9/11 Scholar Punished For His Views

BYU is also an employer, and the Supreme Court reached the decision that an employee DOES NOT have freedom of speech. Their employer can put a stop to any discussion they feel is disruptive and the employee has no right to the first amendment in response. The first time BYU told him to stop, he should have stopped. BYU is perfectly within their rights to suspend, or even fire him in response.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

This professor wants to use a class on Islam to express his opinions on 9/11.

This guy Steven Jones was teaching a class on Islam?

Actually you are right, this isn't the professor i was thinking about. This is another professor.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Technically that might be considered libel, not slander.

Not if I come on tv shows and stated my opinions there.

Anyways, since you are using wikipedia as a source here is what wikipedia has to say about freedom of speech in the United States.

For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if ever) censorship is necessary

en.wikipedia.org...

Slander, libel, etc, is not legal in the United States is it?

My understanding is that slander is from speech and libel is from published communication. So, a TV show to me would be slander and if you came wrote bad things about people on ATS it would be libel.

But anyway, as I noted earlier, the US is much more lenient as far as prosecutions over libel and slander. Especially if it is a matter of public attention or involving high-profile characters, there is generally little to no restriction on what you can say. And so, I believe the events of September 11th to be one of those cases.

In response to your quote on free speech, think about it this way. If the government decides to silence Steven Jones, they will only put fire underneath the already hot 9/11 conspiracy community and attract more members to it. As well, if the government were to specifically attack his views through force, they could indirectly legitimize his viewpoint to the public.

BYU is taking the charge for the government instead. It's in the interest of the US to be discreet about such matters and apply pressure to those around S. Jones instead of confronting him directly. I don't whether 9/11 conspiracies are true or not, but governments don't seem to be too keen on bad press.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Jamuhn]

so, how many have stopped to consider the idea that due to his public image, the man becomes a de facto representative of the university, and teh university doesn't want that kind of press or association tied to it?

An employer is well within its rights to drop an employee for whatever reason, and this can be one of those cases.

Remember a few months (a year?) ago when some celebrity decided to open their mouth about supporting peta or some other nonsense organization and their other endorsees dropped them like a hot potato?

same deal here, and both are fully within their rights to do so.

This isn't a matter of free speech or censure, its about an entity's right to not associate itself with an employee or their views which may reflect on the entity.

Who says Mormons have no sense of humor?

www.slweekly.com...#

Originally posted by Muaddib

This professor wants to use a class on Islam to express his opinions on 9/11, which despite some people's "feelings" are nothing more than claims.

I think you'd be well advised to actually find out who Professor Jones is. He's a physics professor. Not the guy you are talking about.

Edit: posted that before I read your last post.

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Who says Mormons have no sense of humor?

www.slweekly.com...#

Sometimes I don't get your sense of humor. What does being mormon have anything to do with this?

Speaking of slander and liable....wouldn't that site fit under those categories?

I'm actually surprised BYU didn't do this much sooner. Definitely the most interesting thing about this is that BYU admin has not acted in the past beyond making statements of non-support for Jones' theories, and yet this sudden move coincides with the very recent statement by Bush associating conspiracy theorists with terrorists.

The timing is disturbing news for the Land of the Free.

Originally posted by Griff
Speaking of slander and liable....wouldn't that site fit under those categories?

Nope.

He's a public figure, open to ridicule and satire.

Very true Howard. Just like Bush & Co. is. So, I guess we are in agreement that Jones has also not done any slander etc?

In the real world, yeah, but this is BYU you are talking about. They operate in their own weird world




the Jeffrey Nielsen case


The Gail Houston case

If there was a teacher being paid to teach studets that The Wizard of Oz was a true story, I'd imagine he'd get fired too. Same thing here.

[edit on 9/13/2006 by djohnsto77]

The action came two days after Jones appeared on KUER-FM 90.1's respected news talk show "Radio West." On the show, he said it appeared responsibility for the attacks rested with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and an "international banking cartel."

The statement drew immediate response from Jews who said they were offended because references to international banking have for decades been used by anti-Semitic groups as codespeak to blame Jews for various problems. Hitler often blamed "international financiers" for Germany's debt after World War I.

deseretnews.com...

Jones was flummoxed by the accusation, saying he was "startled" when told the phrase carried anti-Semitic overtones. He wasn't sure where he got the phrase because he was referring to the work of Webster Tarpley, a historian and member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group co-founded by Jones. Tarpley refers only to a shadowy, rogue network, not to international bankers.
"I'll name them as Tarpley names them," Jones said on KUER. "Wolfowitz and Perle, in particular — they do happen to be neocons — but there is a much larger group behind these (attacks) which is the international banking cartel which controls trillions of dollars and which has an interest in controlling countries in the Middle East which are not under their control."

eenie meenie miney moe, pick a doofus by the toe. *





---Wha . . ?










* Yes, I know. That's the point.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by HowardRoark]

LOL HOWARDROARK. Interesting PoV on the situation.

Jones is an intelligent person working for the better-half of a majority that feel they are being manipulated by the government and corporations, and want to put an end to it. There was a documentary in the way back during my college days that talked about corporations and how they want to own everything and gain control.


LOL HOWARDROARK.

[edit on 9/15/2006 by Masisoar]

Wow, Jones is going straight to the throat via Tarpley.

International bankers ARE ultimately behind most everything "political" that happens in the world, because THEY own the banks that fund the corporations that hijack the governments and put them into trillions in debt -- to the banks.

Being Jewish has nothing to do with this. Saying discussing international banking is anti-semitic is like saying talking about the Inquisition is anti-Christian, and therefore we should never speak of the Inquisition again.

But bravo on these guys cutting to the chase so quickly.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

An employer is well within its rights to drop an employee for whatever reason, and this can be one of those cases.

Remember a few months (a year?) ago when some celebrity decided to open their mouth about supporting peta or some other nonsense organization and their other endorsees dropped them like a hot potato?

same deal here, and both are fully within their rights to do so.

This isn't a matter of free speech or censure, its about an entity's right to not associate itself with an employee or their views which may reflect on the entity.

3 words come to mind on this one...

tom

cruise

scientology

paramount dropped him because they felt that his off camera opinions beliefs and behaviors cost them money so "dont let the door hit you on the way out"

im all for the 1st amendment. but im also a supporter of employers rights as well.