If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(metro.co.uk)   Headline: "Butt-print teacher out on his ass" Says his lawyer: "the decision represented 'a bad day for the First Amendment.' " With Video goodness   (metro.co.uk) divider line 87
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

5968 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2007 at 4:30 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-10 04:32:35 PM
So they figgered out who 'twas despite his wonderous disguise?
 
2007-01-10 04:32:38 PM
Don't buy the brown paintings.
 
2007-01-10 04:33:02 PM
Please, no pics...thread is just fine without them.

/no, really...it's all good without them
 
2007-01-10 04:33:55 PM
Sounds more like a FARK headline.
 
2007-01-10 04:34:11 PM
B-b-b-butt free speech!
 
2007-01-10 04:34:13 PM
This thread is useless with pics..
 
2007-01-10 04:35:04 PM
Butt repeat.
 
2007-01-10 04:35:19 PM
like the quote included from the student body describing the suspension as 'stupid' and 'kinda retarded'.

/because it is kinda retarded
 
2007-01-10 04:35:31 PM
How is this a first amendment issue? If I were the butt painter I'd fire my lawyer for stupidity
 
2007-01-10 04:37:08 PM
i102.photobucket.com
Unavailable for comment.
 
2007-01-10 04:38:48 PM
I've seen his paintings. They're not all they're cracked up to be.
 
2007-01-10 04:38:56 PM
Butt Butt Butt Clinton!!!!
 
2007-01-10 04:39:11 PM
jonezee

How is this a first amendment issue? If I were the butt painter I'd fire my lawyer for stupidity

Because quite simply, painting is expression. Even if it's not words, it has meaning, and is thus protected.

/not a lawyer
 
2007-01-10 04:40:11 PM
When he requires greater detail, he uses his penis.

I was going to say something silly, but that's silly enough.
 
2007-01-10 04:41:54 PM
PopeoftheFCOTB: Because quite simply, painting is expression. Even if it's not words, it has meaning, and is thus protected. /not a lawyer

Thank god you're not a lawyer. But you can read english right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

/snarky
 
2007-01-10 04:42:15 PM
Ok, so I don't want pics of the guy doing the paintings, but I'd like to see the paintings themselves. OK, fine I'll go a-googling..
 
2007-01-10 04:42:23 PM
and he signs all of his paintings ass follows:



*
 
2007-01-10 04:44:51 PM
Because quite simply, painting is expression. Even if it's not words, it has meaning, and is thus protected.

Yes, yes it is. And he wasn't arrested or fined or punished by the government in any way, so his rights have not been violated.
 
2007-01-10 04:45:09 PM
Pro Zack gets a cookie from me!
 
2007-01-10 04:47:11 PM
come on... I've seen the do not want dogs all over tha place. where are they now?
 
2007-01-10 04:49:55 PM
jonezee

Yes, I'm aware that the First Amendment doesn't say anything about art. That's why we have those pesky judges interpret our Constitution.

From pbs.org:
Symbolic Speech Protected
In 1931, in Stromberg vs. California, the Court determined that "symbolic speech" is protected under the Constitution. The case was spurred by the conviction of a woman who had displayed a red flag in a public place, an action associated with anarchist groups and then criminal under California law.

The Court found parts of the California statute unconstitutional and by implication ruled that the display of symbols could be protected speech. As applied to the arts, this means that not just words, but paintings, music, theatrical performances, and other types of artistic expression are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.


Hope you can read that too, jonezee.
 
2007-01-10 04:50:36 PM
Hey, I submitted that early this morning with the link to MSNBC. I subbed mine: Butt Printing Teacher loses ass in end.
Later, I wished I had written: Butt Printing Teacher loses ass to butt. Oh well, at least someone's out there with a similar sense of humor ass mine.
 
2007-01-10 04:51:51 PM
the dog is a given here, I would hope.
 
2007-01-10 04:52:21 PM
Millennium

And he wasn't arrested or fined or punished by the government in any way, so his rights have not been violated.

So a county school system firing him for expressing himself in his own way outside of the school environment isn't a violation of his rights?
 
2007-01-10 04:54:31 PM
Millennium: he wasn't arrested or fined or punished by the government in any way

Who runs the school he worked for?
 
2007-01-10 04:55:41 PM
Pro zack, no, that's a sign of the Cat.
 
2007-01-10 04:56:35 PM
MONSTERTRUCK

Hey, I submitted that early this morning with the link to MSNBC. I subbed mine: Butt Printing Teacher loses ass in end.
Later, I wished I had written: Butt Printing Teacher loses ass to butt. Oh well, at least someone's out there with a similar sense of humor ass mine.


...sphincter.
 
2007-01-10 04:57:07 PM
jonezee: How is this a first amendment issue? I


AMENDMENT I:

Anything goes.
 
2007-01-10 04:58:11 PM
Heh - jonezee done got pwn3d by PopeoftheFCOTB .
 
2007-01-10 04:58:28 PM
MONSTERTRUCK

I knew I had seen his signature before!
 
2007-01-10 04:59:59 PM
Do they include a mushroom stamp to prove their authenticity?
 
2007-01-10 05:00:22 PM
PopeoftheFCOTB Hope you can read that too, jonezee.

I think you're confused about why he was terminated and whether the school board denied him his "right" of free speech. Brush up on the reading comprehension skills and check back later. Help out Doctor Funkenstein while your at it. Form a study group of some such.
 
2007-01-10 05:00:31 PM
Pro Zack, in Graphic Arts school, the assterisk was officially called "the cat's butt". I was responsible for the offical name change at the school. Even my teacher caught himself referring to it as such with incoming "Mormon" students. The horror!
 
2007-01-10 05:00:43 PM
Millenium

i'm pretty sure that public schools are government institutions.

draw your own conclusions.
 
2007-01-10 05:04:27 PM
I'd prefer to Butt Print my own conclusions, thank you. *
 
2007-01-10 05:07:33 PM
PopeoftheFCOTB, hotter than the ads:

I have to agree with jonezee here. At no time did the school try and restrict his right of free speech. Firing someone because you don't approve of what they say, their art, etc, is not an abridgment of their free speech.

That's like saying the president can't fire the white house press secretary if he starts bad mouthing the administration, or something to that effect.
 
2007-01-10 05:08:46 PM
jonezee, why was his non-work related artistic activity not protected under free speech?
 
2007-01-10 05:12:28 PM
Ass painter's lawyer got it wrong: every day this idiot "expressed" himself through ass-and-penis painting was a "bad day for the 1st Amendment." Even if this were protected speech, and even if firing him violated the 1st Amendment, I weep that anyone would find this man's actions worthy of even a second's thought.
 
2007-01-10 05:14:35 PM
farkingnotworking:

Please read my post above. Or, read the first amendment again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Even when you include art as protected speech here, as PopeoftheFCOTB showed, no where in this situation was the man's freedom of speech abridged. He was not arrested or convicted for what he was doing, or prevented from doing it.

Let me put it simple: The fact that someone got fired from their job (school or not) for 'art' is not the same thing as someone being prevented from expressing themselves. He can express himself all he wants. In this case, however, that expression had consequences with regards to his job, and that's not protected under the 1st amendment. You don't have a right to a job; you just have the right to express yourself.
 
2007-01-10 05:14:53 PM
But was it his "front-butt"?
 
2007-01-10 05:15:05 PM
Well I am a butt painting. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some blog readers believe anything they hear.
 
2007-01-10 05:17:58 PM
Thanks, Jonezee. So does that mean that a boss can fire me if I speak in support of a political candidate I don't like? Or if I make a landscape painting that he doesn't think is pretty enough (even if my job doesn't have anything to do with painting)?
 
2007-01-10 05:19:00 PM
Sorry, bad editing there. I meant to ask if my boss could fire me for speaking in suport of a candidate *HE* didn't like.
 
2007-01-10 05:20:37 PM
So a county school system firing him for expressing himself in his own way outside of the school environment isn't a violation of his rights?

No, it isn't. He's not been given any kind of fine or jail sentence. It's within the right of any employer to fire an employee.
 
2007-01-10 05:21:49 PM
Yes, but did he put his junk in a Munch?
 
2007-01-10 05:22:34 PM
farkingnotworking:

I imagine he can fire you for whatever reason he wants. That depends on which state you are in I believe, though; I know in some states you can fire someone without giving a reason and they have no recourse (I forget what it's called but my mom got fired a few years ago and there wasn't anything she could do because of it)
 
2007-01-10 05:26:32 PM
farkingnotworking: why was his non-work related artistic activity not protected under free speech?

According to the school board, community standards and "roll model" expectations. Their policy= terms of contract

/course the school board knew of his "extracurricular activities" for a couple years, it merely became a "disturbance" recently
//used to be that teachers were fired for tending bar or other "moral" lapses- now not so much- community standards change and vary (remember the chick in texas with the "nude art :)" website? She was fired also.) Give it a few years and painting with your penis and semi-hot nude teachers with websites will be in vogue

2007-01-10 05:17:58 PM farkingnotworking In a lot of places in this country the "boss" can fire you for any reason. There are federal laws protecting race and disability, but that won't be the reason the boss cites, "you're a pain in the arse" is generally enough

/Now if he calls you a "S&AA-A" as you walk out the door, and it's on your handy voice recorder, then you're golden in all 50
 
2007-01-10 05:27:04 PM
Hmmm...well I'm pretty sure that in my state you can't be fired for just any reason. Protected categories like race, religion, gender, age, marital status and disability can't be used as a reason for firing. I just thought speech would be a protected category as well.
 
G2V
2007-01-10 05:28:51 PM
Couldn't the threat of firing based upon your 'speech' be considered an abridgement of free speech? Just curious.
 
2007-01-10 05:31:31 PM
farkingnotworking You are correct. There are -some- things you can't get fired for.

Depending on the state, there can be others as well. To be honest, there very well might be a state law for which this guy's being fired was indeed illegal. I don't know enough about Virginia to know.

In this case though it would be a state stature making it illegal and not the first amendment as many in this thread are purporting.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report