Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#141

Post by mjamil »

claytongulick wrote: post #73
ceejayoz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the last 3 years we had government officials directing, in very strong language, various tech companies on what was and was not allowed on their platforms. And, as is their First Amendment right, those tech companies frequently responded with "no". This is very clear from the Twitter Files information, even if the journalists involved glossed over that point. For example: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/38…

Case history and law are very clear about how the first amendment can be violated by even subtle pressure from the government. I recommend reading judge Doughty's decision [1]. It's a long read, but well worth your time. [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

I disagree. Case history is absolutely not clear about the difference between government encouraging action by companies vs. forcing said action, and whether the former is explicitly permissible.

I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#142

Post by ceejayoz »

bachmeier wrote: post #112
ceejayoz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be a public employee without being a direct report to the Governor.

Well I get that, but I'm curious what would be the "government employees' work product" in this case, using the Supreme Court's chosen phrase. The case you linked is about someone doing their job in a way that his bosses thought was wrong. It just happened to involved speech. I don't see the connection to this case. To the extent that the criticism of the politician was related to that person's work duties, it's beca…

The work product of a state university professor is, in part, their lectures.

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin has it right in this regard - that public educators have a specific First Amendment need/exception to be able to teach facts their chain of command doesn't appreciate - but it doesn't yet apply in Texas.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#143

Post by mjamil »

claytongulick wrote: post #80
ceejayoz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you. Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction. For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a…

> Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation That's probably not true. Volumes of case law support that even subtle pressure from the government to influence speech is a first amendment violation.

Clayton, you've made this claim a couple of times. Do you mind citing specific decisions?

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#144

Post by SauciestGNU »

treis wrote: post #132
lokar wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tellingly, the school won’t say

What does that tell us?

If there were anything remotely objectionable, the conservative officials would be screaming it from the rooftops so they didn't instead look like thin-skinned petty fascists.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#145

Post by smsm42 »

burnte wrote: post #135
marcusverus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget California, where faculty is effectively required to engage in progressive political speech! https://archive.is/VDNPj

[flagged]

Forced participation in DEI is well beyond "equality of all citizens". In fact, if you notice, the very word "equality" is banned there - you must say "equity", because equality is not enough. As Kendi teaches us, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination". I don't think this has anything to do with "equality" - and yes, the fact that people are required to participate in this discrimination, advocate it and advance it, lead efforts to implement it, and "develop and implement a pedagogy and/or curriculum that promotes a race-conscious lens" - yes, I think this is as bad as banning a person from criticizing the government. In fact, it's worse - at least it doesn't force you to publicly agree with the government and actively lead the efforts to conform to the government and implement the government diktats and government-led discrimination in your pedagogical and scientific endeavors. At least the silence could be you refuge. It is worse when even a silent disagreement is declared to be "violence".

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#146

Post by mjamil »

vel0city wrote: post #131
mikeyouse wrote: post #34

It's worth knowing more details than the headline here: 1. Professor Joy Alonzo, who's an expert in Opiod harm-reduction gave a talk where according to all accounts, she mildly critiqued the Lt. Governor and state's preferences for punitive approaches for drug control and that they are considered Federal non-reporters on Opioid stats since they don't collect the data required. 2. Dawn Buckingham, the TX Land Commissi…

I don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violatio…

Are you arguing that a teacher at a public university doesn't have 1FA rights when teaching or giving their opinion on a subject they're an expert on?

I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they choose.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#147

Post by groby_b »

confoundcofound wrote: post #59
Animats wrote: post #26

Crackdowns on free speech are increasing worldwide. Afghanistan, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Florida, Texas... Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...

This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example. People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you fr…

That argument is, of course, nonsense.

First, private and public censorship are fundamentally different due to power balances. The government is enjoined from censorship except in very carefully defined circumstances. Private entities are allowed to censor except in carefully defined circumstances.

Conflating the two is the thing that shifts the Overton Window.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#148

Post by whynotmaybe »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #125
confoundcofound wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example. People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you fr…

Free speech doesn't mean free of consequences of your speech. You can say whatever you want but if it offends your employer, don't be surprised if they fire you.

Not really, I wrote fired, not jailed.

Free speech doesn't mean that the others have to listen to you and agree with you, it means that you can say it and not have your freedom of movement restricted because of it. The exact opposite of what many dictators do.

There are no country on earth with "full" free speech because there are always limitations especially regarding threats to the safety of others.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#149

Post by mgraczyk »

vel0city wrote: post #131
mikeyouse wrote: post #34

It's worth knowing more details than the headline here: 1. Professor Joy Alonzo, who's an expert in Opiod harm-reduction gave a talk where according to all accounts, she mildly critiqued the Lt. Governor and state's preferences for punitive approaches for drug control and that they are considered Federal non-reporters on Opioid stats since they don't collect the data required. 2. Dawn Buckingham, the TX Land Commissi…

I don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violatio…

There is a 9th circuit carve out for certain faculty speech in Demers v. Austin. Doesn't apply here but I think something like this could become a test case if she is fired?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#150

Post by ceejayoz »

smsm42 wrote: post #130
bozhark wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel just removed their judicial branches ability to review government actions. The hose just got a lot bigger.

This is not at all what happened. What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. Since Israel has no Constitution (it has some Basic Laws, but they don't cover much) the Supreme Court has been increasingly intervening into politics - including appointments, government decisions, policies, etc. - much…

> What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government.

This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform

> The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members.

> Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight.

> The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.

Post reply on HN