There’s
been
a
recent
wave
of
First
Amendment
cases
coming
out
of
red
state
public
universities.
The
University
of
Florida
is
figuring
out
if
and
when
schools
can
respond
to
potential
threats,
The
University
of
Oklahoma
being
pushed
to
reckon
with
if
Jesus
can
actually
be
the
answer,
and
the
University
of
Tennessee
is
pressing
if
a
school
can
retaliate
against
professors
sharing
opinions
that
others
find
unsavory.
Shortly
after
Charlie
Kirk’s
death,
any
mention
of
the
man
had
people
on
the
cusp
of
unemployment
—
merely
quoting
the
man
could
have
gotten
you
fired.
This
suit
centers
on
an
assessment
of
the
man
rather
than
a
quote
from
him,
but
the
outcome
of
the
lawsuit
could
have
reaching
consequences
for
how
public
universities
can
respond
to
speech
they
don’t
like.
Knox
News
has
coverage:
University
of
Tennessee
System
leaders
could
be
called
to
testify
in
the
federal
suit
filed
Oct.
29
by
assistant
professor
of
cultural
anthropology
Tamar
Shirinian
and
her
attorney,
Robb
Bigelow.
Shirinian
asserts
the
university
and
UT
System
violated
her
First
Amendment
free
speech
rights
and
is
applying
a
double
standard
in
its
plans
to
fire
her.“I
was
frankly
shocked
by
the
university’s
actions
against
me,”
Shirinian
told
Knox
News
on
Dec.
5.
“I
don’t
understand
how
they
could
possibly
justify
terminating
a
faculty
member
for
expressing
her
own
private
opinions
in
her
own
private
life.”
The
outrage
stems
from
her
comment
on
a
Facebook
friend’s
post
that
“the
world
is
better
without
[Charlie
Kirk]
in
it.”
To
be
honest,
handing
out
posthumous
scumbag
designations
just
seems
like
honoring
Charlie’s
legacy,
but
what
do
I
know.
The
facts
seem
to
skew
heavily
in
Shirinian’s
favor.
She
and
her
lawyer
rightly
pointed
out
that
University
of
Tennessee
professor
Glenn
Reynolds
posted
“Run
them
down”
under
a
video
of
protestors
back
in
2019
and
was
able
to
keep
his
job.
That
sets
a
pretty
high
bar
—
one
that
seems
higher
than
the
University
of
Florida
free
speech
case
about
a
tweet
calling
for
Jews
to
be
“abolished.”
University
of
Florida
read
the
tweet
as
a
threat,
but
there
is
a
good
faith
argument
that
Damsky
was
just
sharing
his
opinion.
“Abolish”
as
used
may
signal
threatening
intent,
but
determining
that
necessarily
hinges
on
how
Prof.
Noel
Ignatiev
used
the
word.
Here’s
the
text
of
the
tweet
for
a
refresher:
Reynolds’s
comment
doesn’t
require
any
comparison
with
other
authors
to
see
that
it’s
a
call
to
violence.
Calls
to
violence,
like
threats,
shouldn’t
get
the
free
speech
protections
that
sharing
private
opinions
or
political
positions
enjoy.
If
Reynolds’s
comments
were
fair
game,
it
is
hard
to
see
how
Shirinian’s
“this
guy
sucks”
comment
passes
the
threshold.
Hopefully
this
quickly
resolves
in
Shirinian’s
favor.
If
not,
you
should
expect
to
see
a
chilling
effect
on
public
university
professors.
This
isn’t
the
first
time
that
a
professor
has
gotten
in
trouble
for
less-than
kind
words
toward
political
figures
—
Ken
Levy
comes
to
mind
—
but
university
backlash
for
what
should
be
protected
speech
needs
to
be
nipped
in
the
bud
before
constitutional
protections
are
eroded
by
the
need
to
protect
everyone’s
feelings.
Tennessee
Prof
On
Her
Lawsuit
Over
Charlie
Kirk
Comment:
‘I
Cannot
Move
On’
[Knox
News]
Earlier:
Court
Gives
LSU
Greenlight
To
Investigate
Law
Professor
For
Bad-Mouthing
Our
Supreme
Leader
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.