You do realize, of course, that the sentiments of the public that surrounds you far more closely align with those postings above than anything on this nutty website, don't you ?

If those are his true feelings he'll gain 2% in the polls.

My first thought.

I'm thinking "hacked," too. As long as Arnett has held office, I think we would have heard more of this kind of stuff from him, if he'd been inclined to spew it.

Unfortunately a lot of public defenders - esp many of those holding office - are more interested in political leveraging for themselves than they are in common justice and human rights.

I'm probably stupid, but who's CPD?

Unfortunately, nobody can fire Arnett. He doesn't work for Tim Burchett; he was elected. The only people who can fire him are the voters.

Non-story? Really?

Never mind Donald Trump and his declaration that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists, if the Sheriff declaring that he would stack hispanic immigrants "like cordwood" made national news, you would think that perhaps the County Clerk declaring that Muslims are all a bunch of "goat humpers" would be worthy of investigation by the Fourth Estate.

Look back at the first item captured at the top of this thread. Taken at face value, it would appear that an elected official was angry about 'political correctness,' and was agreeing with an image calling Muslims "goat humpers," and stridently asserting that he has the right to do the same. Maybe I've just become too dainty, but if this is Arnett's actual sentiment, that's horrifying, and it calls into question his ability to carry out his job.

So do you really think that this isn't a story? Even if he just meant to call some Muslims "goat humpers," it would be edifying to know who he thinks warrants that designation, and who does not, and why such commentary is appropriate for someone who holds public office. If he was hacked, then it also might be good if the general public can be reassured that these posts do not, in fact, reflect his opinions about a minority group living right here in this community.

he holds a public office and he was allegedly slandering Muslims, gays and liberals on a social media forum.

Would you say this was a "non story" if he were a teacher and posting those things on his facebook page? I've seen much milder things posted by teachers that have made national news.

The Hamilton County Public Defender's upsetting/racist FB comments post-Chattanooga shooting were picked up by the Washington Post. Sure, Sandra, it's a non-story. And that's why you're editing a non-newspaper.

Her paper, like the one for which I was recently employed, is owned by formerly-Scripps-now-Journal. And they will be the next to go, as much as I hate it. (And I do, genuinely, hate it.) But if Sandra thinks elected county officials making racist FB posts isn't news, the paper will probably go under even faster.

A publisher of a newspaper states that an elected county official making racist, bigoted, political, and quasi-sexual comments on his social media page is "not news." Quite the contrary, I believe it IS news, because (if true, and it hasn't been denied) it is unsettling to everyone except those who hold extreme right wing views. If he did post them, it draws into question his qualifications to hold public office.

Of course, if it is "not news" to this newspaper publisher, then it follows that it is because she agrees with the tone and substance of the posts in question. That would, indeed, speak volumes about her views and her operation.

If, as some say, Foster holds these beliefs, but he removed them from his page (I assume with no statement that "I got hacked" on his FB page or to the media), then another possibility was he got in a mood and posted some stuff on FB that he really felt but normally wouldn't post... and then deleted it after thinking the better of it.

Just throwing that out there as a theory, I have nothing to support it, but it would seem to fit what happened.

Good for WBIR. Their coverage is linked here. I saw it go by during their 10 p.m. broadcast, and this "non-story" was second or third from the top.

I hope they will follow up with Arnett whenever he returns. I would say I'm surprised that his office hasn't found him and gotten him to call in and respond or otherwise write a statement to clear this up, but maybe it's not surprising. If these weren't his posts, then his people are doing him a disservice by letting it hang out there unanswered. On the other hand if these are his sentiments, the fact that it hasn't (yet) gone viral means it would possibly be to his benefit if he stays away another week and everybody forgets to ask him about it. We know the Shopper isn't interested, but hopefully, WBIR will remember to check in with him when he's available to respond in person.

for going to Arnett's office to ask him about this face to face. It's a shame he wasn't there to talk to you and even more shameful that his people weren't aware that he was on vacation. How could they not know that? Unbelievable.

As Somebody said above you can see a/the story HERE

You can search up the story on the KNS site, and the search results include the header for a story...

Knox county clerk's online comments insulting Muslims raise concerns

A Muslim native of Knoxville called “extremely disappointing” recent Facebook posts by Knox County Clerk Foster Arnett criticizing President Obama and ...

...but clicking the link yields a "404 not found". If anyone from KNS is out there, please fix the link. We know someone wrote the story, so we'd like to go ahead and see it.

At least three times.

One's personal opinions are fine, if one keeps them personal. When one is charged with operating a government position dealing with the general rights of all citizens though, those citizens have a right to demand treatment based on the citizenship and not on your narrow limp appendaged opinions. You have a right to be a small minded bigot. You don't have the right to serve the public in a general capacity discriminating against folks (that includes harassment) based on that bigotry.

So, a reasonable extrapolation of your attitude from the statement above is that anything that is ok is ok anywhere and anytime from anyone. I say this because several individuals acknowledged Mr. Arnett's right to say or post that which he did. Would that be about right?

However, I would point out that after much begging and campaigning on his part, he accepted a job that he knew required him to subordinate certain of his freedoms to the responsibilities of the job. Even though he begged for the job, he is still compensated reasonably handsomely for his diminution of those freedoms.

To claim that he should not be held to the expectations of that particular position, is essentially to admit that he gained the position fraudulently. That he had no intention of subordinating any of his freedoms for the needs and responsibilities of the job. Your ilk is known to prattle about making government work more like business so, tell me what happens in business when you do not meet the known expectations and requirements of the job.

For the twentieth time, yes, he can say what he wants. That's his right.

It's also equally other folk's right to say they find what he said offensive. See how that works?

BTW, if you're concerned about "name-calling," how can you support Arnett calling a group of people "goat-humpers?"

And calling a good chunk of your constituents "stupid" isn't just unbecoming for a public official, it's also gonna lose you votes the next time you decide to run for something.

And before you say none of us would have voted for Arnett anyway, let me tell you that I did in the last election. I also voted for Obama twice. So if Arnett thinks I'm stupid, he's right. I'm stupid for voting for him.

We can do something about it. We can hold him accountable and raise this question at every opportunity. We can make Foster the poster child of everything that's wrong with America and bring this topic up at every single Republican function from now until the next election, and beyond. He not only slurred Muslims, Democrats, and gays, he slurred virtually every woman in this town. Think any of these folks vote?

He doesn't have to answer to anyone for his personal opinions. The Knox County Clerk - the position he fought to get - is however, responsible to any and all of the legal citizens of Knox County and must indeed answer for words, actions, and apparent intentions.

And if commenters are resorting to Arnett's tactics of name calling and "phobia" statements to your and his dismay, perhaps the two of you could learn something from that.

care of their families, then why are you on here...trolling?

Sure, Arnett has a right to his own hate-filled opinion, just like all the whackjobs who have been out on shooting rampages killing people in schools, theaters, military recruiting offices, etc. have a right to their opinions, too. Everybody has an opinion, but it doesn't mean their opinion is right or shouldn't be challenged, especially it's filled with hate.

And Mr. Arnett, here's a newsflash for you, when you post something on the internet, it's NOT PRIVATE! Just because it was your facebook page, doesn't mean it's only for you. And guess what? It was one of your friends who spilled the beans.

1. He has a right to his opinions.
2. He does have to answer for his publicly expressed opinions because he holds public office. That's how it works. You might not think that's fair, but that's politics, all the way around, left to right. If he were just a private citizen, you're right, nobody would care.
3. Name calling is wrong, yet fun! And everybody's doing it - especially Foster Arnett:-)
4. What is a "legitimate intellectual ground for argument?"
5. Nobody disputes that Arnett has many supporters. They may work and have families, but they are definitely also trolling the internetz, if his own erstwhile FB feed is any indication. And they are constantly outraged.

I'll point out again, Ty, what your own political party's local chairman had to say about this incident:

Knox County GOP Chairman Buddy Burkhardt said the Facebook posts on Arnett's personal account "in no way reflect the views of the Republican Party."

"As I have said on TV and at most meetings, the Republican Party welcomes all persons with conservative values regardless of race, creed, color or religion," Burkhardt told 10News.

Clearly, the man is wishing Arnett had kept his trap shut. I expect he wishes you'd do the same.

Wow, wow.

Clearly, the man is wishing Arnett had kept his trap shut. I expect he wishes you'd do the same.

So, that is what you call the individual, Tamara who posted the comment, telling you you need to shut your trap? I'm guessing you flunked reading comprehension, right?

Second, Arnett's job isn't to represent everyone, his job is to operate the County Clerks office. And if he is to represent anyone, it's the majority, not everyone.

Well, that ends the argument. If you have no better understanding of government than that, logic, reason, truth, facts and stunned astonishment will certainly not convince you.

Since you're intent on trolling, I'll point out that you didn't answer my question.

You said a) you supported Arnett, and b) that you didn't like name-calling.

Q: How can you support Arnett calling Muslims "goat humpers" and people who voted for Obama "stupid?"

And if he is to represent anyone, it's the majority, not everyone.

WTF?

Elected representatives represent everyone in their jurisdiction.

Regardless, the county clerk is not a representative. He/she is a servant of the county, a glorified cashier and bookkeeper who is supposed to serve all residents of the county.

On a related note, these fee offices make a good case for moving away from our state's antiquated system of privilege, patronage and corruption in local government to appointing qualified professionals who can be removed for cause.

My goodness, you are dense.

I didn't write that it was Arnett's job to "represent" everyone. I wrote that it was his job to serve everyone - serve every person he maligned with his ignorant, malicious posts. He is a public servant, charged with serving all the public in his official, public capacity.

Now, how can the people he has abused trust that he will discharge his job dispassionately?

Also, I did not suggest that you wrote "hate and bigotry." I wrote that you have the freedom of speech to spread it - just as Arnett does. You are free to continue to represent yourself as dumber than a sack of rocks - although I suggest you stop.

I have been reading these comments trying to remain objective. It seems to me however that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to not only protect the majority from an oppressive minority but also a minority from an oppressive majority. The Constitution provides us with freedom of Religion and freedom of speech. Seems to me that calling any any one of Abrahamic beliefs (Christian, Hebrew or Muslim) a "Goat Humper" is to call all "Goat Humpers" since all stem from the same belief system. In my opinion the object of Democracy and Government is to provide all with the protected rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". As a government official it does not seem that Mr. Arnett is working for the common good and certainly not acting in the spirit of "Truth, Justice and the American Way". In short he is no Superman ... and definitely does not represent me or my idea of what a person elected by the people and for the people should be. To me he does not represent my idea of a good American, a good Politician, a good Republican or even a good person But that is just my opinion

OMG.
What a shot of Arnett!

(link...)