Put in jail for speech. Yes, in the USA.

[CaptainManacles]

Nope. Unless you can show precedent, you're wrong.

Precent has nothing to do with anything I said. I never made any claims about the legality of his actions. Put some effort into improving your reading comprehension, both for his statements and mine.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Now that's a finer line. "Chavez should die", according to Pat Robertson. Maybe he should. Is saying that illegal?

The killing is probably illegal. That doesn't mean it's illegal to discuss whether it's proper to kill someone as part of a particular goal.

Or does it? Is it illegal to say, "If you hate your wife, kill her, and your problems will be over."

There's a difference between saying someone should die and saying someone should be murdered. I can say "I hope Chavez has a heart attack" That's quite different from saying "Someone should poison him".

I think there's also a difference in the degree of specificity between saying something about wives in general, and picking out a specific organization, like the teacher's union. Though I suppose that statement *could* be directed at someone specific. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who ends up in hot water over such a remark.

 

[rwguinn]

There's a difference between saying someone should die and saying someone should be murdered. I can say "I hope Chavez has a heart attack" That's quite different from saying "Someone should poison him".

I think there's also a difference in the degree of specificity between saying something about wives in general, and picking out a specific organization, like the teacher's union. Though I suppose that statement *could* be directed at someone specific. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who ends up in hot water over such a remark.

So, for someone who has had a bad experience with the legal system, saying
"The first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" should also be arrested?

In the part of the world I come from, that is the same thing.

"Them 'ol boys needs a good shootin'" "All politicians outta be shot" are common sentiments for people who have absolutely no intention of any follow through, nor are they advocating that anyone do it. It is an expression of disgust with a system that is not working the way one thinks it should, or wishes it would.


If you look for things to be offended by, you will find them. If you look for loopholes in the law to oppress those not in power, you can find them

"

 

[BPSCG]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Protected from government punishment, but should it protect him from his employer's saying, "You showed an appalling lack of judgment that reflects badly on us, so good-bye"?

Mind you, I don't entertain any serious doubt that what he was trying to do was satirize the opponents of the teacher pay raise, that he absolutely had no intention of killing anyone, or even inciting anyone to take up his weapons and slay.

But Mark Twain could have told him that satire can be a very sharp knife, that cuts so sharply that people don't feel, or recognize the cut. And if you're not careful...

My take: An unambiguous apology

... meaning, no blaming the people who read his post, e.g., "I'm sorry you were offended..."

for being a bonehead is in order, upon which the matter should be dropped.

 

[Loss Leader]

My take: An unambiguous apology

... meaning, no blaming the people who read his post, e.g., "I'm sorry you were offended..."

for being a bonehead is in order, upon which the matter should be dropped.

Considering that you are usually far, far more libertarian than I am, I'm a little undone by your opinion. I think everybody involved should just go to hell. I guess I'd agree to the apology if it really would make the entire matter go away.

 

[fishbob]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Do you really want the government to apply this kind of logic, then chase down and prosecute this kind of speech?

Might as well kiss free speech goodbye.

 

[CaptainManacles]

So, for someone who has had a bad experience with the legal system, saying
"The first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" should also be arrested?

In the part of the world I come from, that is the same thing.

"Them 'ol boys needs a good shootin'" "All politicians outta be shot" are common sentiments for people who have absolutely no intention of any follow through, nor are they advocating that anyone do it. It is an expression of disgust with a system that is not working the way one thinks it should, or wishes it would.


If you look for things to be offended by, you will find them. If you look for loopholes in the law to oppress those not in power, you can find them

"

Well, first, is saying "first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" really as obviously sarcastic as "those columbine kids had the right idea"? And I do think there is a difference between someone saying someone should be killed, and pointing to someone who commited mass murderer outside the law and saying "those people had the right idea", however, I will admit those are both rather weak points.

But my initial point wasn't even that it should be illegal, or even that they should be arrested, and I even said if they were clearly being sarcastic then it was an overreaction. I did generally imply that the thread title was a little more fire and brimstone then reality would dictate, and that this certainly wasn't as bad as it gets, which are both true. No one is knocking down doors and dragging people out in black bags, but you have a valid point about this likely being more related to power issues then any consistent legal doctorine. If the statement had been "all trenchcoat wearing teenagers should be....yada yada" then I doubt they would have batted an eye. But very few people are going to complain about hauling someone away who said bad things about teachers.

 

[epeos76]

Now that the teacher's identity is known, I don't have a problem with him being disciplined. Local government is responsible for its employees' conduct. A private employee would certainly expect to be fired for creating that much ill will and associating it with the company.

Firing a public school teacher is government action limited by the first amendment, but I think there is plenty of precedent protecting school boards' discretion to hire and fire. I'm not an expert on free speech, but I vaguely recall a case in which a teacher was fired more or less for protesting budget cut backs.

Is this a good rule? It puts broad authority in the hands of schools boards, but at the end of the day, they are elected officals answerable to us. As long as speech is not a crime, I think a community should be allowed some latitude in determining standards for public employees.

I think there's a limit to how much privacy and freedom can be protected by fiat. At some point, people have to act like they value these things without coercion. There are clearly cases where we would want the police to identify and question an obviously disturbed poster. I think the most frustrating part of this affair is that the IP company gave up the teacher's information without requiring the police to apply for a subpoena - a minimal test. It's also frustrating that the police failed to show any respect for the confidential information they received or for this guy's reputation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

Hey, we agree!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

Twice in one thread even!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The "Boots and Sabers" blog has a post and comments on the incident including what the guy actually posted as opposed to reading it second hand from the reporter. It does add one more detail, "the the complaint was filed by a member of the West Bend school administration." It could be that unless it was a frivolous charge, the police were obligated to make the arrest. They could possibly have given the guy a summons and not booked him. Some police districts though, have special rules about mandatory arrests when assault charges or threats are asserted by one person against another. Such laws stem from past police handling of domestic violence incidents.

Here's the original blog entry:

School Compensation DB

The MJS has provided this handy database to look at all of the salaries, including benefits, for a whole slew of public school districts. Take a gander at your local district. ...

# 35 - [removed by administrator]
Posted by Observer on November 16, 2007 at 1850 hrs

The salary database is linked if you go to the blog link.

Under comments from "about me" on the blog site the author writes: "Politically, I tend to be libertarian on domestic issues, and somewhere to the right of "bomb them back to the Stone Age" on foreign policy issues." That might give some idea about what flavor blog this is. There's a lot of this kind of thing in some of those right wing social circles. Mostly guys with the attitude being a big bully solves all ills.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.

If you live in Wisconsin, you're not alone, because median household income in the state declined by $2,226, to $45,956 in 2004-'05, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:

Bonnie Laugerman Subject Coordinator $103,285, $39,142

David Lodes District Administrator $138,433, $43,007

William Andrekopoulos District Administrator $169,680, $55,307

I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!


Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.

 

[gnome]

The thing about the phrase "The first thing we do, let's shoot all the lawyers" is that the person that said it was NOT trying to describe a desirable society, IIRC. It shows how much trouble you get into trying to regulate speech by its content. It needs to be avoided in all but the most egregious cases of verbal "endangerment"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:



I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!


Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.

Geesh Jerome, could you have found a more atypical example to distort the facts with.

You picked a school in some very well financed location. The PTA at the public elementary school here in Bill Gate's neighborhood raised $100,000 at their $50/plate silent auction. One of the items auctioned off was a "Limo ride for your child to their grade school graduation". That's all you have here, some rich kids' school in a public school district.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:



I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!


Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.

Those aren't teachers, they are administrators. There's a difference.

Table 1. Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers,

22 WISCONSIN 44,299

Ta da, less than the average salary.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Ta da, less than the average salary.

Less then the median household income. And is that salary before or after accounting for the fact that they only work 2/3 of the year?

 

[3point14]

I guess the police can arrest anybody they want but I cannot believe he'll be charged and I lack the requisite whimsy to even imagine he'd ever be convicted.

Arising from this is the question 'Why was he arrested in the first place?'

Surely any officer who arrests someone who obviously will never be charged or brought to trial, much less be convicted, should be subject to some sort of censure?

Could it be interpreted as harassment?

 

[Kerberos]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

And what happened to the average household size in that period?

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:

Yes, because those are typical teachers.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Those aren't teachers, they are administrators. There's a difference.

Table 1. Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers,



Ta da, less than the average salary.

The NEA has an interest in massaging those numbers low.

I would like to see how they derived those numbers before taking them as anything other than propaganda.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ta da, less than the average salary.

The Number you are making a comparison to is household income, not individual salary.