- law dawg
- 69 Comments
- 2934 Views
As lawyers, we all have had some exposure to the principles of free speech. Some more than others, but at the very least, we should all know that the topic was not fully settled with the passage of the First Amendment in 1791. Since then, and to this day, it remains a hot topic that involves balancing competing interests and a plethora of opinions on what exactly it means. Despite the occasional thwacking we do here, we are proponents of free speech. We are also lawyers that think we understand the consequences of it and are trying to balance those competing interests. We value the free expression of diverse ideas–including those with which we don’t agree–and keep this blog going to provide a space for the exchange of ideas. However, this is not, and cannot be, a true public square. While we make every effort to allow discourse to flow, we generally want civil comment sections that relate to the topics at hand. Some of you are right in identifying that the law touches every aspect of life, but that does not mean comments about all those various aspects are appropriate while we are focused on discussing specific ones. We understand that political viewpoints affect how we speak and how we perceive speech. We know it’s hard to discuss the law without bringing in politics, but a post about local topics is not generally the place to bring up your various viewpoints about what is happening in Washington, D.C., Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Gaza, etc. We appreciate that there are few places where you can have meaningful discussions about those topics, but this blog was not intended for that purpose, so don’t be surprised if your comment that has nothing to do with the topics we posted gets thwacked. On that same note, we reserve the right to thwack your comments that exceed the bounds of our terms of service. You can go read the whole thing, but for your convenience, we quote Rule 1 here:
LB is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking individuals or marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use LB free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Users that incite violence or that promote hate will be banned.
With all that in mind, feel free to enlighten us on your thoughts in the comments.
- Free speech principle after Charlie Kirk. [PrawfsBlawg]
- Teachers “no longer assigned to classrooms” after Charlie Kirk posts, CCSD says. [RJ; KTNV]
- Nevada state senator Edgar Flores faces DUI charge, says he wasn’t impaired. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- No more jail time for defendant in death of Reba the Bulldog. [RJ]
- Security guard shoots tourist on the Strip. [8NewsNow]
Shocked about Richard Dreitzer’s passing. I enjoyed working with him in a variety of capacities and spending time with him socially. I thought he had a solid year as President and moved the Bar forward. I am saddened for his colleagues and his family, and I will miss him seeing him out and about in Las Vegas.
It is, indeed, very sad.
Did not know him, but sympathies to those that knew him and miss him.
I am devastated. He was a great person and volunteered his time to help others in our community.
I didn’t know him, but to those who did, may his memory be a blessing.
He was one of the good ones. I knew him from the BK court and found him to be very competent and reasonable. He will be missed.
Having previously participated in discussions that were considered partisan (for reasons that I don’t entirely understand), I do understand the need for administrators to maintain a civil and respectful comments section.
I genuinely appreciate the daily work that goes into this blog, as well as the consistent contributions from both the administrators and the community. Because this blog serves as an important gathering place for many of us, I do hope the administrators will reconsider allowing thoughtful discussions about national events—particularly those involving our Constitution and federal government—given their direct impact on our local work and lives. For example. Today’s post mentions restricting comments on topics like “Washington, D.C., Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Gaza, etc.” But one of those—Washington, D.C.—is not like the others. Federal policy, more so than foreign affairs, has a significant and immediate effect on our profession and community.
While many of the challenges we’re facing as a country are not new, the volume and pace at which they are emerging is unprecedented and placing real strain on our systems. These are issues that merit discussion at the local level because we can respond—and it’s important that we do.
I think we agree with you, hence the phrasing “a post about local topics is not generally the place…” If you think it’s relevant, please raise it and we will moderate accordingly. We have also, in times past like during the election, created separate posts for national topics and debate to try and allow that discussion without impeding the local items.
Re speech: I’m a rabid Conservative but I don’t like people losing their jobs, etc re Charlie Kirk Postings. If it depends on the party in power it’s wrong re this topic.
Seconded.
Agreed.
You say “it’s wrong” but do you think it should be illegal?
Should Nevada stop being an at-will employment state and require good cause for termination?
Do you have a solution to propose?
Wow I haven’t thought it through that far. What got me on an emotional level was that what if a new party is in power and I say something my boss doesn’t like and I lose my job. Somehow it seems social media should be separate from work. U make it clear there are deeper issues and thanks for the thoughtful reply.
CCSD is getting bad legal advice once again–or ignoring legal advice they don’t like. They should refamiliarize themselves with Pickering and its progeny.
Had to go look up Pickering. Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority, observed that the “problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568.
They are getting bad legal advice, or ignoring solid counsel. Either way, the people making the bad decisions have no skin in the game. We taxpayers will be left to pay for the attorneys fees and settlements that come from this. CCSD is a dumpster fire organization.
At-will employment in the private sector has a different standard than the government (CCSD) firing a teacher because they were critical of Kirk. That’s the law.
Morally and ethically, I oppose firing in both. If one of my employees made inappropriate comments regarding Kirk I will not fire them. I may caution them, express profound disappointment. But I sure as fuck am not letting an angry mob act as my HR department.
I highly doubt CCSD administrators consulted with their legal counsel before punishing teachers for exercising their First Amendment rights as government employees. This is going to cost the district even more money that should be going into the classrooms. The administrators are not doing a great job here.
Would a person be reprimanded/fired for posting racist or lewd diatribes? This is similar.
People do (add misogynistic diatribes into that list as well), and they are not fired for it.
https://firelawblog.com/2024/10/08/court-upholds-termination-of-chicago-firefighter-over-offensive-social-media-posts/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://abcnews.go.com/US/crossfit-gym-closes-pride-month-workout-canceled/story?id=55711335
https://abcnews.go.com/US/17-philadelphia-police-officers-suspended-social-media-posts/story?id=64419082
First link:
“Inendino posted an image from a Black Lives Matter protest at which Kyle Rittenhouse killed two men and wrote as a caption, “Good for him should aim for the torso!!!””
“Inendino posted a meme depicting a car running over pedestrians with the caption, “All Lives Splatter.””
Second link:
“Crossfit Chief Knowledge Officer Russell Berger’s employment was terminated after he thanked the gym for “refusing to celebrate sin,” the company announced on Twitter.”
Third link:
“…most of the 72 officers who had been pulled off street duty posted material “which advocates excessive force, but not necessarily to a person’s membership in a protected class.” He said such posts violated the city’s social media directive by posting statements that “erode the trust necessary for a police department to carry out its core mission.””
The first and third were posts celebrating or encouraging violence. The second was a c-suite executive tweeting in a way specifically contrary to company policy.
But please keep looking for the poor racists and sexists who unfairly lose their jobs for posting on social media. I’m sure you’ll find your ideal victim out there somewhere.
It’s not terribly difficult to see the distinction between a person who is permanently online making threatening comments to large, presently alive sectors of the demographic whom he is supposed to save and protect, and posts from teachers that hyperbolically celebrated the death of a single political pundit whom the teachers owed no duty. This isn’t a difficult analysis.
You are incorrect. It is not similar.
Not me. If an employee gets my company review-bombed for saying atrocious things in their private life I would let them go in a heartbeat. My desire to eat and feed my family outweighs some noble misinterpretation of what constitutes free speech. As the kids like to say, freedom of speech protects your right to say things, it doesn’t protect you from the consequences of the things you’ve said.
What if you get review bombed for reasonable, but very unpopular things your employee says? Still gonna fire them? It sounds like you’re ready to turn HR decisions over to an angry mob.
One distinction being overlooked here is what a private employer may do with regard to employee speech vs. what a government employer may do.
As someone who practices a good portion of criminal defense, I have had more DUI cases denied by the DA’s & Las Vegas City Attorney’s office in the last 2 years than I had in the previous 16. I really think there is a zero tolerance policy among law enforcement nowadays.
Are they not reducing the charges? Do DUI cases go to trial?
I think CCSD is stepping into a steamy turd pile right now. It looks like the comments that have triggered removal were made on social media, which is presumably OUTSIDE the classroom. Not here to defend the dumb, vitriolic takes shitting on Kirk. But I am here to say that this is probably no bueno.
Based on this https://ccsd.net/district/policies-regulations/ it does not look like there are any clear policies that apply to this either. I think CCSD is walking a fine line here by “not assigning to a classroom”. that way they are still technically employed and not being fired for some new made up policy that did not exist when they posted. That said, obviously teachers have a right to their opinion. If they’re not saying it in classroom. okay, but sometimes like one of the teachers here, the stuff they say outside the classroom raises questions about their fitness to be around kids. One of the teachers said something like they watched the video of the shooting repeatedly and liked it more each time. That seems problematic.
Removing teachers from the classroom is a ham-handed way to try to avoid this being an adverse employment action. It won’t work. Removing a teacher from a classroom is less desirable employment, and there’s a stigma that comes with a teacher being removed from a classroom. Assuming the speech at issue occurred off campus, outside of work hours, on social media, then to me this looks like an adverse employment action based on protected speech.
11:40 am says “Assuming the speech at issue occurred off campus, outside of work hours, on social media, then to me this looks like an adverse employment action based on protected speech.”
So, based on 11:40’s criteria, if a 6th grade teacher goes home after work and logs onto Facebook and posts a picture of a 10 year old boy and says “yum”, then 11:40 feels this teacher should be allowed to continue to be in a classroom with children. For me, fuck that. This freak would need immediate removal.
But the teachers who commented on Charlie Kirk’s murder did not make expressions that would cause anyone to think they were a danger to children. They made deplorable, but protected, political speech.
Contrast this example with a teacher saying they believe more school shootings are a good thing, or that they are sexually attracted to children. A hyperbolic reaction to something a teacher didn’t cause or ask for is not the same as showing signs of being a danger to children.
Sig Rogich states “The content of their messages is not protected by freedom of speech, just as inciting panic by yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is not protected.” He is wrong – content based restrictions generally must be narrowly tailored/compelling gov’t interest – unless the teachers were inciting violence (as teachers do not have presidential immunity).
CCSD’s statement says “While not every exercise of free speech regarding political violence would create a prohibited result, if the speech causes any of the results listed above, the employee shall be subject to disciplinary action.” (The speech materially and substantially interferes with school activities).
So, teachers are free to comment on some political violence so long as it doesn’t result in public backlash?
“The Court has made clear that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment. Rather, the First Amendment protects a public employee’s right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006); see also Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968). However, because “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public” and CCSD states it has caused “substantial disruption” CCSD may have grounds for discipline – but the fact that they tie it to the reaction of political partisans seems to fly in the face of what the First Amendment is actually supposed to protect.
Again, the actual statements made by the teachers and in what forum is unclear. But I agree with the other commentors that view discipline based on reactions to a political pundit’s murder is suspect at the least.
This exactly. Also is Sig Rogich a lawyer?
Ah. Found it. He has an undergraduate degree from UNR. He is not a lawyer.
No he is not.
Didn’t stop him from tagging CCSD for half a mill a few years back.
Not a lawyer, but certainly a tribalist.
I was at UNR with Rogich. He worked on the school newspaper and successfully blocked Stokely Carmichael from speaking on campus.
FFS.
This is not true. I also do not believe you attended UNR in the mid 60’s. I hope I have better things to do when I am 80 that read a law blog.
Big fan of the blog title today, the book, and the movie 🙂
I do not know about you, but I preferred Robert Redford to Charlie Kirk any day.
I read about RR’s death when I woke up this morning, and it has put a damper on everything today. RIP RR.
and every day …
A-25-922103-C. Maynarich v. John H. Cotton.
Is there some type of feed that gives you information when a district court case is filed or do you just search on your own for cases? I’m curious and also wonder how the media is notified when cases are filed.
I’m curious about that as well. I had one case where I filed a complaint, with a large national entity as one of the two defendants (EJDC) and that entity filed an Answer three days later without me even having served anyone yet. I was impressed. I asked the attorney about it and he said that their firm does a search on the portal once or twice a week to find cases filed against a few of their larger national clients. (I filed Friday and they filed answer on Wednesday the following week)
Courthouse News Service sends daily emails with all the new filings.
FYI State Bar audits/monitors filings so if an attorney is convicted of a crime, especially a felony, it finds out. Then Bar Counsel goes after the attorneys who did not self report.
That seems tedious. Do they just cross check every criminal complaint against the bar directory? Or cycle through the entire bar directory searching the courts? I pity the employee tasked to do this.
They have stated in at least one petition that they do audit criminal records but I have no idea how they do it? Bar numbers?
702FoolAroundFindOut@gmail.com
oh my.
The Opposition to Cotton’s Motion to Dismiss is almost as good as the Complaint – “Finally, nobody can call PLAINTIFF racist against Indians or anyone as PLAINTIFF has dated several women with Indian heritage and they were all amazing.”
This is basically a moment of transcendent world peace. I hope Judge Kishner recognizes the beauty of this unifying prose.
First Amendment law and free speech is mostly misunderstood especially by lay clients but also attorneys. We could use a primer on the law and how it applies more or less to state action-government action (state, local and federal). A bar review summary would suffice.
The difficulty for most is not understanding that free speech is not absolute and does not apply in most private situations like private employers, FB and social media outlets that are not the town square. Offensive speech is that which needs protection. The ACLU used to be big proponents of free speech but not so much now (They represented American Neo Nazi demonstrators in Skokie, Illinois and other communities.) The younger generation have no restraint on their posts on social media which may not be protected.
Not sure why my last post was thwacked. It was on topic. Wasn’t insulting anyone. Based in facts. Only possible reason is moderators don’t like facts. Would appreciate moderator coming out of the shadows and explaining themselves.
I had the same thing happen. I respect and agree with what’s stated in the explanation, and ultimately their blog, their rules. But, someone commented on the Kirk murder in a way that showed their political leaning, and I asked the commenter a question about what they said in a way that showed mine (in no conceivable way was it hate speech or otherwise offensive or even harshly worded). My comment was thwacked while the original was not. I get it, it’s got to be a lot of thankless work running this blog and the blog has been around a long time. But based on that, I’m peacing out of the blog. I think it has run its course. Were the vajayjay comments related to the topics or discussion of the law? The explanation doesn’t pan out.
Bye Felicia! 👋
I’m blog famous! I’m the original vajaja poster and can’t believe someone just recognized my work. Come back 5:16 if for no other reason than to counter all the unfair thwackage.
Maynarich throwing some shade at the Blog:
“It is telling that Daniel Hooge (OBC) also relied on “informal reports” from colleagues in the legal field to file his petition. These informal reports were likely from the law blog in which people post anonymously and from which PLAINTIFF has never read useful discourse on anything of substance (other than the links to news sources).”
I am deeply wounded at the thought that Maynarich may find my anonymous comments her not useful or of substance.
See Law Blawg, 69 Nev. 420, 421 (2025)(“Firstivus Maximus”)
I mean, I still don’t know who the BK Hottie is/was, but I’ve read multiple useful tidbits here (and on the blog’s predecessor #rip) so I guess my experience over the past 17-18 years has been different than Maynarich’s. If he hadn’t written his rude comments in a lawsuit, and if everyone didn’t comment anonymously, there could be a very weak defamation claim! So close! How’s that for useful discourse?
Does anyone at all recognize the irony of teachers publicly celebrating a school shooter?
WTF!!?!?