MrDave
April 21st, 2005, 11:43am
Check this crap out:
Longmont is investigating a city worker who defended University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill on a radio talk show.
Officials say they want to know if Glenn Spagnuolo used a city cell phone when he discussed Churchill March 3 with 630-KHOW talk-show hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman. They also want to know if the discussion occurred during work hours, city spokesman Rigo Leal said Thursday.
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3684705,00.html
It has been determined that the interview was not on work hours and that the use of the cell phone was proper per city policiy and that he had reimbursed (as per policy and past use) the city for use of the cell phone for private calls.
However... and yet... and still... they continue to investigate - interviewing all of his coworkers.
He did an interview this morning on the radio, and in an interview by city investigators was told his call into a talk radio show, in which he defended and explained his view of what Churchill was all about, was a criminal act.
Can anyone make a case that this isn't purely constitutionally protected speech?
I was so naive looking back self-righteously at the McCarthy days thinking we had moved past such behavior.
Longmont is investigating a city worker who defended University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill on a radio talk show.
Officials say they want to know if Glenn Spagnuolo used a city cell phone when he discussed Churchill March 3 with 630-KHOW talk-show hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman. They also want to know if the discussion occurred during work hours, city spokesman Rigo Leal said Thursday.
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3684705,00.html
It has been determined that the interview was not on work hours and that the use of the cell phone was proper per city policiy and that he had reimbursed (as per policy and past use) the city for use of the cell phone for private calls.
However... and yet... and still... they continue to investigate - interviewing all of his coworkers.
He did an interview this morning on the radio, and in an interview by city investigators was told his call into a talk radio show, in which he defended and explained his view of what Churchill was all about, was a criminal act.
Can anyone make a case that this isn't purely constitutionally protected speech?
I was so naive looking back self-righteously at the McCarthy days thinking we had moved past such behavior.