Professor Melissa Click should be fired

[LittlePinky82]

Indeed, legally, I could see some humble community service. I would also like to see the administration take action. A suspension so she can reflect and mandatory sensitivity, rights, and civility training would be apropos.

She already had to give up an appointment to the journalism area and did apologize (personal feelings about the apology not withstanding it happened to the person who she did her remark to). Didn't they have a vote on it? So I doubt anything more is going to be done. I could maybe see civility training in regards to her job in the media. Honestly, as I said before, that was just immature and snarky and especially for someone who a) is an adult and b) is involved in the media and education of the media at the school. No one else who was an adult there acted like that in regards to making threats. Even if she didn't mean it she had two guys come over and that could be seen, by the person it was directed as, as her backing up her threat. Even though they didn't appear to touch him and they were nice about it it still can be clearly seen as intimidation from the person it's directed at. So, yeah, I agree with at least civility training for someone involved in the media and education of the media. As far as the sensitivity and rights issue I have personally no feelings either way so if that's seen as an appropriate response: why not? I don't know about community service for something like this though. I could see the judge possibly having her do the classes though.

 

[Mister Emu]

She already had to give up an appointment to the journalism area and did apologize (personal feelings about the apology not withstanding it happened to the person who she did her remark to). Didn't they have a vote on it?

The Journalism school was voting to revoke her courtesy appointment, which she vacated. I think the school administration needs to do something to say: This is not acceptable behavior for professors.

Even if she didn't mean it she had two guys come over and that could be seen, by the person it was directed as, as her backing up her threat

On what grounds other than blatant partisan blinders could someone say she didn't mean it? She said it, and then followed up with getting several people to surround and "politely" harass the reporter until he left.

 

[LittlePinky82]

The Journalism school was voting to revoke her courtesy appointment, which she vacated. I think the school administration needs to do something to say: This is not acceptable behavior for professors.


On what grounds other than blatant partisan blinders could someone say she didn't mean it? She said it, and then followed up with getting several people to surround and "politely" harass the reporter until he left.

If you listened to her voice she was very heavily being snarky and sarcastic and immature. You can hear her voice previously in the video and she was more serious and more authority in her voice vs later with the person filming her immaturity level rose.

I think the school revoking her appointment in journalism is really all they can do since she was just doing things verbally. Even the two guys who came over were polite and didn't touch him and he went on about his day and was still filming even after the event. And when Click saw him again was still being snarky and sarcastic.

The judge will decide the issue and that's that.

And now she's getting death threats. Do you find that acceptable?

 

[Mister Emu]

If you listened to her voice she was very heavily being snarky and sarcastic and immature

Oh, she was definitely immature on a level that boggles the mind. Still, the five year old throwing a temper tantrum is both immature and serious.

She was a bad actor who put just about the worst face(sans actual violence) on the already at best dubious practice of driving reporters out of a public space.

I think the school revoking her appointment in journalism is really all they can do since she was just doing things verbally.

I imagine there is a morals and ethics clause in her employment contract that assaulting a student would violate. I would say she needs to take time to reflect on her actions and why her apology was not accepted by her victim.

You are correct though, the judge will decide legally what to do, and the administration will decide what to do, and that will be that.

I'm not even going to address that last bit of posturing other than to note with warning the increasing trend to tie all disagreement with extreme/violent/racist/etc. segments of disagreement.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Oh, she was definitely immature on a level that boggles the mind. Still, the five year old throwing a temper tantrum is both immature and serious.

She was a bad actor who put just about the worst face(sans actual violence) on the already at best dubious practice of driving reporters out of a public space.


I imagine there is a morals and ethics clause in her employment contract that assaulting a student would violate. I would say she needs to take time to reflect on her actions and why her apology was not accepted by her victim.

You are correct though, the judge will decide legally what to do, and the administration will decide what to do, and that will be that.

I'm not even going to address that last bit of posturing other than to note with warning the increasing trend to tie all disagreement with extreme/violent/racist/etc. segments of disagreement.

Im sure there is a clause. A lot of job contracts have them and about bringing a negative image to your employer as well is usually included too. It will be interesting to see what the judge says. Im glad the cases are happening even if just to clear up issues involved. If you ever think your rights are violated it doesn't hurt to sue. At least try. With the apology all you can do is offer one. People aren't obligated to accept. Shrug.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Now I'm not saying that the DOJ is affected by politics, but the White House has come out in support of the demonstrators.

There's no conflict here. I support the demonstrators and the journalist. Rights are rights. Your rights end only when you affect the rights of others.

No. He's a student journalist. He's not a journalist yet.

There's no distinction made in that regard. If you represent any form of media, then you are a journalist. I pull that string all the time as I am a journalist for ScubaBoard.com. It gets me into many a trade and consumer show for free and allows me to carry an additional bag on some airlines for free. They never ask to see a degree.

 

[LittlePinky82]

There's no conflict here. I support the demonstrators and the journalist. Rights are rights. Your rights end only when you affect the rights of others.

There's no distinction made in that regard. If you represent any form of media, then you are a journalist. I pull that string all the time as I am a journalist for ScubaBoard.com. It gets me into many a trade and consumer show for free and allows me to carry an additional bag on some airlines for free. They never ask to see a degree.

So why did he identify himself as a "student journalist"? Because that's what he is. Just like before I got my degree and certified by the govt and the ABA I was a student paralegal. I wasn't one yet. When I did my internship there was only so much I could do. I'm sure they ask for some form of identification and everyone has their own requirements.

And I'm sure the judge will answer the question that I've had all this time. Do you have the right to be left alone in a public place? If someone says "please don't take my picture" or to step back do you have to listen? The student journalist and the other side both have their cases to be made. The students weren't telling him to not take pictures. They were saying to step back out of their faces or some didn't want to be individually taken with their pictures.

The student was right in that Missouri doesn't have laws about it. So the only way you can get an answer about the issue is through a Judge.

The reason why there's a conflict is because there's not a statute about this type of issue. I looked at the site with the Missouri law firm and they had some cases but nothing relevant enough to be a guide for this case that I thought should be used. :\

 

[esmith]

I think you have a problem here littlepinky. Freedom of the Press is just that "Freedom of the Press" not freedom of a journalist. Nothing is said that you have to have a Journalism degree to write for a publication whether it is publishing via digital or print media. When the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution were written do you really think there were "Journalism" degrees. When one writes for the school paper do they have a degree? I think you are trying to justify your statement using a false premise.
http://journalism.about.com/od/schoolsinternships/a/Journalismdegree.htm
http://www.writersbureau.com/writing/qualifications-freelance-journalist.htm

So admit you are wrong and be done with it.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I think you have a problem here littlepinky. Freedom of the Press is just that "Freedom of the Press" not freedom of a journalist. Nothing is said that you have to have a Journalism degree to write for a publication whether it is publishing via digital or print media. When the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution were written do you really think there were "Journalism" degrees. When one writes for the school paper do they have a degree? I think you are trying to justify your statement using a false premise.
http://journalism.about.com/od/schoolsinternships/a/Journalismdegree.htm
http://www.writersbureau.com/writing/qualifications-freelance-journalist.htm

So admit you are wrong and be done with it.

While you are correct in talking about over all I'm specifically talking about this student. He's choosing the path of gaining his experience and qualifications through getting a degree. So, in talking about him being a student journalist and not formally one yet this is the path he chose to go with it. So, since he's not with his degree yet he's not formally considered a journalist hence why he called himself a "student journalist" since he's still learning from people. So, while yes, he's technically a journalist he's still a student of journalism and not with the qualifications yet through the route he chose by getting a degree. He should still have the same protections as a formal journalist since he is still under the tent of journalism.

And yes back then there were University's and degree's. Journalism has been around a long time.

 

[Mister Emu]

They made a simple request for him to back up out of their faces and some students didn't want their individual picture taken.

They made a simple request, and when he denied it they forcibly removed him.

And again, what about the right to be left alone in a public space? Do you have that right or can a journalist take your picture and print it and make profit off it without your permission?

Yes, in a public space the right to privacy shrinks to about your clothes and body. Anyone can take a picture of you in a public space at any time, unless a reasonable person could expect privacy. That means the lawn is fair game, but inside the tents is not for instance. The law that lets paparazzi hide in bushes and climb trees and **** and take pictures of celebrities because they are still technically on public land is the same law that lets that guy stand there, without harassment, and take pictures of pretty much anything he can see.

And most papers have some sort of qualifications that come with your resume before they will hire you including a degree in journalism. They're not going to take any Jane or Joe off the street.

Some whole sectors of journalism, games journalism for instance, exist almost entirely without trained and degreed journalists. Whole publications won't have a single actual journalist. So yes, you can be "off the street" and do journalism work.

 

[LittlePinky82]

They made a simple request, and when he denied it they forcibly removed him.


Yes, in a public space the right to privacy shrinks to about your clothes and body. Anyone can take a picture of you in a public space at any time, unless a reasonable person could expect privacy. That means the lawn is fair game, but inside the tents is not for instance. The law that lets paparazzi hide in bushes and climb trees and **** and take pictures of celebrities because they are still technically on public land is the same law that lets that guy stand there, without harassment, and take pictures of pretty much anything he can see.


Some whole sectors of journalism, games journalism for instance, exist almost entirely without trained and degreed journalists. Whole publications won't have a single actual journalist. So yes, you can be "off the street" and do journalism work.

They didn't remove him though. Not even the guy who was verbally threatened by Click was removed. They were arguing with him about it but they didn't remove him. So, I don't know where you got that from.

But the law in Missouri doesn't have anything about that on the books. All they have is about the right to be left alone and they deal with it through Court cases.

But most places won't take you without qualifications. This student chose to get his through a journalism degree.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Little Pinky, you have proven the saying that you can't reason with an unreasonable person. You have so many conflicting statements in all of your writings that it amazes me you just can't see them. Maybe it's that you just won't see them.

I pointed out that there was no law that requires me to stop taking someone's picture on public property, even if they asked me to. I even sent you to a site that discussed this very thing and you keep re-posting where it clearly says that there just isn't any such law. Unfortunately, you keep insisting that this proves your point, where it actually supports mine. There is no such law. Further reading suggests that tort law (that determined in the courts) does not support your understanding of how it should work. Your right to protect your image being taken on public property simply does not exist except when it's for commercial purposes or under a precious few extenuating circumstances. The right to left alone, does not include not having your picture taken. I don't know where you got that, but it's not how this works.

Many, many journalists don't have a degree. Many, many more who have a degree don't have one in journalism. Such a degree is not a requirement to being a journalist. Ergo, the legal differences between a journalist and a student journalist is moot. In this case, and on school property, the student journalist would enjoy more rights than a non-student journalist since they actually belong there and should not be evicted by the University for trespass. In other words, being a journalist does not mitigate being a student one whit. He did not stop being a student, the moment he became a journalist. In other words, he had as much right as anyone in the demonstration to be there. To deny him access is to deny him the rights of being a student.

Now, as an agent of the University, Ms Click has put her employer in an untenable situation. She has exposed them to substantial legal jeopardy and I am sure that they will do whatever is necessary to mitigate that exposure. That's the problem of living in such a litigious society and I suspect she will relive her actions both in public and private for some time as the ramifications of her little hissy fit unfold. It sucks to be Ms Click at this point.

For further study, look up journalist on dictionary.com. I refuse to do that for you, but you'll see that having a degree is not a part of that definition. For fun and frolic, read this: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp How I wish that more journalists would abide by these precepts. Too many are looking for ratings rather than the truth. The student journalists in question here seemed to honor that code and I applaud them for standing up for their rights.

 

[Mister Emu]

They didn't remove him though. Not even the guy who was verbally threatened by Click was removed.

I thought we were talking about the asian ESPN photographer, maybe just trying to get a good enough photo set to land a contracted position instead of freelance. That they push out and away from where he was standing, because they didn't want the press too close to what they were doing. So physical force is okay now. That's what that whole "Everybody get in rows and just start walking towards me", "Oh, I'm sorry I can't help pushing you, I'm being pushed tee-hee" bit was, that was them evicting him from his space because... social justice, I guess.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I thought we were talking about the asian ESPN photographer, maybe just trying to get a good enough photo set to land a contracted position instead of freelance. That they push out and away from where he was standing, because they didn't want the press too close to what they were doing. So physical force is okay now. That's what that whole "Everybody get in rows and just start walking towards me", "Oh, I'm sorry I can't help pushing you, I'm being pushed tee-hee" bit was, that was them evicting him from his space because... social justice, I guess.

A reasonable person would feel that the right to be left alone also extended to all journalists as well. We're not dealing with a reasonable person here.

 

[LittlePinky82]

You know what? I'm conceding. I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything. You all are the only ones who know everything. You're the only ones right. Have fun. This idiot is out.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And I thought a reasonable person would have the extension be to people who didn't want to individually be photographed and asked him nicely to please not take my picture but didn't care about their feelings of being published or not and making a profit off it in whatever paper he was working for.

What you think is not only irrelevant: it's entirely wrong. A reasonable person understands that you give up your right to privacy when you venture from a private area to a public one. Check out Wikipedia's article of Public Space here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space In it you will reference to the right of common passage. Meaning that the journalist had as much right to be there as the demonstrators and that neither they or he could impinge on either's right to be there. Also note the one line: "In some cultures, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, " One of those cultures would be the United States and that would include the Mizzou campus.

You talk about the right to be left alone, and forget that the journalist has the very same rights. They should have left him alone. He was harming no one and only doing his job. It doesn't matter if they don't like his job. It doesn't matter if they don't like him. It doesn't matter if they think he's a part of the vicious media or a leprechaun. He has the same right to be left alone. Their rights do not supersede his and his rights don't supersede their's. The right to be left alone does not include not having your picture taken in a public place. Here's an example of that on Scuba:

You should know that the attacker was charged and convicted for assault and battery EVEN THOUGH he did not want his picture taken. Note that the victim was not a journalist, yet they still had the right to take a video of what they thought was an abominable practice of poisoning fish in order to capture them. I think it's horrid too, and am glad this cretin is off the reef.

 

[LittlePinky82]

What you think is not only irrelevant: it's entirely wrong. A reasonable person understands that you give up your right to privacy when you venture from a private area to a public one. Check out Wikipedia's article of Public Space here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space In it you will reference to the right of common passage. Meaning that the journalist had as much right to be there as the demonstrators and that neither they or he could impinge on either's right to be there. Also note the one line: "In some cultures, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, " One of those cultures would be the United States and that would include the Mizzou campus.

You talk about the right to be left alone, and forget that the journalist has the very same rights. They should have left him alone. He was harming no one and only doing his job. It doesn't matter if they don't like his job. It doesn't matter if they don't like him. It doesn't matter if they think he's a part of the vicious media or a leprechaun. He has the same right to be left alone. Their rights do not supersede his and his rights don't supersede their's. The right to be left alone does not include not having your picture taken in a public place. Here's an example of that on Scuba:

You should know that the attacker was charged and convicted for assault and battery EVEN THOUGH he did not want his picture taken. Note that the victim was not a journalist, yet they still had the right to take a video of what they thought was an abominable practice of poisoning fish in order to capture them. I think it's horrid too, and am glad this cretin is off the reef.

And maybe he could respect people when they ask to not have a camera inches from their face. But what do I know. I'm an idiot.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And maybe he could respect people when they ask to not have a camera inches from their face. But what do I know. I'm an idiot.

They closed the gap on him, not the other way around. He appeared to be yards away from the demonstration until he was accosted by Ms Click and her entourage.

For the record. While I don't think you are fully informed of the legal and ethical rights that are at play here, I have not referred to or implied that you were an idiot. Naivete and ignorance does not an idiot make. You've got a lot of passion and frankly, so do I. Hopefully, you'll come away from this dialog seeing a different perspective and have now been exposed to the concept that an injustice to one, is an injustice to all. Rights are universal and should not be amplified or diminished based on any association with a minority or a majority. I abhor all such boorish behavior and will do my best to expose it. I'll try to be as patient as possible, but I feel that all rights should be equally protected.

 

[LittlePinky82]

They closed the gap on him, not the other way around. He appeared to be yards away from the demonstration until he was accosted by Ms Click and her entourage.

For the record. While I don't think you are fully informed of the legal and ethical rights that are at play here, I have not referred to or implied that you were an idiot. Naivete and ignorance does not an idiot make. You've got a lot of passion and frankly, so do I. Hopefully, you'll come away from this dialog seeing a different perspective and have now been exposed to the concept that an injustice to one, is an injustice to all. Rights are universal and should not be amplified or diminished based on any association with a minority or a majority. I abhor all such boorish behavior and will do my best to expose it. I'll try to be as patient as possible, but I feel that all rights should be equally protected.

Whatever. What do I know. I watched the whole video from the beginning. Obviously im an idiot. I guess the other side doesn't have rights though but again im just an idiot. Not like I wasn't trained by attorneys including a jag officer. Im just an idiot. I was trained by a former cop, a criminal lawyer, a lawyer who does various areas, bankruptcy lawyer for the dept of justice,vand my main prof was a jag officer. But what do I know. Im just an idiot with a paralegal degree from my state approved of by the aba. Im just an idiot.

 

[LittlePinky82]

And again im not talking about him. Im talking about the student journalist. You know thats the asian guy right? The person with click didn't claim to be a journalist. He was just documenting. He didn't claim to be with the media. He was there on his own documenting.