Violent extremism the focus of new AG tip line; teacher faces license revocation


by Jay Waagmeester
Florida Phoenix

Florida’s education commissioner seeks to revoke a teacher’s license over a social media post about Charlie Kirk’s death, citing gross immorality.

TALLAHASSEE, FL - Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas has found probable cause that a Clay County teacher displayed “gross immorality” in posting about Charlie Kirk’s death, he announced Monday as Attorney General James Uthmeier launched a tip line to report “violent extremism.”

The teacher, left nameless by Kamoutsas, could lose her teaching license after she posted to social media, “This may not be the obituary. [sic] We were all hoping to wake up to, but this is a close second for me,” News 4 Jax reported. Kamoutsas said the post included an article about Kirk’s assassination, which occurred at a college in Utah. 

United State Constitution
Photo: Anthony Roberts/Unsplash

In keeping with his promise two weeks ago to investigate teachers making “despicable comments” about Kirk’s death, Kamoutsas said he found probable cause on four Education Code violations. Either the teacher can forfeit her license, or she can be tried in front of department’s Education Practices Commission or the Department of Administrative Hearings.

The commissioner is seeking the revocation of the teacher’s license. 


“As these posts continue to circulate, more and more students are exposed to the dangerous and false idea that violence is an acceptable response to differing beliefs, an idea that has no place and will have no place here in Florida schools,” Kamoutsas said. 

The four standards Kamoutsas alleges the teacher breached are gross immorality, failure to protect the health, safety and welfare of students, reduced effectiveness as an educator, and failing to distinguish her personal views from the school’s.

“Holding educators accountable for speech that celebrates violence in schools is not a violation of free speech, it is a necessary step to uphold the standards of the teaching profession and the safety of our schools,” Kamoutsas said. 

Last week, Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar told the Phoenix that the commissioner’s letter to superintendents vowing investigations sends a “chilling effect throughout the profession.”

“For the commissioner to say there’s no longer a second-chance mentality in education and that he’s going to personally investigate and essentially be the investigator, the prosecutor, and the judge and jury in all of these cases is quite concerning,” Spar said.

New portal for complaints

On a broader scope, Uthmeier’s office opened the “Combatting Violent Extremism Portal” “where people will be able to report anything they observe or hear that is a call for violence or a threat for violence against other individuals,” he said. 

“Let me be clear, we respect the First Amendment more than anybody. We’re not going to be the cancel culture that we’ve seen from so long from the Left. We’re not going to believe in silencing individuals. But there’s a big difference when it comes to a threat of violence, a call for violence. That is not protected by the First Amendment,” Uthmeier said. 

Since Kirk’s death, people nationwide have lost jobs for speaking about Kirk’s death in a manner their employer views as disfavored, such as late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.

Teachers are held to higher standards than many other professions, the state officials said.

“It’s never been more important for people to speak up, for us to have safe academic environments where people feel confident to engage in discussion, free from attack, free from violence,” Uthmeier said. 

The portal, not exclusive to education settings, allows people to submit screenshots, videos, or other evidence of threatened violence to Uthmeier’s office, anonymously if they want to.

“We must protect before people are shot, before explosives go off,” Uthmeier said. 

Warning against abusing the portal, Uthmeier said, “We’re going to take everything seriously and, if you abuse this, if you provide something in a dishonest fashion to law enforcement, we’ll hold you accountable as well.”

The campaign in-part mimics the Office of Parental Rights Uthmeier added to his office earlier this year to field complaints alleging violation of parental-rights laws. 

“The First Amendment does not protect speech that is likely and intended to provoke immediate acts of violence, or speech that expresses a serious intent to commit a specific act of violence, but it does protect robust free expression, which includes criticism of the past words and actions of prominent public figures,” the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said in an online statement last week following the state’s announcement it would investigate teachers.

“Dissent, disagreement, and counterspeech that criticizes political views should not be confused with condoning or encouraging violence,” the ACLU said, and retaliation for such speech “feeds hostility and division.”

After Kirk was killed, the ACLU continued, “Most people likely encountered speech they found despicable no matter where they fall on the political spectrum — that is the nature of a democracy where free speech is protected. While calling for further violence or condoning what happened to Charlie Kirk is wrong, many of the posts being cited for retaliation constitute core protected speech.”

Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.


Florida teacher license revocation case, Charlie Kirk death social media reaction, Florida extremism reporting portal, free speech in Florida schools, ACLU response to Florida teacher discipline


Guest Comment: Put away your guns, pipe bombs and hatred


by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


Acts of violence against a marriage partner have never saved a marriage. Violent acts toward family members have never made a family happier. Typically, they create emotional and sometimes physical wounds that are never forgotten. Too many families have suffered because someone in the family became violent.

Violence in our communities and towns always results in pain, division and sometimes even loss of life. Violence typically brings the wrong people together to do bad things. No community, city or state needs this.


The destruction of buildings and businesses are acts of violence and are criminal.
In times of war or enemy aggression against our United States, violence has been necessary. Acts of war have never been pleasant. They result in the loss of life and horrific debilitation of so many people physically and mentally. Most Americans do not want to be at war with anyone.

In years past, we have had to protect our country against those who sought to harm us. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms and protect ourselves. We are grateful for our military but we pray for peace. None of us want our family members actively involved in combat if it can be avoided.

Violence like we saw last week at the United States Capitol was criminal. It helped no one. It solved nothing. Everyone who traveled to hear President Trump speak should have bought a nice dinner in D.C. and then traveled back to their families. Unlawfully entering the Capitol was wrong and was carried out in a violent criminal way. People were killed. Offices were torn apart and doors broken down. Staffers were terrified for their lives. This should never have happened. Many of these criminals will eventually be arrested and spend time in jail.

This act of criminal stupidity did nothing to advance or help President Trump. If they had stopped in front of the Capitol and given speeches, yelled, screamed, waved their signs throughout the day and then gone home the results would have been better. Terrorism never produces positive results. Destruction of the property of others and the terrorism of people are savage and criminal.

This same kind of unnecessary violence was seen in many of our cities last summer. I traveled to Cleveland, Ohio after a march had taken place and saw the results of acts of violence. I saw almost all of downtown Cleveland boarded up. Businesses were closed. Hotels were closed. Very few restaurants were open. For weeks my family was afraid to stop in downtown Louisville because of the protests and disruption occurring in the city.

In the United States of America, individuals, groups and organizations have the absolute right to march, protest and exercise their free speech. However, the destruction of buildings and businesses are acts of violence and are criminal. The people who shut down sections of cities throughout our country should be arrested for their behavior. An acquaintance, who lived outside Seattle for many years, was terrified to travel back to that city last year.

Violence against Democrats or Republicans will not bring this country back together. Invasion and violence against the Capitol solved nothing but ruined some lives. Violence will not change the results of the election. Joe Biden will be the President of the United States for the next four years.

March, protest, yell, scream and financially support organizations who promote your point of view. But please, put your guns, pipe bombs and hatred away.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of American Issues, Every American Has An Opinion and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers.


-----------------------------------------------------------



Guest Comment: Judicial overreach is a Pandora’s box of government encroachment



by Howard C. Self, President
Right To Believe

As 2020 is drawing to a close, we all hope that we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in this year of the pandemic. The advent of vaccines is hopeful, yet the United States and other nations face a third wave of COVID infections. And as municipal and state governments impose new restrictions, there is growing concern about impacts on individual liberty and religious freedom.

In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said, “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020… the COVID crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test. And in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.” Alito went on to cite numerous court cases impacting the free exercise of religion as indicative that “religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.”

Last month, the Supreme Court sided with the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and an Orthodox Jewish congregation. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that New York could not restrict religious gatherings more than others. In the opinion, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

In a similar case resolved just last week, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., filed a suit in federal court against Mayor Muriel Bowser. The mayor had imposed a numeric limit of 50 on religious gatherings, no matter the size of the facility, whereas businesses were limited to a percentage of capacity. Fortunately, the city reneged and issued an amended order that treats religious congregations the same as other entities. But it took a lawsuit to get there.

The disturbing trends referenced by Alito are all too familiar to religious leaders, many of whom are alarmed by growing bias and overreach by government officials and the courts, and concerned about protecting their rights to the free exercise of their faiths. Another example of this concern is a case before the District of Columbia Superior Court. Earlier this month, Judge Jennifer M. Anderson issued a “remedies judgment” in the controversial Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International et al v. Hyun Jin Moon et al case, which totally disregards the defendants’ First Amendment rights and due process. The case is sure to be continued through the appeals process.

This case before the D.C. Superior Court involves protracted disputes within the Unification Movement founded by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Though it was initially and properly dismissed on First Amendment grounds because it clearly involved religious disputes in which courts cannot intervene, this complex and extremely costly case has been extended by subsequent rulings for more than nine years.

It is well-established legal precedent that the First Amendment prohibits the courts from interfering in disputes about the teachings and leadership of religious groups. Yet that is precisely what the D.C. court has done in this case. As evident in both summary judgment and remedies rulings, the court disregarded voluminous evidence of an emerging religious movement wrestling with issues of succession and doctrine. It decided that it could sidestep First Amendment prohibitions and evaluate the religious purposes of UCI, a D.C. non-profit corporation established to advance the principles and work of the Unification movement. In doing so, the court in effect took sides in a religious schism.

The onerous actions taken by the D.C. court in its remedies ruling of Dec. 4 are cause for great alarm among religious and nonprofit leaders alike. Based on its unconstitutional evaluation of UCI’s religious purposes, the court found that four directors had breached their fiduciary duty, ordered them removed from the board, and made them personally responsible for crushing financial penalties. This severe judgment was imposed even though in its ruling, the court acknowledged that the four directors had not received any personal benefit.

So why does this matter? The D.C. Superior Court’s rulings in this case have trampled upon First Amendment protections, making determinations about religious teachings and leadership, and thereby taking sides in a schism. Such dangerous precedents make all religious groups more vulnerable to government intrusion. The court took the unprecedented step of removing a majority of the directors of this nonprofit’s board, seriously overstepping its authority and disregarding requirements specifically articulated in D.C. law. Board members of every nonprofit incorporated in the District of Columbia should be alarmed about the details of this case, for there could be dire extralegal ramifications should they face any disputes before the D.C. court.

It should also concern people of all faiths that the courts are often all too ready to use such cases as opportunities to expand their powers and authority. Judicial overreach opens a Pandora’s box of government encroachment into religious expression and free exercise. It can, and often does, lead to protracted legal battles; distracting religious organizations and nonprofits from their primary missions; and forcing them to bear heavy costs to defend themselves.

If judges can decide what aspects of your faith are valid, or what is not in the public interest, the implications for religious freedom are vast. It opens the door for government, not God, to be the final arbiter of the human conscience.

Commenting on such current challenges to religious freedom, Bishop Paul Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Commission of One Way Churches International, noted, "Judicial overreach is a growing concern for faith leaders of all backgrounds. Freedom of religion, belief and conscience is our first and most fundamental right. Rulings like the ones in this case remind us that we must be vigilant and stand together to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all."


Howard C. Self is the president of Right To Believe, a not-for-profit organization fighting to protect religious rights from undue governmental interference. He has also held leadership roles at the Family Peace Association and in the Unification Movement, which are affiliated with UCI, the ultimate holding company that owns United Press International. -----------------------------------------------------------

This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers.


-----------------------------------------------------------


Editor's Choice


Communities without trucks? A sobering look at America’s supply lifeline

Roy Broo/PEXELS Without truckers, local economies would take serious hits. Shelves, like pictured above, would be empty if it was...



More Sentinel Stories