Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official*** Free Speech Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Agree. I will counter with that at the Facebook hearing, Republicans framed much of the conversation around social media being bias against conservatives and emphasizing the need for free speech on social media.
ren hoek
Footballguy
It is going to be difficult for the Trump administration to get Julian Assange extradited to the U.S. because the espionage charges are political. It is, of course, possible that a right-wing government in the U.K. could make some deal and hand Assange over but that’s much more difficult with the new Espionage Act indictments. It’s possible that some people within the Trump administration know this and that the point is not just to prosecute Assange but to have this dangerous cloud hanging over every news outlet and reporter who does aggressive national security reporting or works with whistleblowers. It’s an ominous threat and it may be very beneficial for Trump to just have that floating in the air rather than have a trail where Assange has the best lawyers fighting this case and major news organizations standing with him against the prosecution.
Every single one of us should be extremely concerned about the prosecution of Julian Assange under the Espionage Act. Whether you like it or not, the battle to protect the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution right now is also the battle to defend Julian Assange from the dangerous use of the Espionage Act. Failure to stop this prosecution will have far-reaching consequences. It could mean that the journalists or publications that you read every day could be next. The administration is banking on the idea that so many people, including many Democrats, hate Julian Assange so much that they won’t raise a ruckus over this case.
William Barr and Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo want you to hate Julian Assange so much that you will give up your own freedoms just to watch him burned at the stake. It is the same mentality that got us the PATRIOT Act with only one, one, U.S. Senator voting against it. The same mentality that gave Bush and Cheney a blank check for war in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when only one member of the House of Representatives voted against it.
No one who cares about their freedom of speech or the freedom of the press should fall for this villainous tactic. Trump and his administration talk about journalists the way Joseph Goebbels talked about journalists. They want to lock up reporters. They want to shut down news organizations who aggressively investigate Trump. If you don’t see this attack on Assange under the Espionage Act as one of the most absolutely dangerous threats from this administration when it comes to the media, then you’re not paying attention or you’re allowing yourself to be used by Trump and his dangerous team of political prosecutors.
Jeremy Scahill: The Prosecution of Assange Is an Attack on Our Freedom of Speech
Every single one of us should be extremely concerned about the prosecution of Julian Assange under the Espionage Act. Whether you like it or not, the battle to protect the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution right now is also the battle to defend Julian Assange from the dangerous use of the Espionage Act. Failure to stop this prosecution will have far-reaching consequences. It could mean that the journalists or publications that you read every day could be next. The administration is banking on the idea that so many people, including many Democrats, hate Julian Assange so much that they won’t raise a ruckus over this case.
William Barr and Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo want you to hate Julian Assange so much that you will give up your own freedoms just to watch him burned at the stake. It is the same mentality that got us the PATRIOT Act with only one, one, U.S. Senator voting against it. The same mentality that gave Bush and Cheney a blank check for war in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when only one member of the House of Representatives voted against it.
No one who cares about their freedom of speech or the freedom of the press should fall for this villainous tactic. Trump and his administration talk about journalists the way Joseph Goebbels talked about journalists. They want to lock up reporters. They want to shut down news organizations who aggressively investigate Trump. If you don’t see this attack on Assange under the Espionage Act as one of the most absolutely dangerous threats from this administration when it comes to the media, then you’re not paying attention or you’re allowing yourself to be used by Trump and his dangerous team of political prosecutors.
Jeremy Scahill: The Prosecution of Assange Is an Attack on Our Freedom of Speech
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If only there had been some sort of detectable warning that Trump would treat the media and the First Amendment this way! I apologize for not bringing this possibility to your and everyone else's attention sooner. Guess I was asleep at the switch.
(I agree with you that the treatment of Assange is way over the line, btw)
ren hoek
Footballguy
The Pentagon Wants More Control Over the News. What Could Go Wrong?
If there’s a worse idea than the Pentagon becoming Editor-in-Chief of America, I can’t remember it. But we’re getting there:
From Bloomberg over Labor Day weekend:
Fake news and social media posts are such a threat to U.S. security that the Defense Department is launching a project to repel “large-scale, automated disinformation attacks,” as the top Republican in Congress blocks efforts to protect the integrity of elections.
One of the Pentagon’s most secretive agencies, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is developing “custom software that can unearth fakes hidden among more than 500,000 stories, photos, video and audio clips.”
Once upon a time, when progressives still reflexively distrusted the military, DARPA was a liberal punchline, known for helping invent the Internet but also for developing lunatic privacy-invading projects like LifeLog, a program to “gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees, or does.”
DARPA now is developing a semantic analysis program called “SemaFor” and an image analysis program called “MediFor,” ostensibly designed to prevent the use of fake images or text. The idea would be to develop these technologies to help private Internet providers sift through content.
It’s the latest in a string of stories about new methods of control over information flow that should, but for some reason do not, horrify every working journalist.
If there’s a worse idea than the Pentagon becoming Editor-in-Chief of America, I can’t remember it. But we’re getting there:
From Bloomberg over Labor Day weekend:
Fake news and social media posts are such a threat to U.S. security that the Defense Department is launching a project to repel “large-scale, automated disinformation attacks,” as the top Republican in Congress blocks efforts to protect the integrity of elections.
One of the Pentagon’s most secretive agencies, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is developing “custom software that can unearth fakes hidden among more than 500,000 stories, photos, video and audio clips.”
Once upon a time, when progressives still reflexively distrusted the military, DARPA was a liberal punchline, known for helping invent the Internet but also for developing lunatic privacy-invading projects like LifeLog, a program to “gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees, or does.”
DARPA now is developing a semantic analysis program called “SemaFor” and an image analysis program called “MediFor,” ostensibly designed to prevent the use of fake images or text. The idea would be to develop these technologies to help private Internet providers sift through content.
It’s the latest in a string of stories about new methods of control over information flow that should, but for some reason do not, horrify every working journalist.
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://www.thenation.com/article/everyone-wants-to-stop-fake-news-but-no-one-seems-to-know-what-exactly-it-is/
Those wanting to proceed with plans to curate and monitor information online—a long held impulse of all governments—are using the specter of “fake news” as a PR bludgeon to justify these broader efforts. On November 29, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius relayed that the US State Department was working on plans to protect “the truth,” including floating the idea of a “global ombudsman for information.” BuzzFeed reported that Congress, in the context of combating Russian fake news, will soon bring back the Cold War–era Active Measures Working Group, originally set up in concert with the CIA and the Defense Department to combat Soviet disinformation.
The troubling effects of such efforts, as anyone who’s operated outside the mainstream of acceptable political opinion will tell you, cannot be overstated. One reason so many blue-checkmark pundits reflexively share fake-news blacklists—despite them having numerous false positives—is because they, themselves, have never held an opinion that veers too far off the editorial page of The New York Times. But it’s those opinions, those that push back against Official Truths, that are likely to get caught up in otherwise good-faith attempts to counter deliberate lies. With such a broad charge, “the cure for fake news,” Politico’s Jack Shafer notes, may be “worse than the disease.” In theory, building mechanisms to weed out outright lies is good, but the speed and broad scope of the fake-news fervor reveals that these efforts are easily hijacked, co-opted, and fudged not to protect truth but to curate it. Not to stop the spread of outright lies but to label websites deemed outside the mainstream with a scarlet letter. Given that some of the most public and viral attempts to build such systems have failed at making this crucial distinction, perhaps before attempting to solve the problem of fake news we should, at least, try to figure out what exactly it is.
Those wanting to proceed with plans to curate and monitor information online—a long held impulse of all governments—are using the specter of “fake news” as a PR bludgeon to justify these broader efforts. On November 29, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius relayed that the US State Department was working on plans to protect “the truth,” including floating the idea of a “global ombudsman for information.” BuzzFeed reported that Congress, in the context of combating Russian fake news, will soon bring back the Cold War–era Active Measures Working Group, originally set up in concert with the CIA and the Defense Department to combat Soviet disinformation.
The troubling effects of such efforts, as anyone who’s operated outside the mainstream of acceptable political opinion will tell you, cannot be overstated. One reason so many blue-checkmark pundits reflexively share fake-news blacklists—despite them having numerous false positives—is because they, themselves, have never held an opinion that veers too far off the editorial page of The New York Times. But it’s those opinions, those that push back against Official Truths, that are likely to get caught up in otherwise good-faith attempts to counter deliberate lies. With such a broad charge, “the cure for fake news,” Politico’s Jack Shafer notes, may be “worse than the disease.” In theory, building mechanisms to weed out outright lies is good, but the speed and broad scope of the fake-news fervor reveals that these efforts are easily hijacked, co-opted, and fudged not to protect truth but to curate it. Not to stop the spread of outright lies but to label websites deemed outside the mainstream with a scarlet letter. Given that some of the most public and viral attempts to build such systems have failed at making this crucial distinction, perhaps before attempting to solve the problem of fake news we should, at least, try to figure out what exactly it is.
caustic
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/AliAbunimah/status/1190577685434683392
Twitter suspends 3 verified Palestinian news organization's accounts with no explanation.
Twitter suspends 3 verified Palestinian news organization's accounts with no explanation.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
In 2017, we reported Facebook was censoring Palestinian pages, activists and journalists at the demands of the Israeli government. As @AliAbunimah reports, it appears Twitter is now doing the same. Begging tech companies to censor will always backfire
Here's our reporting on how Facebook obeys the demands of the Israeli Government to censor Palestinians. The fantasy that corporations are going to exercise censorship powers to protect - rather than repress - the most marginalized needs to stop: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/
The sad irony of this internet censorship is that, usually, power centers that censor do so to augment their power. By contrast, tech companies never wanted this responsibility. It was foisted upon them by liberals who thought internet censorship would protect them.
In 2017, we reported Facebook was censoring Palestinian pages, activists and journalists at the demands of the Israeli government. As @AliAbunimah reports, it appears Twitter is now doing the same. Begging tech companies to censor will always backfire
Here's our reporting on how Facebook obeys the demands of the Israeli Government to censor Palestinians. The fantasy that corporations are going to exercise censorship powers to protect - rather than repress - the most marginalized needs to stop: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/
The sad irony of this internet censorship is that, usually, power centers that censor do so to augment their power. By contrast, tech companies never wanted this responsibility. It was foisted upon them by liberals who thought internet censorship would protect them.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree this is horrible. Basically I think what happens is graphic descriptions of war and conflict are deemed in violation of TOS. Problem is legitimate political groups doing crucial frontline reporting get silenced.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Yes we can’t have what happened to our elections in 2016 happen again.....wait, what?
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
@EdwardTHardy
48mReplying to
@realDonaldTrump
If Donald Trump doesn't want Twitter to fact check his tweets, he shouldn't keep using his platform to lie and spread conspiracy theories
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The President will be issuing an executive order possibly seeking to regulate free speech on social media tonight. - Link.
Apparently the order has not gone through the FCC or any agency review process.
Apparently the order has not gone through the FCC or any agency review process.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Everybody who spent five years moaning nonstop about Citizens United can show up to eat their crow any time now.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Sucks that zucc of all people would get this right- these platforms are better off without Silicon Valley playing gatekeeper to what constitutes true information- but I agree with what he's saying here.
Imagine billionaire CEOs of these monolithic platforms with massive control over information flow preferring a hands-off approach, and users begging them to please police content for 'disinformation'. That won't ever end well for political expression.
Imagine billionaire CEOs of these monolithic platforms with massive control over information flow preferring a hands-off approach, and users begging them to please police content for 'disinformation'. That won't ever end well for political expression.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
If TWTR wants a section 230 liability shield they need abide by the law’s ToS....
Green Balloons
Footballguy
Now imagine Trump just signed an EO to take guns from private citizens.
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://www.mintpressnews.com/discussion-of-wikileaks-or-any-hacked-information-banned-under-new-youtube-rules/270435/
1984-tier censorship on youtube as a means of protecting "democratic processes."
Removing content that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes, such as elections and censuses. For example, videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate shared with the intent to interfere in an election.
1984-tier censorship on youtube as a means of protecting "democratic processes."
Removing content that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes, such as elections and censuses. For example, videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate shared with the intent to interfere in an election.
Boston
Footballguy
Free speech? Not in this lady's classroom:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/18/iowa-state-university-instructor-bans-pro-life-blm/
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/18/iowa-state-university-instructor-bans-pro-life-blm/
rockaction
Footballguy
Democratic processes is probably the best way to put it. I'm not sure who is on the right side of history here given what we know about whistleblowers and the NSA and organizations of its ilk.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I do think there's a line to be drawn between hacked information to attack an individual personally (sexual photos, home addresses, phone #s etc.) and information about political figures in the public interest. For the latter there isn't really any question that the sourcing of true information, however malignant, should be entirely decoupled from the right to publish that information in the public square. They're really interfering in the democratic process by censoring free commentary on true information, hacked or not.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think you're right in your assessment of what is legally, but normatively I can see another tack. I can see how hacked information about leaders can destabilize countries and their democratic processes. There are three things we know: It's as a private measure, first of all. It's also a prophylactic measure much like the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine of the Fourth Amendment, so decoupling of source/information happens in legal contexts, even. It's embedded in our constitutional law. Thirdly, any complaint about the ToS seems to implicate raw speech more than First Amendment protections, too, because of the lack of state actor involvement.
So if you're talking about more than raw speech, I think you'd have to start and then win any First Amendment argument this way. YouTube: Is a private company's removal for violation of ToS an attack on free speech? I think you've got some hurdles to leap over there to make it so. First, you need to assume that these private companies are performing in fields where there is no alternative or state actor that could act, and that in the absence of the state actor, free speech is implicated enough to invoke the First Amendment. Secondly, you've got the acquisition and disposition of such things as illegal to begin with -- should that get protection because of the policy implications of it being either broadcast or not broadcast? I think your best bet would be to look at state Supreme Courts that have mandated free speech on private property grounds (though that property is real property, unlike the internet).
It's weird, though. From a pure speech point of view, the NYT can publish the Pentagon Papers, but neither the "paper of record" nor YouTube can see fit to publish Assange's material because of the means under which it was procured? Seems wrong, somehow, and as a raw free speech claim, I understand your lament.
And since when did the media get so anti-Assange? It's all bizarre and a function of Team Red/Team Blue politics. One doesn't have to scratch too far to find the itch there.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
You know I get the 'their company, their rules' line, but as a longtime user I just think it's appalling they would embark on this sort of powerserving role in the name of 'protecting' the 'democratic process.' Changing their TOS to essentially protect our rulers from damaging information (even if it's true) isn't really in the spirit of our first amendment or free speech. We need outlets like that to protect dissident speech now more than ever.
There's a lot of reasons they hate Assange- not the least of which is their perception that he caused Trump to win. There were much more consequential reasons for that- Hillary just running an awful campaign, the Comey letter, Hillary's failure to appeal to working class, her appearances as a ruling elite in a moment of left/right populism. That it turned into a debate about "collusion" and "Trump/Russia/Assange" is really a tribute to how delusional mass media can make us.
The narrative that Assange wanted Trump to win is false- he wrote that it was about informing the public (undemocratic interference in election by DNC and collusion against Bernie, as well as Clinton team PROMOTING TRUMP in Republican primary), called the choice of Hillary/Trump something like aids/ghonorrea, blasted Trump for his comments on whistleblowers (Trump once said Assange should "get the death penalty or something" for their Iraq War publications), and said that he preferred Jill Stein for her position on whistleblowers.
But it should really take a backseat to the Trump administration's attempt to extradite and torture a publisher for exposing war crimes. It's the most horrifying attack on freedom of press in the history of this country, Daniel Ellsberg and the NYT's lawyer during the Pentagon Papers will tell you the same thing. We're hurdling right down the path to fullbore 1984 totalitarianism. I'm afraid people won't recognize it until it's too late.
rockaction
Footballguy
But how would you change it legally? If you respect the private notion of their communications, then you really can't. You can certainly lodge a complaint, but there's not much else you can do except resort to normative arguments that are certainly novel and not entrenched in any stare decisis that I know of.
I take what you say about Assange and agree. The Trump elections were about Russian misinformation? Nobody I know that voted for Trump cites Russian internet bots as a reason for supporting him. That's ridiculous, and Taibbi has been largely right in debunking the whole Russian influence, other than Trump's private conflict of interests (that could still trigger impeachment, IMHO) before reaching office and then acted upon subsequently.
I think your use of "publisher" probably falls outside the lines of accepted practice or use of the word, even in respect to its own rubric. Publishing generally falls within speech regulations, of which hacking and subsequent publication are not part of. And both administrations went after Assange and Snowden, if I'm not mistaken. The authoritarian nature of government is an evil that...wait for it...has come from bipartisan sources, which is even more worrisome when you really think about electoral politics.
IMO, Snowden, Manning, and Assange should have all been pardoned or had their sentences commuted, and each deserves a spot in an unfortunate history.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
I agree with your post, except to say that to my knowledge there is no evidence Wikileaks ever published anything as a result of hacks they conducted themselves. The Obama DOJ looked at all the same information before and decided they didn't have a case.
whoknew
Footballguy
Boston
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Iowa State forces professor to change syllabus.
Says it is inconsistent with the University's commitment to free speech.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I saw this story a couple of days ago and this is how I figured it would end. Every once in a while, a faculty member does something dumb that can be corrected fairly easily with a talking-to from their department chair or dean. This is one of those things.
If my 19 year old self were a student in this person's class, I would deliberately do every writing assignment as a critique of BLM, gay marriage, and abortion rights just because I was an ####### that way. Actually I still am. I'm all for gay marriage, but I would derive some cheap satisfaction from playing devils advocate just knowing how much it ticks her off.
Boston
Footballguy
I would think they would want an Observer in her classroom for a period of time to make sure she is capable of allowing free speech.
whoknew
Footballguy
Unfortunately I do not have a WSJ subscription. I'd love to read this article. Because this seems like a genuinely concerning topic.
China’s National-Security Law Reaches Into Harvard, Princeton Classrooms
Professors at elite U.S. universities turn to code names, warning labels to protect students
China’s National-Security Law Reaches Into Harvard, Princeton Classrooms
Professors at elite U.S. universities turn to code names, warning labels to protect students
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I could have sworn there was a "cancel culture" thread someplace, but maybe it's in the other forum. Anyway, this is close enough.
For those who have been understandably paying attention to other stuff this week, we got two semi-high profile cancellations in the past few days. First, Will Wilkinson got canned by the Niskanen Center (a left-libertarian think tank) for a very poorly-considered joke about Mike Pence getting beheaded that was weaponized in utter bad faith by right-wingers. I had to admit that I didn't originally get the joke when I saw it the first time and was like "WTF Will?" so I at least sort of understand this one, but still it was clearly a joking reference to some other insane tweet and he apologized for it. No matter -- fired.
Then a few days later the NYT fired one of its editors -- Lauren Wolfe -- for tweeting that she felt "chills" watching Biden's plane touch down on inauguration day. I'm kind of baffled as to why this is a problem. Lots of people, including objective journalists presumably, react a little emotionally to the exchange of power, especially considering the context of this particular exchange. No matter -- fired.
Interestingly, both of these people had previously denied that cancel culture is actually a thing that exists in the online world. This is a lot like cancer -- it's real whether you choose to believe in it or not.
For those who have been understandably paying attention to other stuff this week, we got two semi-high profile cancellations in the past few days. First, Will Wilkinson got canned by the Niskanen Center (a left-libertarian think tank) for a very poorly-considered joke about Mike Pence getting beheaded that was weaponized in utter bad faith by right-wingers. I had to admit that I didn't originally get the joke when I saw it the first time and was like "WTF Will?" so I at least sort of understand this one, but still it was clearly a joking reference to some other insane tweet and he apologized for it. No matter -- fired.
Then a few days later the NYT fired one of its editors -- Lauren Wolfe -- for tweeting that she felt "chills" watching Biden's plane touch down on inauguration day. I'm kind of baffled as to why this is a problem. Lots of people, including objective journalists presumably, react a little emotionally to the exchange of power, especially considering the context of this particular exchange. No matter -- fired.
Interestingly, both of these people had previously denied that cancel culture is actually a thing that exists in the online world. This is a lot like cancer -- it's real whether you choose to believe in it or not.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'm not suggesting "cancel culture" isn't "real", but if it's a thing, I would argue it has existed forever. The Scarlet Letter was written in the 1800s and set in the 1600s, after all. I'd argue the only thing that's really changed is the technology.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Wolfe also posted a tweet saying: "The pettiness of the Trump admin for not sending a military plane to bring him to DC as is tradition is mortifying. Childish."
Obviously Wolfe did not know that it was Biden's choice to take a private plane. So, while I would agree that "cancel culture" is responsible for her firing, I think it's also fair to say that if you make such a blatant blunder without bothering to check your facts, then maybe you shouldn't be an editor at the New York Times?
The Wilkinson and Wolfe firings are both really stupid, but they're stupid in ways that are constrained by market forces.
I believe, actually, that Niskanen will be hurt more by losing Wilkinson than the other way around.
Companies will make mistakes. Hopefully they'll learn from them. Ideally, they'll learn that bad-faith agitators aren't worth appeasing.
I believe, actually, that Niskanen will be hurt more by losing Wilkinson than the other way around.
Companies will make mistakes. Hopefully they'll learn from them. Ideally, they'll learn that bad-faith agitators aren't worth appeasing.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The NYT is now saying that this firing wasn't about any one particular tweet, so maybe there's more going on there than what there seemed to be originally.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I think Ham started that thread and I’m not sure what happened but rumor is all his content is gone. No clue how accurate that is or whether any mod can speak to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Which didn't happen? Professors didn't make bad, potentially offensive jokes? They didn't get fired for making bad, potentially offensive jokes? Or they didn't sure when they get fired for making bad, potentially offensive jokes?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm familiar with this particular case. Anybody who finds this guy's joke offensive needs to get outside and interact with nature more often. This is why we have "reasonable person" standards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I imagine the person that created and distributed the flyers may have been offended, as calling it trash denigrates their effort. That said, I don't personally find it "offensive", but it is unnecessarily inflammatory.
However, I was responding to the assertion that professors wouldn't get fired for saying something questionable then refusing to apologize 20 years ago. Of course they would.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
But that's the thing though. Making a joke that doesn't land or being a little rude to a colleague isn't a fireable offense in academia. It never has been according to the AAUP. At most, this kind of thing might result in your department chair sitting you down and asking you to be a little nicer to folks. That would be the maximal reasonable response. You can't even see termination from here, not even as pretext for some other preexisting problem that this guy was causing (hypothetical -- a lot of these stories have very clear "there must be more going on here" vibes, but not this one).
And besides, if somebody is actually bothered that much by having their ideas called "garbage," you are most definitely in the wrong line of work. This is an area where the "suck it up, buttercup" standard definitely applies. If you can't handle some guy tossing shade your way in the break room, good luck with Reviewer #2.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
To put in context, at my institution here are some things that would result in termination as a first offense:
1) Sleeping with a student or a subordinate, unless you disclosed it.
2) Egregious research misconduct, like plagiarism or data falsification.
That's pretty much it.
What won't get you fired -- again, as a first offense -- would be things like showing up to class drunk. Assuming that we could even somehow prove that you were intoxicated as opposed to "I was just really tired" or "I guess I took one too many allergy pills" or whatever, this would probably just result in a trip to rehab assuming that you didn't kill anybody or anything.
Being a belligerent jerk to a colleague will get you a talking to, but not fired. If we fired every faculty member who was a belligerent jerk at times, well, I don't know what I would be doing with myself these days but it wouldn't be helping out at a regional public university, that's for sure. (Just kidding -- I actually get along really well with nearly everybody here).
This thing isn't even remotely close.
1) Sleeping with a student or a subordinate, unless you disclosed it.
2) Egregious research misconduct, like plagiarism or data falsification.
That's pretty much it.
What won't get you fired -- again, as a first offense -- would be things like showing up to class drunk. Assuming that we could even somehow prove that you were intoxicated as opposed to "I was just really tired" or "I guess I took one too many allergy pills" or whatever, this would probably just result in a trip to rehab assuming that you didn't kill anybody or anything.
Being a belligerent jerk to a colleague will get you a talking to, but not fired. If we fired every faculty member who was a belligerent jerk at times, well, I don't know what I would be doing with myself these days but it wouldn't be helping out at a regional public university, that's for sure. (Just kidding -- I actually get along really well with nearly everybody here).
This thing isn't even remotely close.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
