{"id":82325,"date":"2013-09-06T12:41:52","date_gmt":"2013-09-06T16:41:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.designerchildren.com\/court-rules-for-free-speech-in-former-wsu-professors-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2013-09-06T12:41:52","modified_gmt":"2013-09-06T16:41:52","slug":"court-rules-for-free-speech-in-former-wsu-professors-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/court-rules-for-free-speech-in-former-wsu-professors-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Court rules for free speech in former WSU professor\u2019s lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    A federal appeals-court ruling has found that a Washington    State University professor who circulated a controversial    proposal to revamp the schools communications department was    protected by the First Amendment.  <\/p>\n<p>    A lawyer for the American Association of University Professors,    which supported the former WSU professor in a brief, called it    a significant ruling protecting the academic freedom of    professors at public institutions.  <\/p>\n<p>    Aaron Nisenson, senior counsel for AAUP, said the degree of    free-speech protection afforded to university professors was    thrown in doubt by a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Garcetti    v. Ceballos, which restricted the free speech of public    employees.  <\/p>\n<p>    The question in the courts has been, When is speech    considered academic speech, that is protected? Nisenson    said. This was a significant case in that it further clarified    when that speech is protected.  <\/p>\n<p>    The case involves David Demers, a former WSU communications    professor, who distributed a two-page pamphlet in 2007 that    outlined a plan to improve WSUs Edward R. Murrow School of    Communication. At the time, the future of the school was being    debated.  <\/p>\n<p>    Later, Demers  who now teaches at the Walter Cronkite School    of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State    University  sued WSU in U.S. District Court, claiming    administrators retaliated against him, in part by giving him    negative performance reviews.  <\/p>\n<p>    The district court said that Demers writings were distributed    as part of his official duties and therefore were not protected    under the First Amendment. That decision drew on the 2006    Supreme Court ruling which held that public employees acting or    speaking in their official capacity were not protected by the    First Amendment, Nisenson said.  <\/p>\n<p>    Demers appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which on    Wednesday reversed some parts of the ruling.  <\/p>\n<p>    In a statement he distributed by email, Demers called it a    great victory for those who cherish academic freedom,    free-speech ideals and shared governance.  <\/p>\n<p>    Demers said professors should have the freedom to criticize    administrators and their policies, and said the decision    bolsters the idea that free-speech protection for professors    extends beyond their academic research programs and the    classroom. It covers our service role, too.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>The rest is here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/seattletimes.com\/html\/localnews\/2021764491_wsulawsuitxml.html?syndication=rss\" title=\"Court rules for free speech in former WSU professor\u2019s lawsuit\">Court rules for free speech in former WSU professor\u2019s lawsuit<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> A federal appeals-court ruling has found that a Washington State University professor who circulated a controversial proposal to revamp the schools communications department was protected by the First Amendment. A lawyer for the American Association of University Professors, which supported the former WSU professor in a brief, called it a significant ruling protecting the academic freedom of professors at public institutions.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/court-rules-for-free-speech-in-former-wsu-professors-lawsuit\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[162384],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-speech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82325"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}