I'm glad the University actually finally stepped up, freedom of speech is one thing but people have to think when they talk, and can't slander peole or use hate speech, those aren't covered and to use them and claim freedom of speech is rediculous. It's scary how many claim freedom of speech but don't know that there are limitations to freedom of speech such as hate speech.
I don't know anyone with an ounce of intelligence that can defend some of his extremist thinking, and if they do maybe they should take a look at themselved and ask themselves have they gone too far. He now is going to court, he made a stupid statement, actually several over a period of time and needs to man up and just admit it and move on, instead of wasting the Colorado tax payers money on a court date. He has already wasted their money by giving kids propaganda instead of an education.
here is the article about his being fire the university.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/942...
Answers:
It is sad he was ever allowed to influence the youth of any government paid education system in the first place. God Bless them for finally getting rid of that creep.
good riddance
Actually, as a matter of law, you slander requires making statements that are factually untrue and hate speech must incite immediate violence to be unprotected.
Regardless of whether people like what he said, none of his statements were illegal and all were very likely completely protected under the constitution.
But the University didn't claim to fire him for making bad statements. The University claimed to fire him for unrelated performance-based reasons dealing with professional integrity and possible plagiarism. Those are valid reasons.
Saying something unpopular, for a state-funded university, is not valid legal grounds.
Oh, he was? Well how quaint. I'm surprised he lasted this long. Now all officials need to do is can that horrid witch of a judge who let the child rapist walk.
Are Michael Moore and Churchill brothers? Both think and look the same.
I thought he was fired for plagerism, not for his 911 essay. I could not get the article you put up, but an article on yahoo news tells all about the firing.
the issue with him isnt what he says, it is that he has a captive audience that has no choice but to listen and repeat what he dictates to them or they fail- that is not what college should be about. Moderate and conservate students routinely hide their leanings for fear of retribution and that is not a sign of an open and tolerant campus
After reading the news reports, and Mr. Churchill's article, I am astonished that the Board of Regents took so long to dismiss this professor. I found his remarks in his article highly inflammatory and generally unsuited to one who's responsibility is to the education of his students, much less to the University. His television remarks were right on the money in that he predicted that he who sows the wind, will reap the whirlwind. Being fired for academic misconduct, plagerism and fabrication of facts is right on the money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment