A Florida Assistant State Attorney who refused to stop speaking at political gatherings has been fired from her job as an assistant state attorney.  She was speaking at Tea parties and on radio stations. Much like Jerry Maguire and his infamous “fewer clients and more personal attention” memo, KrisAnne Hall was let go due to public rhetoric about smaller government.  The difference is that Jerry McGuire worked for a private company so the 1st Amendment did not apply.  Ms. Hall works for the government so she would come under its purview.

The State Attorney, Skip Jarvis told KrisAnne Hall that she was free to say and do what she wanted, but that she “could not do so while assistant counsel for the state.”

“She was speaking at some political events, some things were anti-state and anti-government,” Jarvis said by phone Tuesday morning. “I emailed her and said look you can’t do that as an assistant state attorney. Our client is the state of Florida.”

Jarvis also stated that at these gatherings she was speaking about a desire for less government and smaller budgets,”

As a general proposition, Skip is right. Hall is not free to say whatever she wants as a state employee and as an attorney.  Aside from her employment, there are Rules Of Professional Conduct that regulate many of the things a lawyer can publicly say about pending cases, judges etc.  Jarvis however, is walking a constitutional  tightrope  as to firing  Hall for criticizing the government.

The Supreme Court has held that  government employment can not be conditioned on the surrender of constitutional rights. After that, it gets murky and is dependent to a large extent on content and context of the political speech.  The mere fact that the speech is political is NOT enough to lose 1st Amendment protection especially in matters of public concern.  Examples of matters of public concern would be Health Care Reform and yes, the size of government.

Jarvis is going to have a hard time successfully arguing that because the “state is the client” her expression of political beliefs are relevant to a  hiring or retention decision.  He argues that she is in effect, publicly criticizing her own client. I have a hard time believing the courts or the State Bar would give that broad a reading as to what constitutes a “client” for 1st Amendment purposes outside of her commenting publicly on a specific the State Attorney is involved in . That broad a reading would amount to a complete abrogation of 1st Amendment rights upon employment.

I also find it curious that Jarvis claims it is not a 1st Amendment Issue.  She was fired by his own admission because of political speech and her firing constituted state action.  That sounds like a 1st Amendment issue to me.

It appears that Jarvis’s decision was a  content related decision and can not be supported under the 1st Amendment principals.   By his own words, he seems to be saying that she was being fired due to her public support of  Tea Party politics and Jarvis didn’t like that.  KrisAnne Hall should be reinstated.

Why does NBC  continue to tolerate  the rantings of confirmed bigot and anti-semite Pat Buchanan?  The answer is simple.  He is popular. He drives print, television and new media ratings.

Pat’s latest anti-semitic rant was in relation to the proposed confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice.  Kagan is Jewish. Pat, true to form,  complains there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court bench.   In his May 13, 2010 column, he states,

“If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?’

This is not the 1st time Buchanan has come under fire for his anti–Semitic viewpoints and not the 1st time NBC has turned a blind eye.

In 2009, Buchanan’s personal website, Buchanan.org, hosted a  forum entitled “Disinformation, Deception and Other Tricks” and within that, a thread called “Discussion about ‘The Holocaust. The thread discussions allegedly propagated the  revisionist historical theory of  “Holocaust Denial”

The entire forum section of the website was allegedly taken down hours after an op-ed by Menachem Rosensaft in the New York Daily News pointed out it’s existence.   NBC offered no statement and took no action against Buchanan.

NBC has a  corporate social responsibility to not sanction either by action or inaction, hatred towards racial, religious and ethnic minorities.  Along with this social responsibility comes the obligation to not allow those who they pay to represent them to espouse these despicable views or allow them to be espoused in a  forum under their control.  CBS understood this well when they fired Don Imus for racial slurs.

While Pat has the right to express certain views or allow them to be expressed on his personal site, NBC does not have to tolerate it when they are paying his bills and it reflects negatively on them.  Employers set policies and make such statements to employees in the realm of blogging and free expression on a regular basis. Pat has the right to say he does does agree with that policy and walk.  It boils down to the priorities and social consciousness of NBC.   What we are seeing from NBC is where money is involved social conscience takes a back seat to profit. Hate is for sale at NBC.

There has been an emotional uproar over plans to build a Muslim Community Center with a Mosque at Ground Zero.  The most common response is that it is a slap in the face and insult to  9-11 victims and their families.

Let’s talk about the legal reality.  There was never a choice. There was no permit to be issued or denied. The owner of the property had the right to build what he wanted as long as there was  compliance with applicable zoning laws. This includes a community center with a Muslim Mosque.

Now that the legalities are out of the way, lets talk about the morality. I have no doubt that the building of a Mosque upsets many of the victims and their families.  This may be sacrilegious to say but I suspect there are some families and responders that are fine with it as well. Why would they be fine with it in the face of such a tragedy?  Lets put aside the fact that many Muslims were also killed in the attack.  Maybe they are ok with it because they  realize that at some point we have to heal.  We must stop driving a stake into the heart of everything that makes America great. Our mix of ethnicity, religions and various beliefs all coming together to form one great nation of acceptance and freedom.  This type of nation is NOT achieved by continually fanning the flames of racism and group condemnation.

Mark my words. If this Mosque does go up, in a few years, except for the far right wing nuts of the world who would like to see every Muslim Mosque in the United States reduced to dust,the criticism will be nil.  The center will be what it really is, a place for people to gather, recreate, pray and enjoy their lives. That is exactly what people will be doing there, nothing more.

Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez sent home 5 students at Live Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California for T-shirts showing the American flag. Rodriguez felt that clothing displaying the American flag on Cinco de Mayo was incendiary.  He was wrong.  He made a mistake.

The students were engaging  in  constitutionally protected 1st Amendment expression. This is not a close call. For a good discussion on the case law in this area  you can go to the Volokoh website.

The principal later apologized.  No further action was taken against the students nor was it made part of their permanent records.

The parents are still up in arms, holding town hall meetings and screaming about lawyers on Fox News.  A town hall meeting is appropriate as the principal should have to explain his actions and issue a mea culpa if that’s what the parents are after.  Beyond that, let’s move on.  I suspect the students want to move on.  Unlike the parents they have no agenda.

The students have not been damaged in any way.  To my knowledge they simply got a day off school.  The students  have no 1st Amendment claim if no official punitive action is made part of their permanent record.  The parents should quit pushing their own agendas.  No harm no foul.  Flag On!