Linda Rondstadt fired for supporting Michael Moore! What about freedom of Speech?

[Jaguar]

BTW, Agathon, remember our deal. If Bush gets the Boot, Hasslehoff returns.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just want a society where you can coerce people
into shutting up by threatening their livelihoods.

What do you think of the Chris Kempling case, Agathon?

Would you support Kempling over the BC College of Teachers?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What do you think of the Chris Kempling case, Agathon?

Would you support Kempling over the BC College of Teachers?

As you presumably support Kempling over any gay or lesbian students.


Note- you didn't actually respond to my earlier request for further clarification in the thread where you claimed a teacher in Canada had been fired for publishing their antigay views.

Hadn't Kempling simply been suspended for a temporary period?

And didn't he in point of fact, quit?

[Kidlicious]

Skywalker,

You have very mainstream political views. Try to think about what it would be like to have radical political views, and tell people, like your boss and your family about them.

I don't go around blabbing about my political views like I do on poly. People ask me about them and I pretend to be nonpolitical.

[Ben Kenobi]

Note- you didn't actually respond to my earlier request for further clarification in the thread where you claimed a teacher in Canada had been fired for publishing their antigay views.

Okay, I don't have it quite right.

Apparently Kempling wants to fight this ruling to the Supremes.

Yes, Kempling would have a month's suspension, but the effect would place Kempling on a blacklist, since this suspension would be on his record for 'conduct unbecoming a teacher.'

It is unlikely that he could find employment as a teacher again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's the article from World net daily.

I think this makes it all clear.

This is from the 5th of February, so I'll see if I can't find anything more recent.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36939

Suspension for 'anti-gay' opinion upheld
Teacher's letters-to-editor 'poisoned' classroom environment

------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: February 5, 2004

¿ 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A teacher suspended because he wrote published letters critical of homosexual behavior was properly punished with a one-month suspension, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Chris Kempling of Quesnel, British Columbia, was found guilty of unbecoming conduct by the B.C. College of Teachers. The panel asserted his letters to the editor, a research paper and other correspondence contained "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals."


Teacher Chris Kempling (Vancouver Sun)

Though none of the statements in question were made in class, the panel said the writings indicated the veteran teacher's attitude could poison the class environment.

One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

Justice Ronald Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday Kempling's comments were discriminatory and could reasonably cause disruption to the school system.

In a letter to supporters yesterday, Kempling said, "It is a black day for religious freedom in Canada."

According to Kempling, Holmes implied homosexual students would be unwilling to speak to him in his role as a school counselor, asserting the published comments reduced his credibility as a teacher in the eyes of students and the public.

"There was no evidence presented that this was true," Kempling said. "No evidence of a disrupted school environment was found. There were no complaints from students, parents or my supervisors."

He noted all of his former administrators wrote letters stating his public comments had no discernible impact on the operation of the school.

According to its rules, the teacher's panel does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming. The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a teacher."

The teachers said they were disturbed by Kempling's statements that homosexual relationships are unstable, 'gay' sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.

In his letter yesterday, Kempling pointed out three former students interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the University of British Columbia said they were not even aware that there was a controversy at that time.

He insists Justice Holmes ignored evidence that homosexual students received impartial service from him.

"In fact, a prominent homosexual interviewed by college investigators offered no opinion that what I had written publicly was upsetting to homosexual people," Kempling said.

He argued that the fact he was appointed to be chair of the Community Health Council by the Minister of Health during this period showed his credibility as a teacher and community leader were not impaired.

The post is the highest non-elected appointment in his city, with responsibility for over 500 employees and a $22 million budget.

Kempling said the ruling "means that teachers who happen to be Christians or who belong to other religions proscribing homosexuality may not comment publicly on this issue."

"It means that disciplinary bodies do not need to provide any evidence of impairment or harm at a professional's workplace if they exercise their right to free speech in their off-the-job capacity," he said. "Inference of harm is sufficient to remove a teacher from his job. It is a serious blow to freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Kempling said he will appeal the decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal, although the four-year battle has been tough on him and his family.

"But I am determined to see this through," he said. "I am a Christian first and a teacher second, and I will not compromise my faith or keep silent about what I believe."

Kempling appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court on the grounds that the decision violates Canadian Charter of Rights protections of freedom of expression and religion.

He argued no professional regulatory body had ever punished members for off-site conduct that had no demonstrable impact on their work.

Kempling insists a one-month suspension was particularly harsh since teachers convicted of threats, assault, theft and flashing have received only letters of reprimand.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Skywalker,

You have very mainstream political views. Try to think about what it would be like to have radical political views, and tell people, like your boss and your family about them.

I don't go around blabbing about my political views like I do on poly. People ask me about them and I pretend to be nonpolitical.

This is actually one of the smarter things posted in this thread.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaguar

This is actually one of the smarter things posted in this thread.

Thank you. That's the first time anyone ever said that what I said was smart here.

[Ben Kenobi]

And here is one of his published papers, that he has been crucified for.

Funny the stuff you find, and where you find it eh?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/article19.asp

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
The Two sides as I understand them:

Ming: Consumer choice is part of freedom of speech, and people have every right to excercise their politics within their consumer choices.

Agathon: Creating economic disinsentives for individuals who openly voice opinions other than yours undermines overall freedom of opinion.

Can I get a confirmation from each side this is correct?

You got my side right... as for his, you would have to ask him... because it usually varies as he gets his head handed to him

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Thank you. That's the first time anyone ever said that what I said was smart here.

*cough*profit=unfairtax*cough*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It is unlikely that he could find employment as a teacher again.

Hogwash.


Are you seriously suggesting one of those religious establishments south of the border wouldn't employ him, given his exemplary outspoken views critical of homosexuality?


He'd even get a pay rise, I'd think.


Self made martyrs don't impress me much, I'm afraid.

He had a duty of care not just to pupils who think the way he does but also to gay and lesbian pupils too- and the children of gay and lesbian parents. If he'd broadcast anti-semitic or holocaust denying opinions I bet you'd be 100% behind him too, right?

Suurrreee.

A teacher like him would have been a blight on my schooldays.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
They are suppressing it simply because their actions or threatened actions influence the person speaking. The idea of free speech is that you can express your political beliefs without fear of reprisal. People will not feel free to express their political beliefs if they are afraid of reprisals.

A boycot is a great way for the small guys to have the big guys listen to their opinion. That is how discussions can happen. If one side has the power or media attention, and you don't, you have to resort to proven methods to be heard. Boycotts are just another form.

So are you really saying people shouldn't have a choice on how to spend their money... Because that's all a boycott on political issues is, a choice on how to spend your money. You say boycots limit the right for free speech, but if they are allowed to the people, you are limiting there rights as well.

We have a way of sorting out our political differences. It's called the ballot. A feature of the open society is that people should feel free to express their political views without fear of reprisals in order to persuade their fellow citizens at the ballot.

A red herring... this has nothing to do with voting... that right remains no matter which side of this you are on.

People have the right and power to use economics as well to persuade people. There is a balance of rights here... Your argument is one sided, and doesn't take the other into consideration. I don't want to restrict anybodys right to voice their political opinion in a legal fashion.

If your boss can fire you because of your politics, then that places a massive constraint on free speech for the majority of ordinary Joes. it means that only those who can afford the risk will express their political opinions, and that's not everyone.

The owners of business have that right. If you were employed by the government, that would be a different story.

Whatever... No amount of bluster or accusations will hide the fact that you are seriously out of your depth in this discussion (just like last time in the copyright discussion, in which you were thoroughly owned).

Typical... claim you have won, toss a few insults, and think you have won. From my perspective, you are the one that have lost this one

If I am going to lose half my income by stating my political opinion, then that's going to make me feel reticent about expressing my political opinions. In a democratic society no one should be put in that situation.

It's your choice on whether you take a job or not... If the money is that important to you, maybe you should take a job where they believe like you do.

In the example for this thread, a tired old singer who tried to make a simple concert into a political statement, and incited a riot that didn't make her employers very happy... she lost no income, and was escorted off the property. She won't be hired by that casino again... but it's her fault.

It is not identical to speech (because it isn't speaking or conveying semantic content) and it is not the only option open. In the open society you are free to petition, protest and publish. These things are better than boycotts in that they are attempts to persuade rather than coerce.

Publishing, protests, and petitions can all be forms or coercian as well... Just like a boycott can be just a chance to be heard... Boycotts are just one method.
A newspaper printing an op ed piece can be far worse in terms of coercian...

I'm not the clueless one. You just want a society where you can coerce people into shutting up by threatening their livelihoods.

You seem to want a society where peoples rights are ristricted.

You aren't voicing an opinion by not buying a product, you are just not buying a product. If all you do is not buy the product, how is the manufacturer supposed to know your reasons for not buying it? Of course you could voice your opinion by writing or speaking to them or protesting, but that is different from merely not buying their stuff.

And they will probably just ignore your letter... it's harder for them to ignore a boycott. If you don't want to call it voicing an opinion... whatever... it's obvious to everybody else

The key statement that undermines your whole position is that, as you say, "people have to listen to you". That is why it is coercive.

But they can ignore you... People at the concert didn't have any choice, and had to listen to the message... but that doesn't make it coercive

What you want is for consumers to be able to compel people they disagree with to keep their traps shut. A society based on this premise is not one in which heretical ideas can easily flourish and is not a society that resolves its differences through open discussion and the ballot.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA... how dramitic.

All I want is right of the consumer to spend his hard earned dollars on whatever products he wants. You seem to be the one that wants to force them to buy products from companies they don't agree with...

I agree that they were within their rights to dismiss her, I merely think that this shows how some people can't handle free speech when it doesn't go their own way.

I think it shows they were pissed about have a riot and angry customers, and would probably lose money in the deal... it had nothing to do with "how some people can't free speech"

Of course it does. It simply stands to reason that if there are serious consequences with expressing your beliefs, people will be less likely to do it. The difference between a vindictive society which boycotts dissenters and a totalitarian society which imprisons them is one of degree, not of kind. Both reject the idea that people should be free to express themselves politically without fear of reprisals from others.

You call somebody a name to their face, expect that they might respond... boycotts are legitimate way to get your message across. and trying to call equate boycotts with a totalitarian society is just plain silly.

The society in which people resolve these issues at the ballot is a more open society than one in which people must live in fear of vindictive boycotts.

The boycot isn't stopping people from voting for who they want... that's why it's a "secret ballot"... so you can lose the whole ballot and open society crap... it has nothing to do with this discussion

It's about the power of each individual to express his or her political beliefs and for others to be free to accept or reject them at the ballot, not about the power of individuals to silence others with threats and boycotts.

It's also about the fight of people not to have to spend their money to support companies they don't agree with.
Boycotts are a way of making a statement, and being heard. The target of the boycot can still do whatever they want. They can listen, and maybe change their ways for economic reasons... or they can ignore them, and accept what happens... Choice on BOTH sides.

Nobody can. There are millions of products I don't buy. How are the companies supposed to know I am boycotting them unless I tell them? In that case I may as well just hold a protest.

Yeah, and they can ignore your protest... a boycott can get their attention/

Protests and other forms of dissent do this just as well. The difference is that they are non-coercive. The problem with your version is that it can just as easily be used to silence people.

But they don't work as well sometimes...

And I have a reason, you don't.

You keep saying things like that, but it seems most disagree with you on that point

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you seriously suggesting one of those religious establishments south of the border wouldn't employ him, given his exemplary outspoken views critical of homosexuality?

You concede the point that he would be blacklisted in the public school system here in BC? That is all I ask you to concede, which is an exceptional penalty.

Go ahead, sleep with your students. Just don't have any published papers arguing against homosexuality. And whatever you do, don't write a letter to the newspaper.

He'd even get a pay rise, I'd think.

Still, he has a point. Do you really want to remove all the Christian teachers from the public school system of BC? That's a self-defeating prophecy.

Self made martyrs don't impress me much, I'm afraid.

So a man who writes a letter to the editor is a self-made martyr? Only in a country that bans freedom of speech and expression.

He had a duty of care not just to pupils who think the way he does but also to gay and lesbian pupils too- and the children of gay and lesbian parents.

He had 0 complaints from homosexual students whom he counselled and taught. 0. I say he upheld his duty to his students in an exemplary way, in which he will be missed. Many teachers put their ideology over the curriculum, but Kempling is not among those.

If he'd broadcast anti-semitic or holocaust denying opinions I bet you'd be 100% behind him too, right?

If he wrote a letter to the paper?

Damn straight!

That's why we have freedom of speech in the first place.

Heck, he could go on an anti-papist rant in the paper for all I care.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You concede the point that he would be blacklisted in the public school system here in BC? That is all I ask you to concede, which is an exceptional penalty.

I don't concede anything of the sort- you're simply parroting his opinion, not a given fact. I think we might allow that his opinion of his future employment opportunities might be coloured by his predicament, and any kind of sympathy he's trying to drum up.

He wasn't fired for publishing a letter- you stated, as fact, earlier in another thread that he was.

Not all Christians think like you, and not all Christian teachers think or act like him- praise be to god.

Would he have been criticized for holocaust denying or anti-semitic remarks, yes or no?