Comments on Advance Indiana™: Jonathan Turley Weighs In On Zoeller's Firing Of Jeff Cox

Again, what? You claim the words were taken out o...

2011-02-28T01:23:16.601-05:00

Again, what? You claim the words were taken out of context, but you don't quote either the context OR the words. In response to a tweet about police going in to clear the Statehouse grounds, Cox said "USE live ammunition." When asked if he was serious, he said, "'You're damned right I advocate deadly force." Its pretty strightforward. Your responses misrepresent what he said. Nor is it a common colloquialism that means something else. He admits he made a lousy choice of words. Why don't you?

Again, Paul, his comment was in response to assass...

2011-02-26T23:08:39.275-05:00

Again, Paul, his comment was in response to assassination threats being made against the governor and Republican legislators. There was concern for the safety of the elected officials. Jeff didn't say to go start shooting the demonstrators; he was responding to their heightened rhetoric by suggesting the police sent out to protect them better be carrying live ammo. He said it was intended as an attention-grabbing rhetorical device. If put in context, he was not suggesting they go out and start firing indiscriminately on demonstrators with live ammo. What did Obama mean when he said if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun?

The issue here, as I understand it, is whether the...

2011-02-26T20:34:55.445-05:00

The issue here, as I understand it, is whether the first amendment protects an assistant attorney's job when he advocates that the government fire upon peaceful protesters. I saw the context - he was asked if he was serious, and he said for people threatening the safety of legislators and the governor damn right. Well, even if some protesters were carrying the kind of signage you say they were, they didn't take any action to "threaten the safety" of government officials. For an employee of Indiana's top law enforcement agency to advocate using live ammo on these people reflects terribly on the agency, and the AG was absolutely right to fire him. He was an employee of the AG IS and absolutely should be held to a higher standard.

Again, Paul, The quote was taken out of context. P...

2011-02-26T12:57:46.101-05:00

Again, Paul, The quote was taken out of context. Protesters were carrying signs that had photos of Gov. Walker's head in a gun sight, as well as other images and messages threatening violence. Internet twitter posts made by lefties similarly promoted violent actions against the governor and Republican lawmakers. Police had told lawmakers the crowds were so large they could not ensure their safety. His comment came in response to riot police being called in to assist with crowd control. The live ammo comment was satirical response to the violent threats of the protesters. Nobody in the media cared to ask why public school teachers could hold up signs at the protest that were essentially advocating the assassination of the state's governor, but national media attention was focused on Jeff for that one comment in response to the heightened rhetoric on the other side. Typical double standards we've come to expect from our left-leaning news media.

Interesting analysis. You point out Kennedy's...

2011-02-26T12:17:30.790-05:00

Interesting analysis. You point out Kennedy's opinion that "So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively."

I myself can't imagine that any judge is going to say that the first amendment would shield an assistant AG from adverse action for advocating a state government's use of live ammunition on protesters. That kind of statement reflects upon the AG and his ability to be effective. Certainly the statement reflects enough in lack of decorum and respect for democratic ideals to permit the AG to terminate him on that basis.

The same people who jumped down Jeff's throat ...

2011-02-24T20:39:49.960-05:00

The same people who jumped down Jeff's throat for what he said were all giddy when Obama remarked that if your opponent shows up to a fight with a knife, you bring a gun.

I agree with the opinion of Turley. I know all to...

2011-02-24T19:27:01.071-05:00

I agree with the opinion of Turley. I know all too well about Garcetti. Garcetti says that if you are a government employee and you speak out about something related to your job, then the federal Free Speech clause doesn't protect you.

While Garcetti was supposed to be narrowly confined to just your job duties, the 7th Circuit and other Circuits have extended to basically mean anything in the work area. As a result of Garcetti and the cases that have expanded it, government workers have almost no federal free speech protection for talking about anything that happens in the work place.

The AG's Office loves Garcetti. As I noted on my blog, the AG's office under Carter and Zoeller is extremely hostile to whistleblowers. They won't investigate wrongdoing in government that's pointed out by state employees and jump at the chance to use Garcetti to get their whistleblowing lawsuits dismissed.

In my case I was blowing the whistle about illegal things going on at the Department of Insurance. The AG raised Garcetti and we pointed out that many of the things I was talkng about had to do with other sections of the Department of Insurance for which for which I as supervisor of the Title Insurance Division had no job responsibilities. The 7th Circuit didn't care that those other things weren't within my job duties. The 7th Circuit continued its tradition of an extremely expansive reading of Garcetti.

Fortunately for my case the Indiana free speech clause provides more protection than the First Amendment and Garcetti doesn't apply. You also have a state whistleblowing law that applies in my case that wouldn't apply in Jeff's. I fully expect my case will be returned to the Marion County Superior Court.

I do find it more than a little interesting though that Jeff's comment about using "live ammunition" on protesters actually has more protection under the Frist Amendment than my comment pointing to violations of the law in the Department of Insurance. But that's the First Amendment says thanks to Garcetti. That's a case that begs to be overturned.

As an average citizen, I think the comment was fun...

2011-02-24T19:11:17.413-05:00

As an average citizen, I think the comment was funny. I never thought is was the thought of a deranged weirdo who may present a danger. I saw it as a spoof about a situation in Wisconsin, that was humorous. Furthermore, I recognize that this had nothing to do with his employment nor reflect in any way on the employer's reputation or standing.

I really wish that the AG would have taken a lighter approach on this....it just did not warrant dismissal!