Wake Up Call for Thursday: Crime Stats, Life on Campus for a Conservative Professor, and other Stories from Higher Ed with Dr. Sean Mulvenon

We are entering an era in America where nothing is sacred, nobody has free speech, everyone is offended, and liberals (and conservatives, apparently) are embracing "cancel" culture......dangerous, slippery slope...

Today on the wake-up call live on WPNN 103.7 ---we welcomed to our show Dr. Sean Mulvenon, PhD, professor of Educational Statistics at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.  I met Professor Mulvenon at a recent business trip to the Las Vegas area.  We discussed free speech, campus life for a conservative professor, media narratives on crime and race juxtaposed with statistical facts, and other topics of interest.  Then we went through a host of local, national and international stories of interest- discussing multiple issues from around the country that traditional media outlets just won’t cover---because we will always cover interesting, important stories that are not politically correct and won’t otherwise be reported.  That’s what we do on the Wake Up Call!  😊

We are live each weekday morning from 6:00AM-8:00AM on WPNN-Pensacola's Information Station, where local, conservative morning-drive talk radio is ALIVE and Well and where we give you the most powerful 2 hour(s) in local morning drive talk radio.

Pensacola's only conservative, local morning drive talk show giving you information, weather, traffic, humor, and educated, intelligent discourse with no PC filters....The Wakeup Call with Jeff Bergosh on WPNN FM 103.7: Radio UNRESTRAINED!

- you can listen to this morning’s show here

 

Wednesday on the Wake Up Call: A Conversation with Rick Outzen--Owner and Publisher of InWeekly--On LOCAL Topics

The Haters and Liberals that Couldn't Stand Charlie Kirk Couldn't wait to Disgustingly Vandalize and Destroy the Beautiful Mural of Kirk at Pensacola's Graffiti Bridge on Sunday---turning it into this, above....

Today on the wake-up call live on WPNN 103.7 ---we welcomed to our show Rick Outzen, owner and publisher of InWeekly for a deep dive on local stories of interest.  Then we went through a host of local, national and international stories of interest- discussing multiple issues from around the country that traditional media outlets just won’t cover---because we will always cover interesting, important stories that are not politically correct and won’t otherwise be reported.  That’s what we do on the Wake Up Call!  😊

We are live each weekday morning from 6:00AM-8:00AM on WPNN-Pensacola's Information Station, where local, conservative morning-drive talk radio is ALIVE and Well and where we give you the most powerful 2 hour(s) in local morning drive talk radio.

Pensacola's only conservative, local morning drive talk show giving you information, weather, traffic, humor, and educated, intelligent discourse with no PC filters....The Wakeup Call with Jeff Bergosh on WPNN FM 103.7: Radio UNRESTRAINED!

- you can listen to this morning’s show here

 

The Limits of Free Speech: You Can't Threaten the President of the United States

Yesterday while I was hosting our live radio show on WPNN--a discussion of free speech led to an interesting series of text(s) from a listener.

The discussion was in response to Bruce Springsteen's recent derogatory comments about President Donald Trump while the American singer was performing in Europe.

My take is simple.  The fact that Americans can voice their opinions, even about the president's performance, is what separates us from most (if not all) other countries.  Of course we can choose to disagree or for that matter not support celebrities, athletes, actors, or others -- by not purchasing or listening to or watching their work product(s).

Some will choose that route.  Some will try to get some celebrities "Canceled" for certain actions, statements, or conduct by these famous public figures. 

Newsflash:  Free speech means people can say and do things that turn your stomach.  Hate speech is free speech.

But free speech has its limits, naturally.  You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

You cannot yell "BOMB" in the TSA line at the airport.

And....you cannot threaten the President of the United States.

During our show Friday morning on WPNN at texter sent me a mural that someone had painted on Pensacola's iconic "Graffiti Bridge."  This listener took great umbrage to the mural, below

The texter to the show next pulled over and covered the offensive call to action, leaving the mural this way:

The texter to the show said of his handiwork: "Someone wrote 'Kill Trump' on the Graffiti Bridge...I guess it's freedom of Speech but I pulled over and painted over it"

To which I responded "Thank you for doing that!!"

No--that's not free speech.

Have the PNJ--and Others that Possess Stolen County Files Unlawfully--- Committed a Felony?

 Today's hatchet piece in the PNJ was not entirely surprising to me.  They were named, along with two others, in the county's lawsuit over stolen county records.  They knew that the files they received were stolen.  They have been told the files have been manipulated.  They have published anyway.

The Judge in the case has called a hearing and it will come soon.  The Gannett lawyers assigned took great umbrage to this, according to what I have been told today from staff.

I'm told lawyers for Gannett have even actually called the county attorney's office in advance of the soon to occur court proceeding with BS garbage about why they are entitled to hang onto these un-redacted, stolen county files that contain personal identification information on five individuals or more. They are the "media"--that's why!

The problem for them is---nobody has been able to find a single exception to the Florida Statutes that speak to personal identification information being  possessed, unauthorized, by the "media".  

There isn't one.  

Gannett's lawyers probably know that, thus the first of what will be many hatchet jobs as they seek to maximize the damage they attempt to cause with the stolen, manipulated county property they possess unlawfully.

Here's what the relevant statute,  § 817.5685 , says.  No "exception" for media outlets so far as I can tell.

Meanwhile, the PNJ has been served with an order to show cause as the county's lawsuit for replevin and conversion regarding stolen county files is moving rapidly through Escambia's court system.  It is coming up quickly, scheduled for February 5th.

Discovery and depositions are coming--get ready!

Thus, it is not surprising to see their (PNJ's) hamfisted hatchet piece online today--where they once again place me in a false light with actual malice by snipping and cutting purported text messages from the stolen county file they have in their possession (that they know has been manipulated)--putting exchanges out of chronological order purposely and glossing over the fact I was telling anyone and everyone my plan to bring Perdido Key back to D1 once the board decided to rush through the redistricting in a shortened timeframe.  I said it directly to my peers on the board at the first workshop in September of 2021 in no uncertain terms---so  to attempt to convince readers I have acted unlawfully and violated the state's sunshine law by discussing something I had already stated at an open advertised meeting as well as on the radio prior to discussions with a citizen is preposterous and ridiculous.  

That assertion is wrong, and PNJ knows it. It's garbage rubbish and they know it.

These files are manipulated, they know this, too and again the chronological order of the conversations in their hit piece is changed by the PNJ.  On top of this fact--in order to make the reader believe unlawful, shady, unethical requests are being made---the reality of the situation is that in the timeline PNJ shared with the readers it is quickly apparent that before this particular text exchange happened I had already told all board members my intention----in public meeting(s)-----to go back to the year 2000 district lines again where Perdido Key was in District 1!!!!  I'd also discussed it on the radio and publicly at an advertised meeting.

I also did a blog post on this topic three weeks before the redistricting meeting on October 5th.

It wasn't a mystery--certainly not to the other board members.

They (PNJ) leave that out purposely and conveniently, put conjecture in, change the timeline, and add in opinions from ill-infomed individuals on the sunshine law to add "credibility" to their attack, and insinuate I have done something illegal.  It is all garbage though-- a false light attack with actual malice.

This is par for the course with them: they (PNJ) are throwing spaghetti at the wall--because they know that there is likely to be a temporary restraining order issued to curtail their selected release of stolen, manipulated, unverified, and unredacted county files that they and others possess unlawfully.

So they'll likely be priniting a raft of similar stories, based upon these stolen files, over the next several weeks ahead of a potential temporaty restraining order that will prevent them from continuing to publish stories based upon these stolen files--but will rather force them to acquire public records the proper way----by requesting them like everyone else has to do.

That all said, though----------- the most important development to come from PNJ's B.S. garbage pile hit-piece today is the news that yes, they, (PNJ) do indeed have a complete copy of my downloaded iPhone.  They admitted it by posting this picture:

Prior to this article and this picture being published by the PNJ today--there was some question as to whether or not a complete copy of my iphone had been stolen unredacted from the county's servers.

 Jonathan Owens clammed up when approached by investigators--although he has mentioned multiple times in the media that he has a "jump drive".  Others have lawyered up.  So nobody knew one way or the other for sure-------------------until today---------------that all of the phone backup files had been stolen and disseminated unlawfully.  Thanks, PNJ, for confirmation!  

There was suspicion, but not confirmation, until today.    

So that will be more good information to develop questions for the coming depositions in the civil trial where folks won't be able to "not answer."  Can't wait for that.

Meanwhile-- with today's publication of this picture  above (which I verified was on my original, unadulterated, unmanipulated download from the county this evening when I got home from work)---we now know that whomever it was that has possessed this file not only possessed it unlawfully but also at a Felony level due to the fact that the pictures on this file contain personal identification information on at least five individuals, as stipulated in Florida Statutes.

In addition to all of this, I am also aware now that others that possess this file have lied about it to authorities and there is compelling, new  information on this now being looked into by investigators.

The thing to remember is not to lie.  Tell the truth, or the truth will find you.

Lie to the FBI and all bets are off.  period.  That's a felony and they don't like being lied to.  And it doesn't matter what title you hold or what office you occupy.

Lie to the FBI ad it is a felony. Could be a career ender.

So don't do it.

I'll be on 1370 WCOA's Real News with Rick Outzen Tomorrow Morning at 7:00

I'll be on Pensacola's highest quality, highest rated, most accurate and trusted morning drive news program--"Real News with Rick Outzen" tomorrow morning at 7:00AM.

Rick Outzen, host of the area's best, highest-rated, most trusted and accurate source for morning-drive news programming--"Real News with Rick Outzen"--has invited me to be the week's lead-off guest tomorrow morning at 7:00AM.

The county won't be having any meetings anytime soon--however there is never any shortage of topics for discussion, so I'll be prepared to field any questions Rick wants to throw at me.

Perhaps we will discuss the garbage guest-editorial in today's PNJ--lionizing the clerk and slamming the BCC?

Perhaps we will discuss the ongoing homeless issue the city is enduring? 

NFCU's new park facility opening?

Who knows, maybe he'll ask me about my free speech rhetorical question I posted on my blog that is getting hammered by hits?  Or the whole bruhaha in Tallahassee?

Or maybe the issue of the "who" it will be running the new Beulah fire station once it is completed in the next few months and the old one is decommissioned.

Or the latest on OLF 8 and/or the Beulah Master Plan, or Perdido Incorporation?

There's never a shortage on what we can discuss.

So tune in live on 1370 WCOA at 7:00 or catch the podcast here, I'll post it once Rick publishes it.

Fickle Free Speech Warriors Found their Limits, Apparently

We either have free speech in America or we don't.  

Speech that is disgusting, stomach-turning, and vile is precisely the type of speech that requires the protection of a Constitutional Right to vocalize it.  In America we have that protection, it's called the First Amendment to the constitution--a vital part of the Bill of Rights.

But do we really have free speech though, in 2023's America?  Everyone knows there are guideposts and some speech is NOT protected (e.g. yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater)--but what about political speech?

Sometimes it seems as if free speech is only permitted if certain groups, political parties, individuals, beliefs, cultures, constituencies, and ideologies are specifically NOT targeted.

We know about cancel culture.  

We know some comedians get away with saying anything they want, about anyone they want, with no real risk of financially-costly blowback.  Sometimes, folks in this camp financially benefit from their outrageously offensive speech.   Others, however,  have artificially constructed and universally mandated but unvocalized "boundaries" that, if crossed, bring immediate cancellation, stigma, and financial ruin.  Many have met this fate and never recovered.

Christians are routinely targeted for hateful speech, disgusting "artistic" depictions, and shameful cartoons.  Ho hum, nobody cares, and few stand up to decry attacks on Christianity, which is telling.....

Other religions, however, enjoy universally embraced, accepted, and projected "boundaries."  As an example:  the National Endowment for the Arts paid an artist to display a Crucifix in an aquarium full of urine.  They gushed that this was "ART" and a protected form of self expression.

By contrast, when the disgusting spectacle of the buring of the Holy Quran was advertised, promoted, and threatened by a "reverand in Florida"---free-speech warriors were AWOL. 

See how that works?

To be clear:  I do not support disgusting attacks based upon the immutable or specific characteristics of any particular religion, race, culture, or person.  NOBODY should engage in this.  I certainly don't.

But if we truly have free speech to protect disgusting, vile, appalling and gut-turning speech aimed at such persons, institutions, and cultures----------it is only a real thing if it is not selective and not punitive.  

In America--the left, the media, and some special interest groups with smiling faces and determined sincerity say cute things to demonstrate their alleged "support" of the First Amendment.  They say "We have the First Amendment----you can say anything you want but you have to understand there may be real consequences for what you say."  (translation: say something they don't 'like' ----and they will seek your absolute destruction for hate speech----- if they deem it to be 'offensive'....)

No, while they blatantly distort  their support of free speech--they've already tacitly adopted and normalized the European model on "free"speech--which surpresses much of it based upon artificially manufactured and politically correct driven "norms".  

Recently--these very same fickle free-speech warriors have apparently found their limits within a wedge issue among their comrades.  Yes, the left and many media outlets are currently embroiled in what appears to be an uncharacteristic, unusual display of internal squabbling which is driving a wedge through their caucus. (normally, they swim like a school of fish with uber liberals, moderates, and conservative Democrats ALWAYS closing ranks and moving together as a unit--which has been incredibly EFFECTIVE for them.  Republicans, by contrast, never seem to get this--particularly lately--which leads to splinter groups, infighting, and a [figuratively speaking, of course] circular firing squad effect that allows Republicans to LOSE when it counts the MOST).  And I say all this as a LIFELONG Republican!!)  

Now, it seems, the left are divided on the Israel/Hamas war.  And America's handling of it.  And President Biden's response.

Many Democrats want an immediate cease fire and decry the loss of Palestinian lives.  Others, perhaps fewer, openly purport to support "Israel's right to defend herself" while privately (and sometimes publicly) equivocating the violence of the October 7th Hamas terror attack with their perception/understanding of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, historically).  It is ripping the Democrats to pieces and President Biden's re-election polling numbers are showing the outcome.  And it get's even worse for Biden if Joe Manchin runs in the No Labels party next year, to boot.

But setting those political implications aside--here comes something interesting and curious.

As I saw very talented editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez' cartoon going viral (depicting HAMAS doing what HAMAS actually does--hiding behind innocent civilians as human shields)--these same selective free-speech warriors demanded and succeeded in having that cartoon pulled.  And the complicit Washington Post--a  compromised left-leaning newspaper --compliantly pulled the cartoon down and issued a gushing apology to appease the hard left.

This cartoon was attacked by the left and some in the media and subsequently pulled from publications in 2023

Deleted Comments Redacted and Reposted

Look:  I don't like censorship and I am a free speech guy and anonymous speech is free speech according to the ACLU.  (Except when anonymous speech is critical of the ACLU, their favored political figures and parties, some religions like Islam, and/or some racial groups --but not all ethnic or cultural minorities).

So on this blog I rarely moderate comments unless the language is really, really bad---- so bad it is beyond the pale.  I am a free speech guy.  Freedom of speech is not enshrined in the bill of rights to protect speech that is sanitizeed, homogenized, and nice.  It's there to protect speech that some will find offensive.  But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.

Political speech is rough and tumble and is also free speech.  At least it is for now--whether or not it will continue this way is an open question as we see things change in the culture of the media and mainstream thought as new terms like "hate-speech" are adopted as if they are actually in the constitution.  They aren't.

This said, the "n-word" is toxic and it should be removed from the english vocabulary and I won't have it printed on my blog ever, period.

So yesterday a couple of comments popped up on my blog which I immediately had to pull down.

One contained a curse word, one contained the "n-word."  So I pulled them down, saved a screenshot of them and then redacted the offensive content.  I am posting, below, the redacted content.

No, I am not a fan of censorship.  Yes, I support free speech.

What to do about Panhandlers? Homeless?

 

I've been contacted by a number of citizens that want the county to draft an ordinance "prohibiting" panhandling.

Our board has discussed it, this issue comes up frequently.  The problem is panhandling is allowable free speech according to the lawyers.  Where counties can step in is when there is behavior is unsafe (e.g. if panhandlers are in the road).  But even this behavior is tough to tackle--as by the time a complaint is made and a police officer is dispatched, such a violator more than likely will have retreated to the right of way or sidewalk.  Thus, even that unsafe (and already illegal) behavior is next to impossible to curtail.  And an additional ordinance enacted would do little to nothing to curb the behavior.  It's like the genius state law passed last session about "noise from vehicles" that is so subjective, so opaque, that not ONE law enforcement agency in the state of Florida will be able (or willing) to enforce it.

But they passed a law, though!  Problem solved!  Drinks all around!!  (Yet the noise from car problem persists.....)

You cannot legislate your way out of every problem.

Despite this being an axiom of truth most of us understand with crystal clarity--some folks with whom I have recently spoken "Want us to do something, pass an ordinance, or something, anything, to make this go away!"

Of course that's a fool's errand for multiple rational reasons.

And meanwhile----panhandling persists.  Homelessness is a growing problem.  And yes, the two are intimately intertwined.  Along with untreated mental illness, poverty, social dysfunction, and addiction.

Yesterday evening we received word that Pensacola is opening a homeless facility.  Good, good for them and I wish them all the best.  Meanwhile, the county has $4 Million to help with the problem and I can't get the city to even respond to a request for a joint meeting.  We have sent no fewer than 4 requests.  I've spoken personally to the mayor.  I've spoken to Connie Bookman.  They obviously don't want a meeting with the county. 

So I'm adding this topic to our next meeting on August 4th.  Maybe the city will do their thing, and the county will do our own?  Maybe that is what the city wants, due to their lack of interest in a joint meeting?  Who knows?

Nevertheless---I still think scaling up the Satoshi Forest model, deep in the woods, away from subdivisions and residences is the way to go. Something that is secure, with wrap-around services brought out to the camp, and where no drugs are tolerated and where security and CC cameras are present to maitain safety and order. 

Interestingly---The students from CLA independently brought the same general, basic concept. (Minute 13:00 of this video)

So the county will discuss this on the 4th and figure out the answer to an important question:  How do we best spend the $4 million earmarked to assist this problem?  

I have my thoughts, now hopefully we will get the conversation started on the dais so I can hear what my counterparts want to do about it.

And I guess we will be doing it separately from what the city is doing....

Complex issue, lots of moving parts, no easy solutions.

Legal Fee Reimbursement Will be Requested by Commissioner Underhill

How much will it cost to reimburse the legal fees of a commissioner who prevailed in a lawsuit filed against him?

Upon hearing about the dismissal of the defamation case against Commissioner Underhill last week, our attorney notified us that the issue would more than likely be on the board's agenda for our meeting on the 17th of this month.

This does not surprise me, as the issue between Commissioner Underhill and the Plaintiff was settled via a summary judgment in Commissioner Underhill's favor.

And I have confirmed with knowledgeable staff on this that the request for reimbursement is coming, it will be asked of the board.  So far, though, nobody has seen an invoice or an amount paid for this victory.

I do know that the discussions about whether or not to pay the legal fees became heated several months back;  many in the public were opposed to paying these fees, as the thought process then was that the conduct at issue which drew the suit appeared to be outside of the "duties of a commissioner."

But with this ruling and with this order--that previously accepted line of thinking might be changing (which, incidentally, benefits all public officials that are outspoken on social media).

From the judge's order in Commissioner Underhill's Ruling:

"It is not beyond the orbit of the county commissioner to engage in discussions with the public regarding matters pertaining to policy. Denial of immunity in the context of this mutually desired debate, including statements intended to undermine the messenger to attack the message, would relegate the immunity to be so uncertain to chill communication.....

   ....The absolute privilege of affording immunity has  been  proven"

Those are pretty strong words from the judge----yet I anticipate much public comment on this prior to a vote by the board on paying the legal fees.

I anticipate much discussion among the board members, too.

If the board votes to pay the fees, I think the matter ends abruptly.

If the board votes NOT to pay the fees, I believe we, ourselves, would be subject to a lawsuit to compel us to pay.

What else could happen?  Well, the board could wait to see if any appeal would be filed to this judge's ruling--and wait for final disposition of the appeals.  I guess it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Board could disagree with the Judge's opinion that the conduct that drew the suit was within the scope of this commissioner's duty?  That seems unlikely though.

Much of this could hinge on how much the fees are/were for this victory---that's my opinion.  Could it be less than $5,000.00?  Nobody knows.

Regardless of cost, regardless of what anyone thinks about this commissioner or this suit--this was a very profound ruling in today's ever-changing political world as it collides with the world of social media and free speech.

It will be an interesting discussion on the 17th.

Blocking Citizens from a Public Official's Official Site---I Don't Do It

Come one, come all. 

Everyone is welcome to comment here on my blog or on my official Commissioner's Facebook site.

And they always have been!

I have been aware, for a while now, that allowing citizens to access and interact with my Commissioner's social media sites is not only a good practice--it is required!

So I don't block ANYONE from accessing and/or commenting on these sites--with the caveat that threats or obscenities are not permitted and that comments to my blog go through moderation for language/spam etc prior to appearance on the site..

So it comes as an odd surprise that today I am being accused of blocking people from my public commissioner sites--which is a lie.

The ironic thing is......the person that is making the claim visits and comments frequently.  See below screenshots or go to my facebook site and look at his comments in real time

It is odd and peculiar for folks to lie about something like this, I wonder what the motivation for this is???  look at the screen shots below and see for yourselves!!

Request for Censure, Part II

At our most recent public forum meeting, on April 17th, I once again was asked to lead the board in censuring a fellow County Commissioner.

At minute 18:15 of this video, speaker Randy Thompson makes his case that the board should censure Doug Underhill over some comments Underhill made regarding recent marches in support of tightening gun legislation...

At the completion of Thompson's remarks, the board considered his comments and no censure of Doug Underhill occurred. 

It was a good discussion about free speech and also the consequences of free speech, but we as a board were not convinced that we were the ones that needed to act to censure a colleague. 

For my part I opposed a the idea of censuring my counterpart, because we are not his behavior police.  I stand by that.  He is free to say what he wants, and he will have to bear the consequences of his remarks--but it is a slippery slope to go down if we are to start micromanaging each others' speech at the behest of citizens who request this at our public forum meetings....

This is America, we have free speech.  But even in America with our free speech rights--there are limits.  If the speech reaches a level that is unacceptable, the court of public opinion and more importantly the ballot box tally will right the wrong.  That is the appropriate mechanism to correct behaviors and speech of independently-elected constitutional officers.

                John Denver testifies before congress on the importance of free speech in 1985                                     

In 1985, wives of U.S. Senators attempted to censor the Music Industry because these ladies felt some of the music was offensive.  One of the speakers they brought in, ostensibly to back their position and agree with censorship, was beloved and highly regarded Country-Western artist John Denver.  But something interesting happened at the hearing that day.  A very eloquent John Denver destroyed their arguments and stood steadfastly in opposition to censorship next to Frank Zappa, Dee Snider (of Twisted Sister) and many record company executives.  So impressed was Dee Snider after that hearing, he was quoted saying "I'll Kick the S&#T out of anyone that says anything bad about John Denver"  I'll never forget watching Denver's testimony that day--and it kind of reminds me of this issue. 

John Denver was right then, and I am right now.  In America we don't censor Art, Music, and speech.  Not if we want to keep the liberty we all enjoy...

Request for a Censure

I have been asked to add an item to the next regular board agenda to "censure" Doug Underhill for his comments regarding the recent marches for firearms law changes. 

My response to these request(s) is below.

Freedom of Speech Part I: Political Satire is Protected Free Speech

The Mayor of Peoria, Illinois, was furious.  Someone was making fun of him via a fake twitter account, so the Mayor went to war.

What happened next is both weird and fascinating.

Chronicled in a well written story in today's New York Times--this is a lesson we in politics should all understand:  Just because a politician is a powerful elected official with thin skin and a massive ego--this person still cannot deny someone their right to free speech.  And using official taxpayer funded resources to go after someone who parodies elected officials ends badly for such a politician (and taxpayers too, unfortunately...)


From the Chicago Tribune's coverage of this story:

A Peoria man who repeatedly parodied the city's mayor on Twitter, then saw police raid his home in an unsuccessful attempt to bring criminal charges against him, has agreed to settle his lawsuit against the city, his lawyers and the city announced Wednesday.

Peoria will pay Jon Daniel $125,000 in damages and attorney's fees to settle the lawsuit brought in June 2014, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, whose lawyers represented Daniel.

"I'm really satisfied with the outcome in this case," Daniel said in a 

Does Free Speech Even Exist Anymore?

This story out of Texas caught my attention today, and got me thinking about free speech.  It seems that there is no free speech in America anymore, particularly on sensitive topics.  Even in online chats and arguments on twitter-the "boxing ring" of the internet.  Nope, everything said, no matter the context, will be used against you.  Creepy in an Orwellian way....

 Vinita Hegwood, a High School English Teacher from Duncanville, was suspended with pay and will be terminated from her position as a teacher because of some off-color comments she made on Twitter.

From The Root:

"A Duncanville, TX English teacher has been suspended over a tweet that has been described as racially charged. Friday evening, Vinita Hegwood posted the following tweet to her account:

'Who the [expletive] made you dumb duck ass crackers think I give a squat [expletive] about your opinions about my opinions RE: Ferguson? Kill yourselves.'

The district took swift action and exercised the fullest disciplinary action allowed under district policy. Ms. Hegwood was placed on suspension without pay pending discharge. Under state law, a school district’s Board of Trustees “fires” staff members, and the district will pursue that action with the board soon" 

I understand that what this teacher said was insensitive, racially offensive, and certainly unacceptable.  But so far as I understand the story-she made these posts on her private Twitter account on her own off-duty time, under her twitter handle, a pseudonym.

While I in no way want to sound like I support what she said, I support everyone's right to free speech.  I strongly support that! I also feel that an immediate termination over someone expressing their right to free speech-- with an obviously heavy dose of sarcasm and hyperbole in her tweet--- will have an icy, polar effect on honest discourse.  Fire her?  Really?  What about counseling, a suspension, and sensitivity training?

I don't agree with what she said, I dislike it.  However, what was the context of the exchange?  What was the pretext for her aggressive, hate-filled tweet.  We don't know.  So It is one and done?

The only thing I can think from this, what seems to be an overly robust punishment for an off-duty, non-illegal act, is that this district wanted this teacher out or that she already had numerous disciplinary issues.

Barring that, I simply do not see how this action will stand in the courts.  If it is upheld, will this be living proof that free speech no longer exists in America?