[Goose]

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.


Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

Yes, and when they lose the lawsuit they can be forced to rehire him. Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a world where "at will" employees really were exactly that and could be fired for an reason or no reason. However, our laws are not that, and firing somebody because they advocate political actions with which you disagree (and are not criminal) is generally impossible. Atlas hasn't been charged with a crime, and I seriously doubt he could be.

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.
As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

I think you misunderstand the framers. The "virtue" to which they refer is not the "virtue" of though police but the ability of the public to reject calls for actions that would result in piles of bodies because said public's own virtue. Scott Atlas appears to think there are activities going on in terms of governmental overreach that are "destructive to society". Should he be able to demand firing everybody that doesn't agree with him? I certainly don't agree with him. I would prefer he didn't work at the Hoover. However, if he leaves it should be because he was "run off" by people clearly demonstrating his ideas are inaccurate, not just because we don't like them.

The difference between Atlas and Jones is so obvious it hardly needs discussion. Jones actually poisoned people who did die. Now, if you want to argue that Atlas called for violence against the Michigan Governor that is fine, but you have to be able to make that "stick" in a legal sense. So far, no jurisdiction has indicated they felt they could make that case. While you are at it, you can tell us what should have been done with Stanford employees who stood in White Plaza and told us we should "Off the pigs".

[Goose]

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.


Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

Yes, and when they lose the lawsuit they can be forced to rehire him. Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a world where "at will" employees really were exactly that and could be fired for an reason or no reason. However, our laws are not that, and firing somebody because they advocate political actions with which you disagree (and are not criminal) is generally impossible. Atlas hasn't been charged with a crime, and I seriously doubt he could be.

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.
As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

I think you misunderstand the framers. The "virtue" to which they refer is not the "virtue" of though police but the ability of the public to reject calls for actions that would result in piles of bodies because said public's own virtue. Scott Atlas appears to think there are activities going on in terms of governmental overreach that are "destructive to society". Should he be able to demand firing everybody that doesn't agree with him? I certainly don't agree with him. I would prefer he didn't work at the Hoover. However, if he leaves it should be because he was "run off" by people clearly demonstrating his ideas are inaccurate, not just because we don't like them.

The difference between Atlas and Jones is so obvious it hardly needs discussion. Jones actually poisoned people who did die. Now, if you want to argue that Atlas called for violence against the Michigan Governor that is fine, but you have to be able to make that "stick" in a legal sense. So far, no jurisdiction has indicated they felt they could make that case. While you are at it, you can tell us what should have been done with Stanford employees who stood in White Plaza and told us we should "Off the pigs".