It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Technically that might be considered libel, not slander.
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
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.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Who says Mormons have no sense of humor?
Originally posted by Griff
Speaking of slander and liable....wouldn't that site fit under those categories?
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.
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."
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.