response to threats received from outside, and not due to his speech, but I think that's a pretty specious argument. (Although what we think is kind of moot, I suppose, because the article states that he does agree with the university's action.)

Strictly speaking, I will argue that he absolutely does have the right to speak his mind (as do the RW pols and others) - however offensively or unpleasantly - in his private life, and the school should have no right to punish* him. If they are concerned about the risk of outside disruption, then they should take steps to curtail it directly, and any measures like administrative leave ought to be strictly voluntary.

* Even if, as I said in my post in the earlier thread, that punishment is more like a free sabbatical.

[heaven05]

18. truth hurts

doesn't it, brucieboy. POS

[CincyDem]

19. 30 pieces of silver.

What always amazes me is the fire sale prices at which the rethugs will sell their soul. 2500 over 10 years and they're yours for the taking.

I don't have a calculator handy but I think that's about 71 cents a day. No wonder these asshats want to lower minimum wage...they're working for a lot less cuz the $$$ they're getting from the people sure isn't influencing their actions.

[mike dub]

21. I understand this journalism professor's anger

but I'm surprised he put such anger into a tweet / essentially 'broadcasting it' out all over the place.

Words have a half-life of Forever. Putting offensive words about harm to "sons and daughters" into a tweet is stupid.

[iandhr]

23. "let it be YOUR sons and daughters."

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

That is repulsive.

To say there kids are reasonable for the NRA sins is just wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

26. He's making a point that they might feel differently if their own children were killed.

It's actually a common response in debate.

Example: "So you like speeding down this road! How would you feel if it was your child who was hit?"

[Cryptoad]

27. Critical Reading is Critical! nt

[NutmegYankee]

25. Isn't protecting one from government punishment for speech the whole point of the first amendment?

So how do these state lawmakers reconcile their calls to fire him?

[unterrified democrat]

29. Remember James Brady?

For anyone who really read what he said - he wished that those who repeatedly insist on imposing this constant threat on other peoples' children and the public at large-he wished those people would be the ones to suffer the horrific loss for a change. I find this much less offensive than anything Wayne LaPierre has ever said.Nothing like personal loss to convert the wicked. Remember James Brady?

[ronnie624]

30. Surely he regrets his phraseology.

It seems shocking, somehow, to see a journalism professor characterizing the First Amendment as a "privilege":

While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That's vital to civil discourse," Ann Brill, dean of the journalism school, said in a statement.

[Paladin]

31. When was the last time Wayne LaPierre expressed concern for "the rights of others"?

When was the last time Ted Nugent engaged in "civil discourse"? And those mouth-breathers turning up at your local Starbucks with AR-15's: when was the last time they worried about kids succumbing to gunshot wounds?

And above all else (and in anticipation of the inevitable response to the foregoing): when was the last time that playing nice with these fuckwits got us anywhere at all?

[ronnie624]

33. His wording guaranteed a ruckus.

I don't condemn people for political speech, however.

[samsingh]

32. so terry bruce is appalled by a tweet - free speech - but apparently not enough by the murder by gun

of innocents

[Luschnig]

34. Don't forget this America where

Gun is God and NRA its true Church. And where any American not ready to shoot his neighbor is morally suspect and no one who blasphemes Gun is worthy of a job.

[pinto]

35. Hi Major Nikon,

Sorry, but your post doesn't meet Late Breaking News guidelines. The news is from Friday and the NBC piece is over 12 hours old.
Locking. Thanks for your understanding.