free speech question

[e.e.]

i think that everyone here who has any sense at all can agree that the first amendment, at a minimum, guarantees freedom of political speech. so, what to do with a tsa employee who is a vocal proponent of al quaeda, osama bin laden, or the palestinians? should such a person be allowed to retain, or obtain, their government post as an airport security official? what is the line, or is there a constitutional arguement for non-retention?

[/dev/null]

there is a definite constitutional argument for non-retention. its a conflict of interest. that person's religous and/or cultural beliefs conflict with their abilty to adequately perform ther job

 

at the very least an employee such as that should be re-assigned to a position they are able to perform without a conflict of interest

[e.e.]

i think that everyone here who has any sense at all can agree that the first amendment, at a minimum, guarantees freedom of political speech.  so, what to do with a tsa employee who is a vocal proponent of al quaeda, osama bin laden, or the palestinians?  should such a person be allowed to retain, or obtain, their government post as an airport security official?  what is the line, or is there a constitutional arguement for non-retention?

341649[/snapback]

 

but say the only conflict is his political views on al quaeda, and he wants to remain an airport security screener...the guy has no other job performance or character issues.....should he be allowed to keep or get a job as a security screener? if not, why is it constitutionally acceptable?

[Wacka]

Not in a time of war, and like it or not we are at war.

Can them at the ;east and keep an eye on them.

[Berg]

i think that everyone here who has any sense at all can agree that the first amendment, at a minimum, guarantees freedom of political speech.  so, what to do with a tsa employee who is a vocal proponent of al quaeda, osama bin laden, or the palestinians?  should such a person be allowed to retain, or obtain, their government post as an airport security official?  what is the line, or is there a constitutional arguement for non-retention?

341649[/snapback]

 

Your scenario has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[slothrop]

Your scenario has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

341727[/snapback]

 

Exactly, anyone who as studied labor and employment law knows that as an employee you have no free speech rights, even as a public employee (I recognize this is a general statement that has some exceptions, but is largely true).

[blzrul]

I'm not concerned about what this person might SAY but how he or she would fulfill their jobs as providers of security...given that they support an organization whose sole purpose is to kill westerners.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm not concerned about what this person might SAY but how he or she would fulfill their jobs as providers of security...given that they support an organization whose sole purpose is to kill westerners.

341836[/snapback]

 

wouldn't be my first choice for employee of the month.

[blzrul]

wouldn't be my first choice for employee of the month.

341839[/snapback]

No kidding. Focusing on what was coming out of his / her mouth is the LEAST of our worries. What's going on in his head, and what he's doing about, is a much greater danger.

 

But there are always those superficial people who focus on the tip of the iceberg.....

[Adam]

i think that everyone here who has any sense at all can agree that the first amendment, at a minimum, guarantees freedom of political speech.  so, what to do with a tsa employee who is a vocal proponent of al quaeda, osama bin laden, or the palestinians?  should such a person be allowed to retain, or obtain, their government post as an airport security official?  what is the line, or is there a constitutional arguement for non-retention?

341649[/snapback]

 

All the first ammendment gives is the guarantee that the government will not make a law to restrict free speech- but anyone can restrict speech or expression, and do it VERY legally.....for example, the Bills could kick out fans cheering for Miami....wouldn't be practical, but they have the right to do it.

[RkFast]

No kidding.  Focusing on what was coming out of his / her mouth is the LEAST of our worries.  What's going on in his head, and what he's doing about, is a much greater danger.

 

But there are always those superficial people who focus on the tip of the iceberg.....

341872[/snapback]

 

Maybe its beyond my level of "unenlightened" thinking, but in my 34 years on this Planet, Ive noticed that what comes out of someone's mouth is usually a good marker as to what they are thinking and what kind of a person he or she is.

[blzrul]

Maybe its beyond my level of "unenlightened" thinking, but in my 34 years on this Planet, Ive noticed that what comes out of someone's mouth is usually a good marker as to what they are thinking and what kind of a person he or she is.

341979[/snapback]

Your faith in the veracity and trustworthiness of all humankind is heartwarming and, coming from you, quite an expected surprise.

 

People lie. People confess to crimes they didn't commit. People exaggerate. People say things they don't mean. Not infrequently as a matter of fact. The 9/11 murderers somehow managed to live quietly and undetected, enough to successfully complete their mission, in part by keeping their mouths shut.

 

Were they any less dangerous because they did so?