It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida Atlantic University Wants To Fire Professor Who Denies Sandy Hook Massacre

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: JdSmith
a reply to: angeldoll
here is a link to his blog, no where does it say that i have found he represents the school position on it.

as a matter of fact here's his disclaimer.

Disclaimer The views expressed in all posts and comments on memoryholeblog.com, scoopfeed.net and checkinitout.com do not reflect the opinions or positions of any institution or entity. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the authors and original comment posters. Comments are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of Memory Hole Blog. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The site’s owner is not responsible for the content of websites linked in any way from Memory Hole Blog.



You're right, it doesn't he's advancing the university's position. But he clearly establishes his link to the university on his website. The university has a right to protect itself. Perhaps if he had left all references to the university off his page it might be different. But this is no different than an employee of any other company making it clear who they work for before they engage in questionable and/or illegal acts.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JdSmith
a reply to: Klassified

but as i said, he never claimed to be representing the school, even when it wasn't clear if he was or wasn't the school just gave him a reprimand. is not one entitled to their thoughts and freedom of speach in that

and it appears that he did fix that problem see my post to angeldoll.
is not one entitled to their thoughts and freedom of speech in this case if he complied to the schools reprimand.

Understood. And as i said, I am staunch when it comes to free speech. The question is, whether or not the school has a right to expect their employees to be an asset, rather than a liability. I think, within reason, they do.

If I were this guys employer, I'd be looking at the ramifications of his actions to my business. If he is hurting that business, I'm going to use every legally available means to put a stop to it. I would think this would be any employers right.
edit on 12/18/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: intrptr

Remember the flap about whether it happened or not? People couldn't put eyes on any forensics evidence from the murder scene, autopsy photos, so they were building a conspiracy case of no case.

Right here on ATS, too. I remember the threads.

The reason they didn't allow any of this in the public realm was because the scene in that classroom was just to horrific to show. Most people don't realize what ballistics from a 5.56 NATO round can do to human flesh.


I call bull. I am not a theorist on Sandy Hook, but that is about as lame of an excuse as I've ever seen. You can pull up all kinds of videos and photos of brutal imagery showing people at their worst. Beheadings. Gun shots. Suicides. Accidents. No all of a sudden, we are concerned about showing crime scene photos?

I get it the crime is sensitive involving so many children, but this isn't the first time there have been pictures of dead kids. If anything, you'd think the anti-gunners would want to show the crime scene to tug at the heart strings of people to push their gun confiscation agenda.


Apparently some people don't care to use pictures of dead kids to advance their cause.

And frankly the very suggestion that anti-gunners would like to show everybody pictures of kids that have been shot to hell shows just how deranged some of the SH hoax crowd is.

"God, just show us the pictures of the kids with still wet blood on them then we'd totally believe you."

No you wouldn't, so whatever.



What is it that progressives are always saying, "If we can just save one child... it's for the children." No one seemed to complain about that photo of that dead kid washed up on the beach as propaganda to try to convince countries to take in Syrian refugees.

The surest way to shut up conspiracy theorist is to be transparent. All this hiding of photos, reports, etc does is pour more fuel on the fire to those who say it didn't happen. The cover up is often worse than the crime...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Although un-gracefully, he made his point, the parents have nothing to offer to prove Sandy Hook wasn't a fake event.
No one does, Sandy Hook was a faked event and we should all be glad that those innocents didn't die.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Before Tracy sent the Pozners anything Lenny Pozner had Youtube take down various videos containing pics of Noah Pozner claiming DMCA copyright infringement. Tracy was asking for (and never got) proof of copyright ownership. Instead, Pozner has tried to portray this as harassment.

Freedom of speech is pretty much dead, or if you want to keep your job it is.
This is no longer the America I grew up in that's all I know.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Before Tracy sent the Pozners anything Lenny Pozner had Youtube take down various videos containing pics of Noah Pozner claiming DMCA copyright infringement. Tracy was asking for (and never got) proof of copyright ownership. Instead, Pozner has tried to portray this as harassment.

Freedom of speech is pretty much dead, or if you want to keep your job it is.
This is no longer the America I grew up in that's all I know.


Where's your proof of this claim?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes you are correct, a business isn't held accountable to "innocent until proven guilty" and Florida is a work at will state.

but it is plain to see that his termination is clearly resulting from his freedom of speech ( his views on certain subjects). plus being a tenured professor, i would expect he has a contract, and if so they have to show just cause.

Just cause / Use in US labor union contracts

now if he has placed a disclaimer on his site and no mention of where he works, ( which i have read all the about and home pages on his site and have yet any mention of the school, if it's there i have missed it.) or claim that he represents the school's opinion in any way. and if they want to say it's a morality deal,( remember i agree he's just a scumbag), wouldn't that be the same as firing someone who says they think that( insert any hot button issue here) else is wrong/ didn't happen and they demand who ever and send letters to people that are involved in those, be the same.

you see what i mean, as far as we know he hasn't broken any laws, he has not been convicted of harassment. he responded to the reprimand and his disclaimer plainly states that his site does not represent, opinions or positions of any institution or entity.

to me just because he holds certain views, and is not promoting them in classes or claiming to represent the schools opinion, and has not been found guilty of a crime that would prevent him from teaching his class, they shouldn't be firing him.

only if the employer(school) can show that he violated one of their policies and continued to do so should he be terminated.






edit on 18-12-2015 by JdSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JdSmith

But he's being accused of harassment and employers are more than able to fire you based on accusations if they don't want to associate themselves with hiring people who do those things (even allegedly).

More reading:
FAU takes steps to fire prof who said Sandy Hook was a hoax

First more about the incident in 2013:

An FAU administrator said in 2013 that Tracy’s actions resulted in a number of negative consequences for the school. But officials determined at the time that he couldn’t be fired for views he expressed on his own private blog and mostly ignored his posts.


And more about this incident.


However, the issue heated up again last week, when Veronique and Lenny Pozner, whose son, Noah, died at Sandy Hook, wrote an editorial in the Sun Sentinel accusing Tracy of taunting them.

“Tracy is among those who have personally sought to cause our family pain and anguish by publicly demonizing our attempts to keep cherished photos of our slain son from falling into the hands of conspiracy theorists,” they wrote in the Dec. 10 opinion piece.

They said he even sent them a certified letter demanding proof that Noah once lived, that they were his parents and owned the rights to the photo.

“We found this so outrageous and unsettling that we filed a police report for harassment,” they wrote. “Once Tracy realized we would not respond, he subjected us to ridicule and contempt on his blog, boasting to his readers that the ‘unfulfilled request’ was ‘noteworthy’ because we had used copyright claims to ‘thwart continued research of the Sandy Hook massacre event.’

Tracy lashed back, with comments that were posted on a "Sandy Hook Hoax" Facebook page.

“The local conspirators in Newtown, such as the alleged parents of the murdered children, including Lenny and Veronique Pozner, have made out very well financially, soliciting contributions from generous yet misinformed Americans, where the families have averaged more than $1 million apiece."

“The only proof Lenny has produced that Noah died in Sandy Hook is a death certificate he provided to one of the book’s contributors, which has been revealed as a fabrication,” according to the comments attributed to Tracy. “If Noah actually died, there would have been no reason to fake it.”

Lenny Pozner issued a brief statement Tuesday night. "Veronique and I are relieved that truth and honor prevailed," he said.

edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Before Tracy sent the Pozners anything Lenny Pozner had Youtube take down various videos containing pics of Noah Pozner claiming DMCA copyright infringement. Tracy was asking for (and never got) proof of copyright ownership. Instead, Pozner has tried to portray this as harassment.

Freedom of speech is pretty much dead, or if you want to keep your job it is.
This is no longer the America I grew up in that's all I know.


Where's your proof of this claim?


HIs word against Pozner's but if you're interested in reading Tracy's account:HONR Network, “Lenny Pozner” Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Before Tracy sent the Pozners anything Lenny Pozner had Youtube take down various videos containing pics of Noah Pozner claiming DMCA copyright infringement. Tracy was asking for (and never got) proof of copyright ownership. Instead, Pozner has tried to portray this as harassment.

Freedom of speech is pretty much dead, or if you want to keep your job it is.
This is no longer the America I grew up in that's all I know.


Where's your proof of this claim?


HIs word against Pozner's but if you're interested in reading Tracy's account:HONR Network, “Lenny Pozner” Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim


I'm not sure how that paints Tracy in a better light. Plus the article reproduces the stupid letter that is getting him fired and it DEFINITELY paints him as a huge asshole needing to be fired. Here's the end of it.


I have voluntarily removed the image in question on March 30, 2015. However, given that numerous similar copyright complaints made by you against parties that have publicly questioned and analyzed the Sandy Hook massacre event, I have reason to doubt the good faith nature of your March 22, 2015 DMCA copyright infringement claim. An action with such potential weight to stifle free speech needs the utmost scrutiny. I am therefore requesting written evidence of the following from you:

1. Proof of your identity via copy of a government-issued document, such as a state driver’s license or passport.

2. Proof of your relationship to the deceased party, Noah Pozner, whose alleged photograph appears in the image in question referenced above.

3. Proof of your ownership of said image via a signed and notarized statement from a qualified and licensed forensic expert substantiating your legal ownership of said image, including the date and time of the image’s capture.

Please send the above information via regular mail to myself and Automattic no later than 10 business days from your receipt of this correspondence. Automattic’s mailing address

132 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Thank you for your attention to the above.

Sincerely,

(Signed)

James F. Tracy


He's basically saying that the father's desire not to have his son's name smeared all over the conspiracy blogosphere is evidence of a conspiracy. Like it's inconceivable that a father wouldn't want his dead six year old son politicized or something.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Before Tracy sent the Pozners anything Lenny Pozner had Youtube take down various videos containing pics of Noah Pozner claiming DMCA copyright infringement. Tracy was asking for (and never got) proof of copyright ownership. Instead, Pozner has tried to portray this as harassment.

Freedom of speech is pretty much dead, or if you want to keep your job it is.
This is no longer the America I grew up in that's all I know.


Where's your proof of this claim?



HIs word against Pozner's but if you're interested in reading Tracy's account:HONR Network, “Lenny Pozner” Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim


I'm not sure how that paints Tracy in a better light. Plus the article reproduces the stupid letter that is getting him fired and it DEFINITELY paints him as a huge asshole needing to be fired. Here's the end of it.


I have voluntarily removed the image in question on March 30, 2015. However, given that numerous similar copyright complaints made by you against parties that have publicly questioned and analyzed the Sandy Hook massacre event, I have reason to doubt the good faith nature of your March 22, 2015 DMCA copyright infringement claim. An action with such potential weight to stifle free speech needs the utmost scrutiny. I am therefore requesting written evidence of the following from you:

1. Proof of your identity via copy of a government-issued document, such as a state driver’s license or passport.

2. Proof of your relationship to the deceased party, Noah Pozner, whose alleged photograph appears in the image in question referenced above.

3. Proof of your ownership of said image via a signed and notarized statement from a qualified and licensed forensic expert substantiating your legal ownership of said image, including the date and time of the image’s capture.

Please send the above information via regular mail to myself and Automattic no later than 10 business days from your receipt of this correspondence. Automattic’s mailing address

132 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Thank you for your attention to the above.

Sincerely,

(Signed)

James F. Tracy


He's basically saying that the father's desire not to have his son's name smeared all over the conspiracy blogosphere is evidence of a conspiracy. Like it's inconceivable that a father wouldn't want his dead six year old son politicized or something.


It sounds like the father is claiming some copyright infringement but has no basis to do so. All he asked was for proof of the claim.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated
It sounds like Tracey should have contacted a lawyer then but didn't. His problem.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated
It sounds like Tracey should have contacted a lawyer then but didn't. His problem.


Contacted a lawyer for what? If someone demands you do something they need to show proof that they have the authority to do so.

Look, I am not arguing the guy isn't a douche. He probably is. I also have some sympathy for the father. However, if an image is in public domain and is used; just because it offends the parents does not mean they can have a copyright infringement claim.

The way I am reading it is that Tracey used some image of this guy's son. Father then says he can't use image because it is copyrighted or whatever. Tracey says fine, I will take it down when you provide me proof that you can legally tell me to do so. Father cannot provide proof. So now father accuses Tracey of harassing him.

Correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




But he's being accused of harassment and employers are more than able to fire you based on accusations if they don't want to associate themselves with hiring people who do those things (even allegedly).


being accused, and being found to have done that, are two different things and that's my point. anybody can be accused of anything, and that is not just cause. without having a legal definition of what is harassment is, and no verdict of being guilty of doing so in a court of law is all their using they have not shown just cause for firing him.

the only way they can prove just cause is if they as you said earlier, have a ethics clause he violated, or he violated written policies repeatedly after being warned to stop, from the info given there is nothing to show he did that.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Well maybe that is the course of events. It's possible, though I think it is more likely that Tracey isn't as innocent as he is painting himself out to be in that letter.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JdSmith
a reply to: Krazysh0t




But he's being accused of harassment and employers are more than able to fire you based on accusations if they don't want to associate themselves with hiring people who do those things (even allegedly).


being accused, and being found to have done that, are two different things and that's my point. anybody can be accused of anything, and that is not just cause. without having a legal definition of what is harassment is, and no verdict of being guilty of doing so in a court of law is all their using they have not shown just cause for firing him.

the only way they can prove just cause is if they as you said earlier, have a ethics clause he violated, or he violated written policies repeatedly after being warned to stop, from the info given there is nothing to show he did that.


I really think it is a combination of the two events. Since he's had problems with the university in the past over this same topic, the university just didn't want to go through another media headache surrounding this guy and decided to get rid of him.


(post by GBP/JPY removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

your new link doesn't really provide any new information, in fact it backs my assertion and you even quoted it.


An FAU administrator said in 2013 that Tracy’s actions resulted in a number of negative consequences for the school. But officials determined at the time that he couldn’t be fired for views he expressed on his own private blog and mostly ignored his posts.


so unless they updated his contract and have his signature on it, nothing had changed. other than being accused.
now if there is some wording in the contract about being accused of a crime that i can see.

still no just cause has been shown.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: JdSmith
a reply to: Krazysh0t

your new link doesn't really provide any new information, in fact it backs my assertion and you even quoted it.


An FAU administrator said in 2013 that Tracy’s actions resulted in a number of negative consequences for the school. But officials determined at the time that he couldn’t be fired for views he expressed on his own private blog and mostly ignored his posts.


so unless they updated his contract and have his signature on it, nothing had changed. other than being accused.
now if there is some wording in the contract about being accused of a crime that i can see.

still no just cause has been shown.


You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that BECAUSE of his prior altercations involving this topic, they don't want to go through this headache again when he gets in trouble for it again. He isn't being directly fired for the event in 2013. They are just using that as precedent to establish a pattern to fire him on.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join