• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Another Assualt on Free Speech...Now On Public Employee Eric Walsh

maxparrish

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,262
Location
SF Bay Area
Basic Beliefs
Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
PASADENA >> A city investigation into Public Health Director Dr. Eric Walsh will focus on whether his religious views about homosexuals, Muslims and other groups have influenced his performance as a city employee.

...He said the inquiry will involve review of Walsh’s online sermons as a Seventh-day Adventist preacher as well as speaking with staff about his performance.

“The issue here is not necessarily what he’s done on his personal time, it’s whether there’s an impact associated with those activities and his employment,” Beck said. “People have a right to their opinion and they have a constitutional right to express it.”

Walsh has been placed on paid administrative leave. ...Walsh drew criticism last week after a series of recorded sermons surfaced online in which he preaches religious views that condemn gays, Muslims and Catholics, decries Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as a satanic belief, and calls pop culture icons like Oprah and Jay-Z examples of the spirit of the anti-Christ.

...In contrast to his statements at the pulpit, at public events Walsh has spoken about the negative effects of discrimination and has championed progressive causes at the Public Health Department, including opening the state’s first city-run dental clinic for HIV patients.

The recordings, most of which were made before Walsh came to Pasadena in 2010, floated to the surface after Walsh was chosen to be the commencement speaker for Pasadena City College. ...

Beck said he was not aware of Walsh’s religious speeches in 2010 when he was tapped for the job by a secret selection committee. He said during the vetting process a background check was peformed on Walsh but the videos did not turn up.

Walsh’s statements and the city’s decision to investigate him have polarized the Pasadena community as a freedom of speech issue.

...Brent Musson, spokesman for Altadena Seventh-day Adventist Church where Walsh is associate pastor, said the sentiments reported in Walsh’s sermon videos are not consistent with Walsh’s sermons at the Altadena church. He said he thinks Walsh’s views have been “distorted,” though he said he has listened to none of the audio recordings in question.

Rev. Ed Bacon of All Saints Church, where Walsh has given many speeches including on the harmful effects of discrimination, called Walsh’s religious sermons “heartbreaking” and said he was struggling with the “cognitive dissonance” of Walsh’s work in public health.

“I’m a huge proponent of the First Amendment, and freedom of speech and freedom of religion are essential to American democracy. I think the issue has to be impact and when you are expressing hate speech as religious leader that’s one thing but when you are expressing hate speech as a public servant and a representative of the people, that’s a different thing,” Bacon said. “And in Dr. Walsh’s case you can’t divide the two, he is one person and his job is to promote public health in the city of Pasadena and the health impacts of bigotry are horrendous.”

Looks like the 'gay-stopo' (et. al.) may be hitting the streets with torch and noose. ;)

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/soc...ion-of-eric-walsh-to-focus-on-job-performance
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
It does say you won't suffer consequences from the government. This is of course excluding speech that is criminal like fraud or inciting violence etc. So how does your dismissive comment relate to the OP situation?
 
While I agree that the guy's sermons were pretty hateful I don't know how the town gets around:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Especially if they can't show he acted according to his speech in the performance of his job.
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
It does say you won't suffer consequences from the government. This is of course excluding speech that is criminal like fraud or inciting violence etc. So how does your dismissive comment relate to the OP situation?

You still have consequences even when you are employed by the government; however, the bar is higher. I agree with the investigation to find out if his performance is affected by his belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution as a satanic belief, but not a witch hunt just because he said crazy stuff.
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
It does say you won't suffer consequences from the government. This is of course excluding speech that is criminal like fraud or inciting violence etc. So how does your dismissive comment relate to the OP situation?

You still have consequences even when you are employed by the government; however, the bar is higher. I agree with the investigation to find out if his performance is affected by his belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution as a satanic belief, but not a witch hunt just because he said crazy stuff.

There are a series of tests for government employees, one of which is that the speech must not be disruptive to the performance of the government function. Given this guy is a fairly senior official, I suspect he'd lose on that one.
 
There are a series of tests for government employees, one of which is that the speech must not be disruptive to the performance of the government function. Given this guy is a fairly senior official, I suspect he'd lose on that one.
Only if they find that he takes God to work with him...
 
There are a series of tests for government employees, one of which is that the speech must not be disruptive to the performance of the government function. Given this guy is a fairly senior official, I suspect he'd lose on that one.
Only if they find that he takes God to work with him...

If he was a clerk in the accounting department maybe. But as a senior official his relationship with the public may be considered a material part of performing his job.

A good analysis here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-employee-speech-that-defends-homosexuality/
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
It does say you won't suffer consequences from the government. This is of course excluding speech that is criminal like fraud or inciting violence etc. So how does your dismissive comment relate to the OP situation?

You still have consequences even when you are employed by the government; however, the bar is higher. I agree with the investigation to find out if his performance is affected by his belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution as a satanic belief, but not a witch hunt just because he said crazy stuff.

There are a series of tests for government employees, one of which is that the speech must not be disruptive to the performance of the government function. Given this guy is a fairly senior official, I suspect he'd lose on that one.

Exactly. The state is just exercising due diligence. If they find his job is unaffected by what he says in his sermons, they have no case and the guy keeps his job. But you are not guaranteed immunity from the repercussions of saying hateful things just because you work for the government. Speech reveals things about your character, even (perhaps especially) if that speech is insincere.
 
If he was a clerk in the accounting department maybe. But as a senior official his relationship with the public may be considered a material part of performing his job.
So, it's NOT an assault on his free speech if the government has a reasonable interest in not putting hateful people in positions of authority... Works for me.
 
If you're the director of public health, it should be of concern to the city if you think (a) the entire theoretical basis of biological science, including medicine, is a lie from Satan, or (b) the most at-risk population for HIV/AIDS is comprised of deviants who want to molest your children.
 
He thinks Oprah embodied the spirit of the anti-Christ and evolution is a satanic belief? What are his stands on Eddie Izzard and gravity?
 
They should look at more than just whether he has acted in biased ways against these groups. They should look at general mental fitness.
 
You do realize the First Amendment does not say "anybody can say anything they want and will suffer no consequences for it", right?
It does say you won't suffer consequences from the government. This is of course excluding speech that is criminal like fraud or inciting violence etc. So how does your dismissive comment relate to the OP situation?

You still have consequences even when you are employed by the government; however, the bar is higher. I agree with the investigation to find out if his performance is affected by his belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution as a satanic belief, but not a witch hunt just because he said crazy stuff.

There are a series of tests for government employees, one of which is that the speech must not be disruptive to the performance of the government function. Given this guy is a fairly senior official, I suspect he'd lose on that one.

Exactly. The state is just exercising due diligence. If they find his job is unaffected by what he says in his sermons, they have no case and the guy keeps his job. But you are not guaranteed immunity from the repercussions of saying hateful things just because you work for the government. Speech reveals things about your character, even (perhaps especially) if that speech is insincere.

Well, I'm not aware of any evidence he hasn't been doing his job well enough up to now. The question thus appears to be whether this speech becoming public/publicized disrupts his ability to do his job going forward.
 
Unless there have been complaints from real people, I don't feel comfortable with this.

This could just as easily be a minister in the United Church Of Christ saying radical things that many people find upsetting (think Jeremiah Wright). Had Wright worked outside of the church, i would not want him to have to censer himself for fear of being investigated by his employer.

Working for the govt should not mean you can't speak as a citizen.
 
OMG - Athena and I actually agree on something (other than Billy Holliday's greatness)?

I am checking the temperature of hell to see how cold it's getting...;)
 
Unless there have been complaints from real people, I don't feel comfortable with this.

This could just as easily be a minister in the United Church Of Christ saying radical things that many people find upsetting (think Jeremiah Wright). Had Wright worked outside of the church, i would not want him to have to censer himself for fear of being investigated by his employer.

Working for the govt should not mean you can't speak as a citizen.
I'm sorry, but exposing that accepting that evolution has a scientific backing is being Satanic to large groups of people (as a leader) should keep you from being in any field that has to do with Biology in pretty much any setting. Why not make Jenny McCarthy his replacement while we are at it?
 
Unless there have been complaints from real people, I don't feel comfortable with this.

This could just as easily be a minister in the United Church Of Christ saying radical things that many people find upsetting (think Jeremiah Wright). Had Wright worked outside of the church, i would not want him to have to censer himself for fear of being investigated by his employer.

Working for the govt should not mean you can't speak as a citizen.
I'm sorry, but exposing that accepting that evolution has a scientific backing is being Satanic to large groups of people (as a leader) should keep you from being in any field that has to do with Biology in pretty much any setting. Why not make Jenny McCarthy his replacement while we are at it?

has this man DONE anything that hurt, harmed, or hindered anyone? Has he used his office in govt to shut down the teaching of evolution in schools?

So far he has preached stupid shit from the pulpit.

Once he does something, I will gladly put on my Sherlock Holmes hat and grab my magnifying glass and investigate the hell out of the this man. But as long as he does do harm using the power of his office to do it, I can't in good conscience support fishing expeditions. Yeah, you might catch a whale, but more than likely you'll just drown a lot of innocent worms.
 
If he was a clerk in the accounting department maybe. But as a senior official his relationship with the public may be considered a material part of performing his job.
So, it's NOT an assault on his free speech if the government has a reasonable interest in not putting hateful people in positions of authority... Works for me.

And I would posit that it doesn't even require "hate".

Imagine for a moment that you are a companies security officer. Among your roles is being one of the first people who employees should call is there is any issue that might impact a clearance in some way.

Now imagine that said officer has posted material on his or her Facebook page that suggests that a given group should not be in the workforce, but should be
" home, with the children". If you are part of that group,
and you have an argument with a neighbor that involves
your children and law enforcement, are you going to
want to give that security officer a call?

Not to mention the role of many senior managers,
hiring, retention and promotion, where opinions
can color decisions, rightly or wrongly.
 
Back
Top Bottom