Assistant Principal forced to resign from job. Goes nuts. Driven by Pro Life Christians

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It's been a while since I've read the constitution, can you remind me where it's written that you have a right to NOT hear someone else speaking in public?

Jaden :scratchinghead:

As someone else in this thread pointed out, in some areas it is a misdemeanor to "preach" to a captive audience in places where they cannot get out of.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: mOjOm

Because one of our fundamental rights are freedom of speech. You are also free to listen to it, or ignore it. You are NOT, however, free to limit someone else's ability to practice it.

Jaden

First of all the First Amendment is about Government censoring the speech of a person.

Second, he wasn't limiting their speech. He was using his speech to and speaking over them. He wanted them to leave, but they didn't leave. When they started to talk he would talk over the top of them by singing or whatever. He's allowed to do that just like they're allowed to.

Typical ldiot liberal, then he's blabbering about himself being gay like anyone cares, then sais the kid and Trump can go to hell what does Trump have to do with anything

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: mOjOm

Because one of our fundamental rights are freedom of speech. You are also free to listen to it, or ignore it. You are NOT, however, free to limit someone else's ability to practice it.

Jaden

First of all the First Amendment is about Government censoring the speech of a person.

Second, he wasn't limiting their speech. He was using his speech to and speaking over them. He wanted them to leave, but they didn't leave. When they started to talk he would talk over the top of them by singing or whatever. He's allowed to do that just like they're allowed to.

No he's not if he's being paid by American tax dollars he should be working, not standing there like an idiot isn't stopping anything merely attracting more attention and exposure there's an assistant principal outside being an idiot hey everyone look

originally posted by: mOjOm
...
Second, he wasn't limiting their speech. He was using his speech to and speaking over them. He wanted them to leave, but they didn't leave. When they started to talk he would talk over the top of them by singing or whatever. He's allowed to do that just like they're allowed to.

He was trying to stop them from expressing their belief in a public area, and he was doing this while still being on the clock as "an educator". His job title doesn't include stopping teenagers from expressing their belief outside of school property.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Well for one, some of what they're saying isn't correct. It's also biased and just their opinion.

It may be perfectly legal but it's not polite and in fact is really annoying and rude.

So while it may be legal for them to do nobody has to admire it at all. I don't find it admirable. I find it just as annoying as having to listen any other Self Righteous Religious person preaching nonsense in public.

If you like it, good for you, not everyone likes it. Lot's of people don't like it and it's pretty rude to push that message on people who don't want to hear it or believe something different when they didn't ask to hear it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How do you know what duties he has or what he's allowed to do while on the clock???

Show me the rule proving he's officially not allowed as you say. Otherwise I'm saying you're just making that up.

a reply to: mOjOm

Wasn't he forced to resign?... I wonder why he did resign...

BTW, I cannot prove a negative. You want to claim he had a right to do what he did, so it is in your side of the court to prove he had a right...

I heard he got a new gig in a chorus line in some off broadway production .. so it all ended well 😂 ( bad joke .. I know 😏)

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: mOjOm

BTW, I cannot prove a negative. You want to claim he had a right to do what he did, so it is in your side of the court to prove he had a right...

You mean his free speech right to talk back to them?

PS. I just finally watched the video in it's entirety and it seemed that whoever was videoing it was trying to goad him. It's hard with Google translation.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't know that he was forced to resign or not. I think he resigned on his own because the video went viral on the internet and he was probably embarrassed and felt he didn't want his actions to reflect on the school.

You're not proving a negative. You said he wasn't allowed to be out there while on the clock. That's the claim being made. If that's the case then you should be able to show a policy saying that. They aren't gong to make a policy stating what he can do for every possible situation that would be crazy. They'll just have rules for things not allowed otherwise you'd have a million rules saying what you can do instead of just a short list of stuff not to do.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Really, and unconstitutional laws can't possibly exist? How is a misdemeanor in a local municipality an answer to my question of where in the constitution it even IMPLIES, let alone explicitly states that you have the right to avoid hearing someone speaking in public?

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Where in the Constitution does it state that they have the right to be heard?
Also do you have the right to talk over me while I am trying to exercise my free speech right to talk on the phone, especially when it's important or an emergency and I couldn't get out of there?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

They didn't go to school there.

In fact the students at that school got 50,000 signatures in support of him as a teacher. He'd worked there for 13 years and was considered by everyone to be a great educator. The students made a statement that even though they didn't approve of his behavior he was just trying to protect them and that he was a great teacher.

So once again some fundies stick their noses in where it's not welcomed and a good teacher who's dedicated to his students loses his job. Oh well.

Are you really going to sit there and tell us he resigned because of his overwhelming public support?

a reply to: Tempter

No. I'm pretty sure I just said in a different post why I "think" he resigned though if you'd like to read that instead.

Apparently he did have a lot of public support over his career as being a teacher there though. Hence the 50,000 signatures and both the students and faculty's statements about him which are positive. Plus his 13 years of service.

I take that to mean he was probably a good teacher since that is what so many people are saying even though they don't have to.

I could just agree with what you think of him but since you're just one person who doesn't even know the guy and all you have is your opinion it doesn't carry the same weight as the other so I'll come to my own conclusions.

It's hard to imagine a teacher who utterly lost it in such a chilish way could be considered a good teacher .. but I guess even the best have their breaking points.

" everyone loooves a parade... carry on " 😂

I know teachers and any teacher worth their salt would have addressed this in a much calmer fashion. Why didn't he call police if he thought they were out of their right to be on that sidewalk , instead of singing chorus tunes and damning the brother and sister and aborted babies to hell ?

I also think there may have been lots of " peer " pressure involved in getting that many signatures ( you know how the PC crowd manipulates through peer pressure )

That being said if those two young adults feel that strongly about converting young people away from abortion , I really feel they are going about it the wrong way. This was a political statement about right to free speech more than it was raising concern for the unborn. They seemed more concerned with their rights than effectively getting their message heard and understood at a more heartfelt level.

The whole thing turned into biased political mudslinging and most likely didn't do much to help the cause and concerns of the brother and sister.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I don't know that he was forced to resign or not. I think he resigned on his own because the video went viral on the internet and he was probably embarrassed and felt he didn't want his actions to reflect on the school.

Or the administrative staff of the school saw the video and had a talk with him about him resigning due to his rant.

originally posted by: mOjOm
You're not proving a negative. You said he wasn't allowed to be out there while on the clock. That's the claim being made. If that's the case then you should be able to show a policy saying that. They aren't gong to make a policy stating what he can do for every possible situation that would be crazy. They'll just have rules for things not allowed otherwise you'd have a million rules saying what you can do instead of just a short list of stuff not to do.

That's not what I wrote... Now you are trying to put words in my mouth that I never uttered. Or in this case, words that I never wrote.

This man was trying to use his position in the school to stop these students who were in a public space expressing their belief and opinion. He even told them to leave the public space. When that didn't work he started insulting these students and their beliefs and opinion.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Or the administrative staff of the school saw the video and had a talk with him about him resigning due to his rant.

That's possible too.

This man was trying to use his position in the school to stop these students who were in a public space expressing their belief and opinion. He even told them to leave the public space. When that didn't work he started insulting these students and their beliefs and opinion.

Well, you've now made it clear just how little you know about this situation. Those kids aren't Students. They don't even go to that school at all.

In fact another member here was saying they were following this story on the news and according to them these kids are actually home schooled.

In either case, calling them students is incorrect.

The assistant principal might have been irresponsible but those kids' rights weren't being infringed upon.

This gentleman is the most immature educator I've seen.