Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Chris_Halkides]

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote, "He [Brendan Carr] told a podcast host on Wednesday that when it comes to how ABC handles Kimmel, "we can do this the easy way or the hard way." Those are usually the words of mob bosses or movie villains, not government officials tasked with ensuring our airwaves remain free and open for the American people. He's defending his threat by saying that he is merely holding them to their responsibility to serve the "public interest." This is a funhouse mirror version of the FCC's role — but without the fun. No other chairman in history has ever read the law to give the FCC authority to demand changes to particular programs or personalities."

In years past within this thread FIRE has taken some heat (IIRC from catsmate and perhaps others). I argued against this criticism by saying that they were nonpartisan in their defense of free speech.

 

[dirtywick]

without looking i’m sure i was critical of them at the time. i am happy to see they are standing for their principles

 

[d4m10n]

none of what’s happening now is a cancel mob

You don't get to add a few government officials making unconstitutional threats alongside a mob and thereby disappear the mob itself.

Also, you seem to be completely discounting grassroots efforts to get people fired or their businesses shut down. I don't have to look beyond my local animal hospital to find a (government-free) cancel mob stirring ◊◊◊◊ up. One guy even went so far as to print out the offending post on a huge banner and post himself outside the business.

 

[dirtywick]

You don't get to add a few government officials making unconstitutional threats to the mob and thereby disappear the mob itself.

i don't know if i'd describe the highest levels of office in the federal government as a few government stooges. to each their own

Also, you seem to be completely discounting grassroots efforts to get people fired or their businesses shut down. I don't have to look beyond my local animal hospital to find a (government-free) cancel mob stirring ◊◊◊◊ up.

you're right, that's a good point. i did discount the large lists being compiled, that is grass roots and comparable to cancel culture of yester year. perhaps a better way for me to frame it is a government endorsed mob. i think what's happening now is substantially different in that way.

 

[d4m10n]

I have to agree that it's substantially worse when people with real power join in, whether that power comes from government or capital.

 

[dirtywick]

I have to agree that it's substantially worse when people with real power join in, whether that power comes from government or capital.

i agree it's worse, but i think government is substantially worse. it's a betrayal of the people for the government to break it's own laws to damage people for political purposes in a way that a private organization simply isn't capable of. in fact, the only people that could ensure that the private companies are remaining without the bounds of what would be considered fair by law is the government. there's no such recourse when the government does so. it's truly a threat to free speech in a way that cancel culture, whatever the definition, is carried out in a constitutional way by private citizens couldn't possibly be.

 

[jt512]

From USA Today: "A dean at a Tennessee university was fired over social media posts saying she has "zero sympathy" for slain conservative activist, Charlie Kirk." It is a long extrapolation from this statement to assuming that she would have no sympathy for students of different political beliefs.

I have no idea why you think it is a "long extrapolation" from having no sympathy for one conservative to other conservatives. Regarless, I was just giving an example of a valid and legal reason that a dean might be fired.

Regarding the first amendment and colleges and universities see this link. Rights at primary and secondary school teachers work a little bit differently. If MTSU wants claim that their termination falls under Garcetti v. Ceballos, well, let's just say that I am skeptical.

A dean is different than an ordinary faculty member. A deanship is an administrative position in the university. As such, it doesn't have the same constitutional free speech protection as an academic position. If the dean also had a professorship (which many deans do) and she was also fired from her professorship, that would be a violation of her protected speech. But just to lose a deanship, no.

 

[jt512]

This is true for a private university, but MTSU is not that.

Campus Free Speech

These principles undergird all of PEN America’s Campus Free Speech Guide. As you use this guide, you will find additional principles and recommendations that relate to a variety of issue areas. Case studies, along with resources and advice, will allow the reader to best understand PEN America’s...

campusfreespeechguide.pen.org

That has nothing to do with the case of the Tennessee dean.

 

[d4m10n]

That has nothing to do with the case of the Tennessee dean.

Whether "public universities are beholden to principles of the First Amendment" has nothing to do with whether they can fire someone for political commentary?

 

[d4m10n]

...it doesn't have the same constitutional free speech protection as an academic position

Where is that written? Are you thinking of Garcetti v. Ceballos?

 

[jt512]

Whether "public universities are beholden to principles of the First Amendment" has nothing to do with whether they can fire someone for political commentary?

Those free speech rights don't apply to administrators in the same strict way they do to academics and students.

 

[jt512]

Where is that written? Are you thinking of Garcetti v. Ceballos?

Where is it written that a university can't fire an administrator for having "undermined the university’s credibility and reputation with our students, faculty, staff and the community at large"? Professors have protected academic freedom; administrators do not.

Here is Google AI's answer to the question, "Do university administrators have the same first amendment protections as faculty?"

"No, university administrators and faculty do not always have the same First Amendment protections, particularly concerning academic freedom. While public university administrators and faculty are government employees and their speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, administrators' speech may be limited if it is related to their official duties, unlike faculty speech, which often receives greater protection when related to teaching or scholarship.

"Why their protections differ

• Academic Freedom:
  Faculty members are granted significant academic freedom for their speech and research related to their academic work, a protection not typically afforded to administrators in their official capacity.
• Official Duties vs. Personal Speech:
  Administrators may have their speech treated as that of a public employee, meaning it can be restricted if it interferes with their job duties, even if it would be protected if said by someone else."

 

[johnny karate]

Hey look, an anti-"cancel culture" right winger is now suddenly okay with "cancel culture".

 

[johnny karate]

You don't get to add a few government officials making unconstitutional threats alongside a mob and thereby disappear the mob itself.

Also, you seem to be completely discounting grassroots efforts to get people fired or their businesses shut down. I don't have to look beyond my local animal hospital to find a (government-free) cancel mob stirring ◊◊◊◊ up. One guy even went so far as to print out the offending post on a huge banner and post himself outside the business.

The only thing that exists more in your imagination than these "mobs" is the power they have to actually do anything.

 

[d4m10n]

I think it's important to understand the relevant case law here. Public employees are barred from saying things that the government itself is barred from saying (e.g. "This university does not welcome Jews.") whenever they might be taken to be acting officially.

 

[jt512]

I think it's important to understand the relevant case law here. Public employees are barred from saying things that the government itself is barred from saying (e.g. "This university does not welcome Jews.") whenever they might be taken to be acting officially.

That has nothing to do with this case. A public university has wide latitude in firing an administrator for extramural speech that expresses a personal grievance. For extramural speech on a matter of public concern (which the Texas dean's comments would likely be), a public university can still fire an administer for a number of reasons including speech that "damages the university's mission, reputation, or public trust" or speech that "demonstrates unfitness for the job" (see here and here). Those are precisely the reasons the university president gave for firing the dean.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In 2022 Brendan Carr tweeted, "This is very concerning. The government does not evade the First Amendment’s restraints on censoring political speech by jawboning a company into suppressing it—rather, that conduct runs headlong into those constitutional restrictions, as Supreme Court law makes clear." Good point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I have no idea why you think it is a "long extrapolation" from having no sympathy for one conservative to other conservatives. Regarless, I was just giving an example of a valid and legal reason that a dean might be fired.

The dean indicated lack of sympathy for an individual, not a group.

 

[d4m10n]

For extramural speech on a matter of public concern (which the Texas dean's comments would likely be), a public university can still fire an administer for a number of reasons including speech that "damages the university's mission, reputation, or public trust" or speech that "demonstrates unfitness for the job" (see here and here). Those are precisely the reasons the university president gave for firing the dean.

Did you actually apply the Pickering-Connick test to this case?

 

[jt512]

The dean indicated lack of sympathy for an individual, not a group.

On the basis of his political ideology, obviously. And that implies that the dean would similar feel no sympathy for students of similar ideology under the dean's responsibility. The president deemed that disqualifying for the job.