Jury awards $1 to professor fired for 9/11-Nazi essay

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'd say freedom of speech is an ideal that cannot be achieved and that there is a lot more than just one limitation.

What other limitations would you put on it?[/quote]

I didn't say I'd put limitations on it, you already know I don't believe in rights per se but what I said was there was a lot more than one limitation (hate speech). I was saying it was it was more limited than the ideal you said.

Kyu

[bozo]

Imo The professor was in the right. The school was wrong in censoring unpopular idea expressed in a [deliberately?] provocative way. In my country a university does not have the right to censor the works of its academics.

Imo the jury missed the bloody point. At the core of freedom of speech is the right of dissent,even at the risk of offending.

I have big problems with anti vilification laws . My unease was recently confirmed by the UN resolution forbidding criticism of Islam. Austria puts Holocaust deniers in prison. Turkey does the same to anyone who publicly mentions the Armenian Massacre.

That I am offended by the views of another is not enough to silence them.It is arguably enough when a view is likely to incite hatred and violence. I have no idea how to make that definition.

"No one has the right not to be offended" (John Cleese)



http://richarddawkins.net/articleComment...obbs,page7



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Massacre

I fail to see how the jury got it wrong. Its decision seems the right one i.e wrongful termination.

[Demonaura]

The jury chose to use their position to express their dissent, they used their power in a way clearly influenced by their own personal standards and not the standards of their position.

The judge ruled in the professors favor, the judge is worth nothing at all, a complete waste of your taxes if nobody is going to follow his ruling. That's why we have freaking judges, to make rulings for us.

The juries job was to find an appropriate ammount of compensation, not overrule the judge by using their power to remove the compensation the judge rules as warranted. Personally I'd try to find a law to charge the jury, or at least dump them, never select them for jury duty again and bring in a new jury to do their job properly.



On the other point, private institutions probably should be able to fire for any reason they want but, if they want to be recognised in america then they can't go around firing staff for having an opion that is unpopular. Hell then we'd all get fired for being atheists.

The judge exists to make rulings for the people, if he made a mistake don't go vigilante (also a crime) and undermine the system to force your view on others, use the proper channels and suggest to HIS boss that he is not fit to be a judge. The investigation will decide.

[bozo]

The jury chose to use their position to express their dissent, they used their power in a way clearly influenced by their own personal standards and not the standards of their position.

The judge ruled in the professors favor, the judge is worth nothing at all, a complete waste of your taxes if nobody is going to follow his ruling. That's why we have freaking judges, to make rulings for us.

The juries job was to find an appropriate ammount of compensation, not overrule the judge by using their power to remove the compensation the judge rules as warranted. Personally I'd try to find a law to charge the jury, or at least dump them, never select them for jury duty again and bring in a new jury to do their job properly.



On the other point, private institutions probably should be able to fire for any reason they want but, if they want to be recognised in america then they can't go around firing staff for having an opion that is unpopular. Hell then we'd all get fired for being atheists.

The judge exists to make rulings for the people, if he made a mistake don't go vigilante (also a crime) and undermine the system to force your view on others, use the proper channels and suggest to HIS boss that he is not fit to be a judge. The investigation will decide.

Sorry but the CNN quote is that the jury FOUND the prof. to have been wrongly terminated. Are you contradicting it?

[Demonaura]

I don't know the whole story but, if they say that he was wrongfully terminated, then decide to give him absolutely none of the compensation he deserves (bye their ruling) I doubt they actually thought he was wrongfully terminated. Because they obviously see no reason for him to have support.

[bozo]

I don't know the whole story but, if they say that he was wrongfully terminated, then decide to give him absolutely none of the compensation he deserves (bye their ruling) I doubt they actually thought he was wrongfully terminated. Because they obviously see no reason for him to have support.

According to CNN they found he was wrongfully terminated.
It appears they didn't want to set the compensation figure but rather swerve that...for whatever reason(s).

[Tiberius]

I didn't say I'd put limitations on it, you already know I don't believe in rights per se but what I said was there was a lot more than one limitation (hate speech). I was saying it was it was more limited than the ideal you said.

Kyu

Ok, let me rephrase:

What other limitations are there on free speech (or should there be on free speech) than hate speech?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ok, let me rephrase:

What other limitations are there on free speech (or should there be on free speech) than hate speech?

Well OK then, given that you have said hate speech is not acceptable as part of free speech I would say paedophiles talking to children is unacceptable as well (whilst detestable I certainly wouldn't calls it as hatred). I assume you would class the various "isms" (racism, sexism etc.) as hate speech as well?

To my mind the whole problem with free speech is that it is free until someone says it isn't but then I suppose that's the way it is with rights anyway ... and that's why I believe that rights don't really exist, that they devolve from responsibilities.

Kyu

[Rhizomorph13]

AHHH shoot it in the head! We don't want it to bite the other threads!

[Autumnlicious]

The professor has a protected view point - the jury awarding the least possible is just a childish attempt to "punish" him because they don't like his views. Perhaps the jury needs some remedial lessons on critical thought and the nature of free speech in America - something they seem to have difficulties with.