The right to free speech is NOT the right to get your own, whiny-assed way.

[onenote]

32. I'm going to take a contrarian position to the OP

Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

But before I do, let me make it clear that I think if, as it appears, Scott has made statements to his students that are disruptive to the class or create hostile atmosphere for students who don't agree with his extremist views, he could and should have been fired.

But school teachers and other government employees do not surrender their first amendment rights when they accept their positions. And as progressives, we shouldn't want it any other way.

A couple of general points: the first amendment does not protect a person's right to speak against non-governmental consequences of that speech. But the first amendment does protect speakers against the consequences of their speech when those consequences are the product of governmental action. In other words, the first amendment protects a person's right to speak without the government punishing (or rewarding) the speaker based on the content of their speech. To the extent that the government either punishes or rewards speakers on the basis of the content of their speech, it is on thin ice constitutionally.

We are all familiar of the numerous instances during the bush administration in which individuals were turned away from appearances by bush or cheney or other administration figures because of the message on a shirt they were wearing or because the event (not a campaign event but a government-sponsored event) selected the audience solely based on their political views. We were outraged by those instances. And rightfully so.

If a public school decided which teachers get promotions based on their political views, we would be outraged if a teacher who, on blog sites or elsewhere, expressed support for Obamacare, were denied promotions for that reason or if the only teachers to get promotions were those that attended an anti-Obama rally. And our outrage would be justified, because these would be violations of the First Amendment.

The school has exacerbated the situation in the Scott case by giving an explanation that is plainly pretextual -- the notion that Scott was denied access not because of his having posted about Obama on social media but because there was no room is simply not credible. Whether the school could constitutionally instruct teachers not to post about Obama on social media is itself a close question. But if (and admittedly it is just speculation on my part) Scott was not the only teacher to disregard the school's admonition but the only one to be held out from attending the appearance, he would have a strong argument that his first amendment rights were violated because the government was distinguishing between him and other teachers based solely on the content of their speech.

If it was reasonably concluded that Scott's participation posed a threat to the president or even posed a threat of disruption to the president's appearance, the government might have a basis for holding him out. But unless the Secret Service made some attempt to interview him and discern whether he constituted such a threat, that argument also would appear to be a pretext.

I know this post is going to upset some people and I'll probably be slammed for it. But my point is simple: if this had happened to a teacher who posted nasty comments about bush and cheney and that gang during the bush administration would you be defending it?