[ RadSafe ] USA's First Amendment Protects Free Speech Rights of UNC Epidemiologist (and all of us)

[Dan McCarn]

I guess then that the $250,000 fine incurred by an environmentalist group from the NRC for trying to step outside the framework of a regulatory hearing when their affidavit was thrown-out for intentionally misrepresenting data including a figure from one of my publications should be set aside.  Or should we simply ignore that? 

In my opinion, lying should not go unchallenged. 

Lying in court and to the NRC is not considered "free speech" in the narrow regulatory sense. At least not if I am the author of a mis-used report. 

In my case, the environmentalist group deleted the title and explanation of a figure that I published, inserting their own self-serving title and explanation. They got hammered! 

Dan W McCarn
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544 USA
+1-505-670-8123
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 1, 2014, at 2:00 PM, easlavin at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 1. The Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment the law of the land. Thus, the First Amendment applies to every government in the United States, including public schools, colleges and universities.  University rank and tenure procedures also protect faculty free speech rights.
> 2.  Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.  So did the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our  First Amendment protects students, teachers and professors.  It bans retaliation for First Amendment protected activity. It bans violations of the Establishment Clause. It is enforceable in federal and state courts.  
> 3. The First Amendment lives in our lives and hearts. It protects scientific free speech by public University professors, among others.  The First Amendment requires "breathing space."
> 4. Suggesting (in an international radiation protection forum, even IF perhaps arguably in jest) that UNC retaliate for First Amendment protected activity is unAmerican. It invites lawbreaking, invites McCarthy-stye blacklisting, is uncivil, uncool, unkind and is an ad hominem, improper argument. It is "in your face," provocative and does not respect the need of our First Amendment for "breathing space." It chills free speech rights and discourages scientific inquiry and debate.  
> 5. It may also constitute "tortious interference with contractual relations," which is a tort. 
> 6. We need more free speech, not less. The search for truth demands it. Liberty demands it. The scientific method demands it. Example: the U.S. nuclear weapons cleanup would probably have been much faster and much cheaper if nuclear workers' free speech rights had been protected and not neglected. 
> 7. Roger, please try to stick to factual arguments.  Please try tolerance.
> Happy New Year, Radsafers!
> Cheers,
> Ed Slavin
> 
> 
> ===========
> First Amendment starts with 'Congress shall make no law(s)...'.  If Congress, or 
> other legislative body didn't make a law, then no free speech rights would be 
> violated.
> 
> Brent Rogers
> 
> Brevity alert: Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 30/12/2013, at 5:40, Ed Slavin <easlavin at aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sounds like an incitement to violate scientist's First Amendment rights at
> UNC.  
>> Ed Slavin
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2013, at 1:00 PM:
>>> 
>>> 1. Epidemiologist back from Fukushima: ?We?re talking about a
>>>    sacrifice zone and millions of people live in this area? ?
>>>    Exceeds allowable radiation dose for nuclear workers 40
>>>    kilometers from Fukushima plant (VIDEO) (Roger Helbig)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The University should sanction this professor for knowingly lying
>>> about what he has seen.  As I recall, he claims to be expert on
>>> Chernobyl as well.  Perhaps I am wrong.
>>> 
>>> Roger Helbig
> 
> 
> ===========
> First Amendment starts with 'Congress shall make no law(s)...'.  If Congress, or 
> other legislative body didn't make a law, then no free speech rights would be 
> violated.
> 
> Brent Rogers
> 
> Brevity alert: Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 30/12/2013, at 5:40, Ed Slavin <easlavin at aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sounds like an incitement to violate scientist's First Amendment rights at
> UNC.  
>> Ed Slavin
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2013, at 1:00 PM:
>>> 
>>> 1. Epidemiologist back from Fukushima: ?We?re talking about a
>>>    sacrifice zone and millions of people live in this area? ?
>>>    Exceeds allowable radiation dose for nuclear workers 40
>>>    kilometers from Fukushima plant (VIDEO) (Roger Helbig)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The University should sanction this professor for knowingly lying
>>> about what he has seen.  As I recall, he claims to be expert on
>>> Chernobyl as well.  Perhaps I am wrong.
>>> 
>>> Roger Helbig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu