Teacher suspended after anti-gay Facebook posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/jerry-buell-florida-high-_n_931941.html

I don't agree with what he said in the slightest, but it is entirely fucked up that he can be fired for that.

People dont take stuff lightly when its posted on the internet and he should be fired i guess because basically he is imposing that gays should be bullied and not accepted and hes a teacher, hes supposed to be the one opposing bullying, not supporting it. But I kinda agree with you as well, he shouldnt really be fired but maybe suspended from pay for a week or 2.

While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

Nothing on the internet is private anymore. Everything you say or type can bite you in the future, even a post in this topic.

You got to be careful what you say.

The school has a social media policy that doesn't allow for stuff like this, as do many businesses. It makes perfect sense, and he I think he should have been fired. As a teacher you are not supposed to impress your beliefs on your students. His facebook profile may have been public, or he may have had students as friends.

DeadApe wrote:The school has a social media policy that doesn't allow for stuff like this, as do many businesses. It makes perfect sense, and he I think he should have been fired. As a teacher you are not supposed to impress your beliefs on your students. His facebook profile may have been public, or he may have had students as friends.

This, pretty much.

For that reason, teachers at my school have two separate facebook profiles. One for contacting and sharing info with students, and a personal one where they won't allow students as friends. Some don't have a personal one though, but only use facebook to contact students in the first place... and majority of them don't even have facebook, which is great.

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

What he said about gays was really tame. Ridiculous he got fired for that.

what happened to freedom of speech, and "one nation under god"
wheres the america that i used to know, WHERE?

steveeeee wrote:what happened to freedom of speech, and "one nation under god"
wheres the america that i used to know, WHERE?

And where have you been for the last 50 years?

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

Freedom of speech is freedom for hate speech? C'mon.

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

Freedom of speech is freedom for hate speech? C'mon.

Yes, it is.

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

Freedom of speech is freedom for hate speech? C'mon.

Yes, it is.

So, is silencing others' freedoms of speech also considered acceptable? Mindfucking...

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

Freedom of speech is freedom for hate speech? C'mon.

Yes, it is.

So, is silencing others' freedoms of speech also considered acceptable? Mindfucking...

I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:While I also don't agree at all with what he says, he should be able to say what he wants on a Facebook page without prejudice.

He shouldn't have been fired, maybe talked to, but not fired.

Wait, someone with prejudice who expects to receive NONE in return? Anyway, I'd say it's an alright decision, like it would be if he was racist in these posts.

As long as he's not conspiring to assault or injure said people in any way, it should be fine. It's something called the 1st Amendment and he shouldn't have been fired for it.

But exceptions can be made, such as this. Legal exceptions are made all of the time. As such, if he possibly had students as facebook friends (teachers in my school district were actually encouraged to remove their pages) as stated before.

I still don't agree with him being fired. You can't control what people say and there's no point fighting a war over something that's (as I said before) not conspiring to inflict injury or assault said party.

Freedom of speech is freedom for hate speech? C'mon.

Yes, it is.

So, is silencing others' freedoms of speech also considered acceptable? Mindfucking...

I'm not sure where you're drawing that from.

Generally, hate speech contributes to suppression of the 'victims'. Oh look, it isn't such a victimless crime. :O

Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Super Mega King wrote:Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Can I make a thread that hates on black people, then?

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Can I make a thread that hates on black people, then?

No, that would go against the forums policies of trolling and flaming.

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Can I make a thread that hates on black people, then?

No, that would go against the forums policies of trolling and flaming.

Maybe this guy was essentially flaming IRL? And that can breach 'freedom of speech' with professional policies which are the equivalent of this forum's - who knows?

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Can I make a thread that hates on black people, then?

No, that would go against the forums policies of trolling and flaming.

Maybe this guy was essentially flaming IRL? And that can breach 'freedom of speech' with professional policies which are the equivalent of this forum's - who knows?

The analogy would be fair if he had stated these comments within the school or told them to his class. If you wish to make a comment about how much you hate blacks elsewhere, then by all means feel free. I won't ban you from UX.

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:Entirely irrelevant.

Freedom of speech applies to all kinds of speech whether it's hate or not.

Can I make a thread that hates on black people, then?

No, that would go against the forums policies of trolling and flaming.

Maybe this guy was essentially flaming IRL? And that can breach 'freedom of speech' with professional policies which are the equivalent of this forum's - who knows?

The analogy would be fair if he had stated these comments within the school or told them to his class. If you wish to make a comment about how much you hate blacks elsewhere, then by all means feel free. I won't ban you from UX.

If you knew I did this, observing it separate to my work activities, my racist discrimination may concern you about my character and therefore my professionalism with certain jobs. I doubt a school wants racist, sexist, or homophobic teachers - brilliant or not overall - when their negative tendencies might become unveiled.

What if he had a homosexual student, hmm? Or the topic of homosexuality was raised? Are you sure he'd be so objective? Based on his extraneous behaviour, like with teachers committing certain crimes and being fired, they've concluded he doesn't have the integrity to teach.

To them, freedom of speech or not, his statements are not exactly commendable or reflective of a respectable character.

The point when his own views ruin his objectiveness in a professional setting (ie: school) is the point that he should be fired; he should not be fired for posting comments on his facebook.

That being, I understand WHY they fired him, I just don't 100% believe it was just.

Super Mega King wrote:The point when his own views ruin his objectiveness in a professional setting (ie: school) is the point that he should be fired; he should not be fired for posting comments on his facebook.

That being, I understand WHY they fired him, I just don't 100% believe it was just.

People have an auditonium of their individuality with social media and they can't expect disrespectful behaviour to be contained EXCLUSIVELY to their room, sadly. I agree, though, that boundaries should be established between professionalism and our personal lives.

They think his behaviour has discredited his character, which exists in the professional setting as his character is also integral to his teaching (or it has them look bad if they have him employed ). It's the implications of his statements, too, and their concerns where they will lead. Theoretical, sure, and outside of setting, but they're not going to take any risks, it seems, that it'll somehow get through to his professional life or affect it.

Everyone should know, though, that every employer is the same legally to protect their reputation that staff sustain. Just? I think it was right for them to not take any chances with a person who's viably homophobic, as there's too much of a chance it'll be transferred to his professional life. I mean, he's teaching, not packing metals or serving tea.