|
Replies: 63
| visibility 6705
|
Hall of Famer [8504]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16362
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2290]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
If that was actually his post, he probably has a good case.***
8
8
Oct 3, 2025, 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [87642]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 45518
Joined: 2004
|
thank goodness he didn't post something like "there's only two genders"
5
5
Oct 3, 2025, 2:39 PM
|
|
there's no protection for that kind of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15601]
TigerPulse: 99%
50
|
SC is a right to work state. Salaried folks can be let go without cause.
3
Oct 3, 2025, 7:31 PM
[ in reply to If that was actually his post, he probably has a good case.*** ] |
|
And then when you use a your company platform to post hate speech, it’s a no brainer.
Regardless of his dumb posts, he can fired at any time without cause.
Lawsuits will fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [518]
TigerPulse: 75%
19
|
Clemson is not a company.
1
Oct 3, 2025, 7:48 PM
|
|
Clemson is a government entity.
Big difference when a government entity takes action against someone for speech. That is, if you believe in and support the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3743]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Clemson is not a company.
Oct 4, 2025, 12:11 AM
|
|
Whatever. He exposed the issue with academia and the ignorant intolerant professors that are teaching our kids. He hates the right so don’t fool yourself. I respect his right to his opinion and his right to free speech. But where was he criticizing having knife control over the girl that got killed in NC. Bottom line another hypocrite. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Very simple statement that is often used, but the left does not seem to understand this. If they cannot use a gun they will make a bomb use a car etc. someone who wants to kill will find a way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [518]
TigerPulse: 75%
19
|
Re: Clemson is not a company.
1
Oct 4, 2025, 12:28 AM
|
|
Yeah. “Whatever.” Profound point there.
The rest of your post reads like you simply memorized on-screen headlines from Fox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1923]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Re: Clemson is not a company.
Oct 4, 2025, 1:20 AM
|
|
Pretty empty response. Got anything of substance to offer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [518]
TigerPulse: 75%
19
|
Re: Clemson is not a company.
1
Oct 4, 2025, 1:33 AM
|
|
To that incoherent screed? No.
His reply to my point about a private company vs government entity was: “Whatever.” Seems like that’s more your speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15601]
TigerPulse: 99%
50
|
Oh, sorry, I should have said employer instead.
Oct 4, 2025, 10:48 AM
[ in reply to Clemson is not a company. ] |
|
Same right to work laws apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28409]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16779
Joined: 2018
|
Re: SC is a right to work state. Salaried folks can be let go without cause.
Oct 4, 2025, 12:37 AM
[ in reply to SC is a right to work state. Salaried folks can be let go without cause. ] |
|
Hmmm, I don’t think so…
“A public university is a state actor bound by the First Amendment, protecting the free speech rights of students and employees, even for unpopular viewpoints, though it can impose reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on time, place, and manner. The First Amendment does not apply to private employers, and therefore the Right to Work laws, which apply to private sector employment, do not directly impact a public university's First Amendment obligations, but rather the ability of unions to require union membership or fees from unionized employees. However, the distinction between public and private employment is crucial when considering the extent of free speech rights in the workplace.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2621]
TigerPulse: 83%
33
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
3
4
Oct 3, 2025, 2:46 PM
|
|
Clemson deserves to take the L on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8504]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16362
Joined: 2001
|
the state budget needs to be hit not Clemson's already allocated budget
1
Oct 3, 2025, 2:53 PM
|
|
it's why fiscal blackmail by politicians to impose their knee jerk, cater to the mob mentality is a horrible direction. Let the university/college BOTs and Presidents do the jobs they were selected for/hired to do. Maybe they make the same ultimate decision anyway, but at least it would have been a decision in the hands of those who are supposed to make it and who have the full knowledge of past treatment on freedom of speech, policies, disciplinary alternatives, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15601]
TigerPulse: 99%
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6476]
TigerPulse: 89%
40
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
Oct 3, 2025, 8:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here come the lawsuits ] |
|
Any chance you had a “relationship “ with this fella?
And I can absolutely understand why you would dislike and celebrate the assassination. Straight white man with beautiful wife and 2 kids, pretty much everything that makes your kind uncomfortable.
Your all a bunch of sick weirdos
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [997]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
2
Oct 3, 2025, 2:46 PM
|
|
Where was the ACLU when conservatives were fire for a similar thing. Comments that reflect badly on the employer- private or not. Answer: nowhere to be found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8504]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16362
Joined: 2001
|
did they seek the ACLUs help? because if they had, they would have gotten it
3
Oct 3, 2025, 4:03 PM
|
|
the ACLU will protect 1st amendment speech regardless of side. They won a case for the NRA vs state of NY just last year. A year or 2 before that there was a Christian group in Boston that they fought for to put a flag up in city hall. I don't contribute to them but I also am educated enough to know they will listen to anyone who thinks there constitutional rights have been violated and provide assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15601]
TigerPulse: 99%
50
|
The first amendment says you cant be arrested by the govt for free speech.
1
Oct 3, 2025, 7:33 PM
|
|
Dude wasn’t arrested. Just fired for being dumb.
In SC you can be fired without cause. But there was cause too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [6058]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3743]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Remember when they came to the aid of Pill Poppin' Junkie Limbaugh....
Oct 4, 2025, 12:21 AM
|
|
I post something that hurts my company, I am getting fired and so are you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2179]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Remember when they came to the aid of Pill Poppin' Junkie Limbaugh....
Oct 4, 2025, 12:27 AM
|
|
Yep... People forget that concept, free speech doesn't protect you against your employer holding you accountable... At least not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1923]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Re: did they seek the ACLUs help? because if they had, they would have gotten it
Oct 4, 2025, 1:19 AM
[ in reply to did they seek the ACLUs help? because if they had, they would have gotten it ] |
|
First, asserting what you did did not qualify as education, it is merely trivia. And if you knew of what you were speaking (and were honest) you'd know and acknowledge the case to which you refer is a rarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [215]
TigerPulse: 46%
13
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
1
5
5
Oct 3, 2025, 2:46 PM
|
|
Clemson decided that it would be less costly to settle this lawsuit than to fight for what is right and suffer the repercussions from a tyrannical government. This man will get paid, and he deserves every penny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1768]
TigerPulse: 84%
31
|
Why does he deserve every penny?***
Oct 3, 2025, 7:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [6058]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
^^^^This^^^....Once our
2
Sep 24, 2025, 11:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: Here come the lawsuits ] |
|
gustapo legislature threatened to withdraw funding from Clemson, the University had little choice. If this is the entirety of his post, then I hope he has a case. Otherwise, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in our country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: ^^^^This^^^....Once our
Oct 3, 2025, 9:41 PM
|
|
You confuse freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. They are very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8640]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Heres what he said.
2
Oct 3, 2025, 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [54041]
TigerPulse: 79%
59
Posts: 38710
Joined: 2003
|
I dont have a problem with that post.
1
1
Oct 3, 2025, 9:31 PM
|
|
I do not agree with all of it, but I don’t see why it’s a fireable offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3743]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: I dont have a problem with that post.
1
Oct 4, 2025, 12:32 AM
|
|
I do. It shows a lack of integrity and empathy for innocent human life. I would fire someone that has that low of character. I may disagree with someone, but the last thing I would do is wish them dead or make an ignorant statement about said death. All life is precious and we are all Americans. Everyone needs to speak out against political violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [531]
TigerPulse: 55%
19
|
Innocent is not a word I would apply to Kirk.
Oct 4, 2025, 12:54 AM
|
|
He was a provocateur who got rich trafficking in hate and lying like a rug. I don’t condone murder, but his death did not sanctify his life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8640]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8504]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16362
Joined: 2001
|
he greenlighted it from a no criminal prosecution of Clemson admin standpoint
3
Oct 3, 2025, 3:07 PM
|
|
he specifically says "Instead, any disputes over employee speech rights belong in the civil courts." He himself knew what was coming and probably knows that this will not float in federal civil court which is why he added that statement. But all they care about is political points not the cost to the taxpayer. He has to keep up with his political opponents that are also running for governor and demanding Clemson be defunded. Not a single one of them to my knowledge had the guts to say something "We believe in the leadership of Clemson to investigate this matter and use their judgement based on the policies they have in place. It is not our jobs as AG or legislators to be involved in personnel matters."
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [531]
TigerPulse: 55%
19
|
The AG is a political hack who is running for governor
6
6
Oct 3, 2025, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to The AG greenlighted the termination. ] |
|
And playing to the RWNJs like you. I hope the prof gets reinstated and paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: The AG greenlighted the termination.
3
Oct 3, 2025, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to The AG greenlighted the termination. ] |
|
There's little to no chance Clemson can win this specific case. His statement actively condemns political violence in all forms on multiple occasions and is focused on the ideas Kirk (and the political right) espouse rather than individuals. A halfway competent civil rights attorney is going to rake Clemson over the coals in court on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: The AG greenlighted the termination.
1
Oct 3, 2025, 3:22 PM
|
|
Also just so we're clear his statement is a repost. It's going to be very easy to argue he supports the ideas without retaining full responsibility for the precise language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15601]
TigerPulse: 99%
50
|
Thats not all he said.
1
Oct 3, 2025, 7:36 PM
|
|
But it really doesn’t matter. Clemson doesn’t even need cause to fire a salaried employee. It just so happens he gave cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: Thats not all he said.
2
Oct 3, 2025, 11:19 PM
|
|
That simply is not true in this case. Public universities are government entities. They are bound by the Pickering ruling with regards to their firing practices. At-will laws in SC don't change that. Government employees cannot be fired (or fired without recourse) for speech conducted as a private citizen (i.e. not acting within their official duties)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: Thats not all he said.
2
Oct 3, 2025, 11:26 PM
|
|
Cut off, but government employees cannot be fired for speech as private citizens if the speech addresses a matter of public concern (it certainly does) and does not result in an inability of the employer to operate efficiently (i.e. provide it's services). Social media backlash is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for disrupting the workplace enough to override the professors freedom of expression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14941]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 16170
Joined: 2003
|
He got fired for re-posting that?
6
6
Oct 3, 2025, 2:55 PM
|
|
Horrible decision by the University. Pay the man, learn the lesson. Don’t be chickenshid cowards to social media whims again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11518]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13429
Joined: 2014
|
That was not his only post and not the worst one!***
1
Oct 3, 2025, 9:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [268]
TigerPulse: 65%
14
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
1
5
5
Oct 3, 2025, 3:34 PM
|
|
Clemson will and should lose this lawsuit. Kirk spoke alot of BS, people are allowed to call him for what he was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1892]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
1
Oct 3, 2025, 4:17 PM
|
|
Clemson will and should lose this lawsuit. Kirk spoke alot of BS, people are allowed to call him for what he was.
You're a moron!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [78]
TigerPulse: 26%
8
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
1
Oct 3, 2025, 11:54 PM
|
|
Clemson will and should lose this lawsuit. Kirk spoke alot of BS, people are allowed to call him for what he was. You're a moron!
He’s a smart guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1768]
TigerPulse: 84%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3743]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: What messages of Kirk's do you disagree with?***
Oct 4, 2025, 12:54 AM
|
|
Ha! I will hang up and listen to our left leaning friends response. After all is said and done, we are all American’s and Tigers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1715]
TigerPulse: 94%
31
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
Oct 3, 2025, 9:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here come the lawsuits ] |
|
Clemson will and should lose this lawsuit. Kirk spoke alot of BS, people are allowed to call him for what he was.
WRONG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1892]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
1
Oct 3, 2025, 4:17 PM
|
|
Right to work, right to fire!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4984]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
unless a contract was broken,
2
Oct 3, 2025, 4:53 PM
|
|
you can fire anyone in South Carolina for any or no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [40202]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
|
Exactly, South Carolina is an at-will work state
1
Oct 3, 2025, 5:14 PM
|
|
"Both employers and employees can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, provided the reason is not illegal or discriminatory."
The illegal or discriminatory part leaves a gray area. So most employers look for a reason probably for legal purposes, as I've seen in my four decades of employment in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: Exactly, South Carolina is an at-will work state
1
Oct 3, 2025, 5:31 PM
|
|
Speech as a private citizen is a quasi-protected class for government employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
1
Oct 3, 2025, 5:29 PM
[ in reply to unless a contract was broken, ] |
|
1. That's not exactly true. "Right to work" is not without all legal protections. There are several protected classes. You cannot, for example, fire someone for being pregnant. You will get eviscerated in civil court for it. Speech, however, is not typically a protection from firing. That being said...
2. Government employees, whether it be local, state, or federal, have a unique employment situation insofar as it relates to speech because they specifically work for an entity that has legal obligations regarding freedom of speech. This was established in the Pickering ruling 50+ years ago. Government employees are not provided carte blanche protection from their employers for all speech as private citizens, but to say they can be fired for "any or no reason", specifically as it relates to speech based reasons, is just incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
Oct 3, 2025, 5:33 PM
|
|
Sorry, right to work is the union rule - at-will is the non-contractual obligation rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4984]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
unless a contract was broken,
Oct 3, 2025, 4:54 PM
|
|
you can fire anyone in South Carolina for any or no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redshirt [97]
TigerPulse: 96%
10
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
Oct 3, 2025, 5:16 PM
|
|
You are correct! South Carolina is a right to work state and anyone can be fired for any reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4928]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
2
Oct 3, 2025, 5:16 PM
[ in reply to unless a contract was broken, ] |
|
Actually you can't if the reason abridges the person's constitutional rights, one of which is free speech regarding the government (and Clemson is government funded).
I liked Charlie Kirk and find his comments reprehensible but I don't think they rise to "shouting fire in a theater". I think Clemson loses this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38456]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17970
Joined: 2008
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
Oct 3, 2025, 5:36 PM
|
|
A jury in SC is not going to rule against Clemson and the right to work laws in SC. As long as his civil rights were not violated such as firing him because if his race, sex or religion, he has no case. Just because the ACLU took the case means nothing. They lose more jury cases than they win, esp. In the right to work states.
I'm sure the university used the "inciting violence" law to terminate him. Many evil far left loons were fired by state, local governments and pvt. Companies for celebrating the murder of an innocent person. Why would Clemson be in a position prohibiting them from exercising their right to work laws or an employee inciting violence when it was being exercised in other states?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
1
Oct 3, 2025, 6:00 PM
|
|
You really should look up the Pickering Balance Test. He has a very strong case. Right to work and at will employment are pretty irrelevant here. The entire case is going to be 1) was his speech related to a matter of public concern and 2) did his speech create a disruptive workplace such that it should override the rights of the speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1833]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
Oct 3, 2025, 7:28 PM
|
|
Who funds the ACLU? Just have never understood their reason for existing. If the professor has a problem, shouldn't he hire a lawyer and sue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: unless a contract was broken,
1
Oct 3, 2025, 11:47 PM
|
|
The ACLU is funded by donations and membership dues.
As for why they exist? They exist to defend Americans against government violations of their civil rights. It's a pretty important endeavor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [531]
TigerPulse: 55%
19
|
A jury in SC or anywhere else in America is
Oct 4, 2025, 1:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: unless a contract was broken, ] |
|
obligated to follow the law—not your opinion, however strongly you may feel about it. If they do decide to disregard the law, the judge can set aside the verdict or it can be overturned on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7252]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Kinda hard to sue the guvmint
Oct 3, 2025, 9:27 PM
|
|
and win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
Oct 3, 2025, 9:42 PM
|
|
Methinks that there are some quotes missing from the complaint…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6442]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Here come the lawsuits
Oct 3, 2025, 11:53 PM
|
|
Let him rest in peace
Poor guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [620]
TigerPulse: 84%
21
|
Woke professors need to be fired anyways job well done Clemson***
1
Oct 4, 2025, 7:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 63
| visibility 6705
|
|
|
50
