I missed this abomination from Judge Crytzer in Shirinian v. Plowman (E.D. Tenn.):
Shirinian, a pre-tenure anthro prof at University of Tennessee, was suspended for a Facebook post saying the world was better off without Charlie Kirk and referring to him and his wife as “disgusting psychopath[s].” She was placed on administrative leave pending termination. Crytzer denied a TRO reinstating Shirinian pending litigation.
Contra the Ninth Circuit, Crytzer performed the Pickering balance as if Shirinian was not an academic, as if academic freedom principles do not inform that balance, and as if a university were an ordinary workplace environment undermined by contentious speech (rather than being a forum for just that speech, at least from faculty speaking on matters of public concern).
Worse, the court failed to give full weight to the speech side of the balance because while Shirinian’s speech was in a political “context,” the “general content” was not political because she “did not specifically engaged with Charlie Kirk’s politics or his political message.” This is peak “debate me” as the First Amendment’s be-all/end-all and it reflects utter ignorance of free speech. No more “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” on political figures; speech must debate and engage with ideas to stand at the core of free speech. Someone should introduce Judge Crytzer to Ardith McPherson or Paul Robert Cohen.
Or maybe Glenn Reynolds, who was investigated (unfortunately) but not sanctioned (properly) for a post saying “run them down” in reference to protesters blocking highways.