Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

Posted
3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

This.  Is this even a question?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  Is this even a question?

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

What is the basis for this statement? How do you read the current case law on the subject and come away with "its not complicated?" Which case gives you that certainty? 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. 

 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Exactly 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Hat tip to Rex and Euro for executing an all-time great moron-to-moron alley-oop.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

I think it means what it's always meant.  You can say what you want, but there are consequences.  Even as a state employee, funding sources will always vary, but you are still operating under the umbrella of a state institution.  

Posted
17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s not at all nuanced. This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Y’all are some partisan morherfuckers. 

My question has jack shit to do with partisanship, you twit.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Not at all. This professor can do whatever the fuck he wants and so can I. Your actions are always at the mercy of the whims of your employer. And it does not matter where the funds come from to pay professors; UT functions as a private employer. I can’t believe this is being discussed.*

*@Hank_Hillimage.gif.0a0777ef7e22e01a7281e91aa4d886c3.gif


And I haven’t disagreed with this?  Look up a few posts.  My point being that it might be possible that governemnt employees are held to a higher standard than private sector ones?  A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Total. Bullshit. 

Holy shit, I actually lean towards university employees NOT having carte blanche to say whatever the fuck they want.  (Tenured professors might muddy that argument.)

You really are a piece of work.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

He’s not shielded any more than I am just by virtue of being a state employee.

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. See, e.g., Pickering v. Board of Education and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I am anti-protestor, pro-Israel, and believe precisely what I said. State employees by and large are morons. This is not exclusive to college professors. 

Right.  You're a far-right piece of shit.  We already knew that, but at least you're consistent.

The irony of a simp like you wading into a legitimate discussion and flinging poo is not lost on anyone.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Nah. Tell you what fucko - let’s place a wager on it. Put your money where your looney lips are. 

You off your meds or something?

There's a shitload of case law on this issue. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

Happy to wager you too. 

On what? That's its not a complicated issue with nuances in case law? 

Or is your position that if this employee does not prevail in a lawsuit, that proves that the law is straightforward?

How many weird hills a week do you die on?

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You can call me far right if you’d like. I’m very anti Trump. The current environment, which includes this Board, is pushing me further and further right at a good pace. 

Lulz.  You're letting a message board push you farther right.  Way to stand your ground, Chomsky.

Posted

It literally took 2 minutes googling @BrickHorn's first reference to see the differing judicial rulings involved.  Illinois state court ruled in favor of the school board, Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, US Supreme Court overturned.

Sure, there's no nuance here.

 

Posted
49 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

Maybe compare someone in the private sector that is as high profile as a judge - such as a CEO or small biz owner.  If vocal, both will suffer the backlash.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

That Heynan will not prevail for a multitude of reasons. 

The conversation everyone else was having involved the first amendment's applicability when it comes to public employees, and how the analysis is different in regard to public vs. private employers.

Why you repeatedly responded with certainty to posts NOT discussing whether Heynan will prevail is curious.

Let me give you an example to help you understand:

"Well, the patient has been shot through the abdomen, and the procedure is complicated and risky. The chances of survival will depend largely on what we find during surgery."

"LOL doc, that's completely retarded and you're wrong. I'll bet you he survives."

"Ok?"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

Is it really controversial on this board that the employee was fired?  I saw the video last week.  It's a bad look.  Not an employment lawyer so not weighing in on all this first amendment talk but I'll be pretty surprised if he wins this.  I don't think first amendment prevents you from being fired for acting like an asshole on camera (unless you have contracted around that) regardless of your employer.

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe compare someone in the private sector that is as high profile as a judge - such as a CEO or small biz owner.  If vocal, both will suffer the backlash.  

Here's Amy Wax. Professor at a private university. Still employed.

Quote

Amy Wax, a law professor, has said publicly that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites,” that the country is “better off with fewer Asians” as long as they tend to vote for Democrats, and that non-Western people feel a “tremendous amount of resentment and shame.”

At the University of Pennsylvania, where she has tenure, she invited a white nationalist to speak to her class. And a Black law student who had attended UPenn and Yale said that the professor told her she “had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action,’” according to the administration.

Professor Wax has denied saying anything belittling or racist to students, and her supporters see her as a truth teller about affirmative action, immigration and race. They agree with her argument that she is the target of censorship and “wokeism” because of her conservative views.

Quote

After some students called for her firing, conservative media rallied, allowing Professor Wax to spread her views across the conservative firmament over the years, including writing for The Wall Street Journal and appearing on Tucker Carlson’s daytime show on Fox Nation.

Along the way, her rhetoric grew more extreme. She has described some non-Western countries as “shitholes” and stated that “women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men.”

Speaking with Mr. Carlson last year, she said “American Blacks” and people from non-Western countries feel shame for the “outsized achievements and contributions” of Western people.

On a recent podcast, she said, “I often chuckle at the ads on TV which show a Black man married to a white woman in an upper-class picket-fence house,” she said, adding, “They never show Blacks the way they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out. Kids by different men.”

 

Edited by Foosters
Posted
14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Here's Amy Wax. Professor at a private university. Still employed.

Quote

This seem to be more about hiding behind tenure.  Something neither a judge nor CEO has.  Is the case against her still ongoing?

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

Terrible analogy. His firing isn’t complicated. 

The law surrounding first amendment protections for gov't employees is. Which is what you have been arguing against all day.

Posted
44 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Is it really controversial on this board that the employee was fired?  I saw the video last week.  It's a bad look.  Not an employment lawyer so not weighing in on all this first amendment talk but I'll be pretty surprised if he wins this.  I don't think first amendment prevents you from being fired for acting like an asshole on camera (unless you have contracted around that) regardless of your employer.

Where did you see the video? All I ever saw posted was a still photograph. Would you mind reposting the video so it's easier to judge?

 

23 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Here's Amy Wax. Professor at a private university. Still employed.

Doxxing Johnny Sack like that is uncool, man.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

That Heynan will not prevail for a multitude of reasons. 

Not really. That’d be society. Of which Surly is a part. 

Are you even aware of what you’re arguing?

Posted
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

This is pretty cut and dried. Sounds like there’s a group of y’all willing to battle UT on this homeless looking dude’s behalf, like you’d envy being in that position. I strongly suspect the facts of any case law you link and the facts from Ol’ Dick are night and day. But by all means, continue to speak on how complicated it is. 

Apparently you are not aware what you’re even arguing

Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

You can call me far right if you’d like. I’m very anti Trump. The current environment, which includes this Board, is pushing me further and further right at a good pace. 

 

Happy to wager you too. 

Goddamn you are stupid

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Wow, look at that! Even more arrests with charges getting dropped because the cops were just out there to silence speech that abbott didn't like

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/26/university-of-texas-protesters-79-charges-dropped/

 

Criminal charges were dropped against 79 people arrested at a pro-Palestinian demonstration at the University of Texas at Austin on April 29. Travis County Attorney Delia Garza announced the charges would be dismissed at a press conference on Wednesday.

The protesters were charged with criminal trespass, a Class B misdemeanor. Although the arrests met the initial requirements for probable cause, the County Attorney’s Office could not meet their legal burden to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, Garza said.

...

The police crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests on April 24 and April 29 at the University of Texas at Austin are part of a larger wave of law enforcement and university administrators responding to pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses across the country. Gov. Greg Abbott and other state leaders lauded the arrests, calling the protests “hate-filled and anti-semitic.” Abbott ordered the Department of Public Safety to help UT-Austin police crack down on the protests.

“The decisions that were made in response to these protests continue to show, as I’ve said before, the severe lack of leadership we expect from our leaders, as they continue to prioritize extreme government overreach over actual public safety,” Garza said.

Edited by Captainant
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Dipshit Garza was always going to drop the charges And blame the police regardless. It’s who he is. 
 

You have found your champion. 

This is a different Garza. The chick one. 

Posted

Yeah, this isn’t like a transgender thing.  Delia is a female name in Spanish.  Totally different prosecutor than who you’re thinking of C/S.  
 

Hartzell looked very tense yesterday at the Schloss PC.  I think because of how these cases would play out.  

Posted

The fact that UT PR released a letter calling out the County Attorney and how disappointed they were was pretty shocking.  From the pressers / comms out of the County Attorney's office, it really looks like she's incapable of doing her job rather than there being a political motive behind it.

Posted
2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Dipshit Garza was always going to drop the charges And blame the police regardless. It’s who he is. 
 

You have found your champion. 

I mean, can you read?

Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

image.png.222ddecb662fda754ce70f78e34833df.png

Yeah....the thing I don't get is how both things can be true: 1) a shitload of the protesters are dipshits, uninformed, misinformed, assholes, etc.....AND 2) the governor dispatched the gestapo to crush speech that he didn't like, and that gestapo beat up and arrested people for that reason.

Separate the fact that you don't like the protestors' viewpoint from what was done to them.  Doesn't matter if they were protesting for Palestine, Hamas, Israel, or against the outrage of people who serve fruit cobbler WITHOUT ice cream on top.  The State doesn't get to dispatch the gestapo to go out and crack skulls and arrest them all because the State (or more specifically, certain state leaders) don't like the message.

Both things can be true: the protesters are assholes who took a shitty position, AND the gestapo overstepped fucking big time.  Disliking the protestors and their message doesn't require you to become a bootlicker....being a bootlicker is something you affirmatively choose to do, and plenty around here are doing it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

^
This.  Most of these kids are/were uninformed dipshits trying to seem "edgy."  A few broke some rules and punished accordingly.  But most of 'em, dumb as they are, were peacefully demonstrating.  The police/prosecutors dropped almost all the charges, the Tower has 'reinstated' almost all of them, the BoR and Chancellor's staff have quiet said 'sorry, our bad.' 

Vast as their colossal ignorance of the Middle East is, these students were just bench-warmers between the "Cool Guy Coach" and the guy at the end of the pine hoping to be noticed by doing something outlandish.  I hope these kids wise up, but in the end they were just characters in a performative gesture by one asshole trying to get another asshole's attention.  That's all this really was.  Hartzell and Milliken got caught up in it when they had more important shit to do so Eltife and the guy who appointed him could get validation from some Florida citrus product.  

Posted
25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 people who serve fruit cobbler WITHOUT ice cream on top. 

Both things can be true: the protesters are assholes who took a shitty position, AND the gestapo overstepped fucking big time.

If peach cobbler without ice cream doesn't enrage you... I've lost all my past respect for you.

Speaking of cobbling and boot licking.. convince me I'm wrong for being a boot licker:

Spoiler

images(3).jpeg.dbc1e25de65de3b15c61252a21237048.jpeg

OH to stay in topic, I think the Texas Professor was probably in breach of his agreement, but also probably innocent of the charges. I disagree with him being in attendance of this event, and recognize the University's right to fire him. I'm torn on if they should and want more data points (video) to help me determine where I fall, but I disagree with his joining in a broad stroke.

Doesn't change my position on cobbler without ice cream. That's fucking an unjustified travesty of wasted deliciousness. Anyone doing that should be fired, immediately.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 5/15/2024 at 6:40 AM, Sealtm6 said:

It would be wild if Israel were actually funding Hamas to create the impetus to completely destroy Gaza and then take over all the land.  

I missed this old-fashioned crafty Jews conspiracy remark upon first read of this page.  Way to stick with the classics, arschloch.

  • Haha 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

What.  Ever. The right decisions were made in Austin. Good. 

Including the decision not to prosecute?  Or are you good with it all right up till then, and THEN, well, they got it all wrong?

 

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

I eat cobbler without ice cream all the time, fuck you Brisket

In my future dictatorship, you'll be one of the first ones to the gallows.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

And you REALLY don't want to hear my edict about assholes who serve red beans and rice without sausage.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...