The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble by FellowTraveler

Citizen,
Quoting everything again will take forever so I skip that this time.

First, I should have phrased that first point better. It may have come of sounding like an attack and if so I regret that and apologize. It's just as likely you didn't understand what I was trying to say as it was you were being deliberately obtuse (mmmmm, nothing like eating crow for breakfast). Sorry.

To try to explain that point. The guys boss said his treatment of minorities was not an issue. To me, "this guy is the Klan, so he can't treat anyone impartially" and "this guy is Catholic, so he can't be loyal or patriotic" are similar. We don't know that the guy can't be impartial. In fact, the story says the opposite. There both assumptions based on beliefs, not facts. It appears your using the "straw man" fallacy here. I'm not saying the Klan isn't racist. I'm saying your making an assumption based on prejudice (denotation, not connotation). And you might be right, but the story this whole thing was based on says your wrong. It says the was NO violent or racist behavior other than his membership in an organization that IS racist. If you evidence that the man did behave in racist or violent way in the course of performing his duties, cite it.

Third point: We are talking about this dude. Not every crime committed by the Klan in American history. Again, If you have evidence that the man did anything illegal or violent, cite it.

Finally, traveling to China is not speech. When the government says you can not post on this message board, at home, when off duty, or you lose you job, that is very much a limit on this man's right to free speech. This wasn't McyD's that tryed to fire him. It was the state government.

Edit- And if we all agreed with each other, this wouldn't be any fun...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Fred,

I don't think a cop has any power.

Hang around a prison for a while, I'll bet you can meet quite a few people who were wrongfully accused by a cop with a grudge. I hope that any cops that don't like you agree with your opinion, in fact next time you're driving around and see a cop, speed by him. When he pulls you over tell him that you won't take a ticket from him because he doesn't have any power, I'm sure that'll go over real well.

Quote:
He can accuse black people all he wants, and they can be proven innocent, and then he can get fired.

In a perfect world yes, but we don't live in one. In the real world innocent people do get sent to prison. In the years after DNA evidence became admissible evidence hundreds of people have been set free because they were wrongfully imprisoned before.

Quote:
Traveler's issue was that if he is fired for his association, it's an attack on the first amendment, about which he is absolutely right.

I don't agree. First there are the two other points I made which you haven't refuted, namely that any black man that he accuses can play the racism card and have it stick, and that whenever he deals with minorities he is less likely to get good reactions. Both of these things make it significantly harder for him to be effective as a police officer. Second, the police are not saying that he can't be a part of the KKK, they are simply saying that they don't want to be associated with the KKK (and who in their right mind does?). If I hire somebody who later joins an American al-qaeda group I am going to fire them, not because they don't have a right to be in the group, but because I don't want to be associated with them.

You ain't the state...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:12 AM

Quote:

To try to explain that point. The guys boss said his treatment of minorities was not an issue. To me, "this guy is the Klan, so he can't treat anyone impartially" and "this guy is Catholic, so he can't be loyal or patriotic" are similar. We don't know that the guy ]i]can't be impartial. In fact, the story says the opposite. There both assumptions based on beliefs, not facts. It appears your using the "straw man" fallacy here. I'm not saying the Klan isn't racist. I'm saying your making an assumption based on prejudice (denotation, not connotation). And you might be right, but the story this whole thing was based on says your wrong. It says the was NO violent or racist behavior other than his membership in an organization that IS racist. If you evidence that the man did behave in racist or violent way in the course of performing his duties, cite it.

If this is true he's not really invested in his Klan membership. In fact if he joined for the reasons he cites he'd be willing to leave in an instant. So all he has to do is leave the Klan and there is no problem.

Would you be happy with the head of the KGB running American National Security? If not then you're guilty of the same discrimination that you accuse me of.

Quote:
We are talking about this dude. Not every crime committed by the Klan in American history. Again, If you have evidence that the man did anything illegal or violent, cite it.

Like I said either he believes in and supports the actions of the Klan, which includes it's crimes throughout American history and would make him unsuitable to be a police officer, or he doesn't. In which case he wouldn't care about leaving the Klan.

Quote:
Finally, traveling to China is not speech.

No it's freedom of travel, which is basically the same thing.

Quote:
When the government says you can not post on this message board, at home, when off duty, or you lose you job, that is very much a limit on this man's right to free speech.

You think I can post absolutely anything I want? His rights aren't being infringed, he's not been dragged off to a gulag for being a member of the Klan.

Quote:
This wasn't McyD's that tryed to fire him. It was the state government.

Yes the state government should hold it's employees to a higher standard than McDonalds.

What if he was a member of a group that helps burglars improve their skills?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

To try to explain that point. The guys boss said his treatment of minorities was not an issue. To me, "this guy is the Klan, so he can't treat anyone impartially" and "this guy is Catholic, so he can't be loyal or patriotic" are similar. We don't know that the guy ]i]can't be impartial. In fact, the story says the opposite. There both assumptions based on beliefs, not facts. It appears your using the "straw man" fallacy here. I'm not saying the Klan isn't racist. I'm saying your making an assumption based on prejudice (denotation, not connotation). And you might be right, but the story this whole thing was based on says your wrong. It says the was NO violent or racist behavior other than his membership in an organization that IS racist. If you evidence that the man did behave in racist or violent way in the course of performing his duties, cite it.
If this is true he's not really invested in his Klan membership. In fact if he joined for the reasons he cites he'd be willing to leave in an instant. So all he has to do is leave the Klan and there is no problem.

Would you be happy with the head of the KGB running American National Security? If not then you're guilty of the same discrimination that you accuse me of.
Quote:
We are talking about this dude. Not every crime committed by the Klan in American history. Again, If you have evidence that the man did anything illegal or violent, cite it.
Like I said either he believes in and supports the actions of the Klan, which includes it's crimes throughout American history and would make him unsuitable to be a police officer, or he doesn't. In which case he wouldn't care about leaving the Klan.
Quote:
Finally, traveling to China is not speech.
No it's freedom of travel, which is basically the same thing.
Quote:
When the government says you can not post on this message board, at home, when off duty, or you lose you job, that is very much a limit on this man's right to free speech.
You think I can post absolutely anything I want? His rights aren't being infringed, he's not been dragged off to a gulag for being a member of the Klan.
Quote:
This wasn't McyD's that tryed to fire him. It was the state government.
Yes the state government should hold it's employees to a higher standard than McDonalds.

What if he was a member of a group that helps burglars improve their skills?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Burglary is a crime, racism is not (on this side of the pond, anyway).

Being a spy for a foreign government is a crime, racism is not.

Believing and supporting something is not the same as doing it. Over here, the law judges us by our actions, not our thoughts. I suspect it's the same in the UK.

On the way to work this morning, I thought a dozen times, "if I had a gun, I would shoot that other driver in the face", but I didn't. Should I punished for violent thoughts?

I'm not saying this guy isn't a douche. It sounds like he is. But being a racist is not against the law.

And the government is held to a higher standard here than private companies. A private employer can fire you for being a Democrat or Republican (it happened several times in the last election cycle), or a member of almost any organization, the government cannot because it's a limit on speech.

Incidentally, I don't think we're ever agree on this. We both seem to hold our views pretty emphatically. I'm just enjoying the discussion...

Edit- What the Hell. Why does the format get screwed up everytime I try to quote you in the reply....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Burglary is a crime, racism is not (on this side of the pond, anyway).

Being a spy for a foreign government is a crime, racism is not.

You're framing it wrong. The KKK is a racist organisation, but a great deal of what it does is just as illegal as Burglary. Also just like a "how to be a better burglar" sowing group the KKK exists to commit crimes.

Plus I never said the head/member/whatever of the KGB was spying, I just said they were a member. Would you let a member of the KGB have a position in American National security?

Quote:
Believing and supporting something is not the same as doing it. Over here, the law judges us by our actions, not our thoughts. I suspect it's the same in the UK.

I wonder how long a US senator would last if they admitted to supporting Al Qaeda.

Quote:
I'm not saying this guy isn't a douche. It sounds like he is. But being a racist is not against the law.

He wasn't suspended for being a racist. Nor is the only way you can be removed from a position one where you are breaking the law.

Quote:
A private employer can fire you for being a Democrat or Republican (it happened several times in the last election cycle), or a member of almost any organization, the government cannot because it's a limit on speech.

It's still not a limit on speech.

Besides a private company firing someone for being a Rep. or Dem. is far far worse than the government preventing a member of a violent racist organisation from being put in a position of authority over people of other races.

One shows a clear link to activities that makes them unsuitable for their job, the other is punshing people for not having the right political views.

It also seems strange to hold the government to a higher degree while holding the employees to a lesser one.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:07 AM

Quote:
You're framing it wrong. The KKK is a racist organisation, but a great deal of what it does is just as illegal as Burglary. Also just like a "how to be a better burglar" sowing group the KKK exists to commit crimes.

Perhaps, the KKK's sole purpose is to commit crime, but that doesn't mean every member is a criminal. For example, I am a registered Democrat, but I am not culpable for the crimes commited by James Traficant (D-OH). Just being a member of the same organization doesn't make me responsible for that organization's misdeeds, past, present, or future. Your a Brit, right, are you responsible for the (alleged) crimes committed by PM Blair? Individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit.

Quote:
Plus I never said the head/member/whatever of the KGB was spying, I just said they were a member. Would you let a member of the KGB have a position in American National security?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=KGB&x=0&y=0

KGB: the intelligence and internal-security agency of the former Soviet Union, organized in 1954 and responsible for enforcement of security regulations, protection of political leaders, the guarding of borders, and clandestine operations abroad.

You did not say the KGB guy would be a spy. But by definition, he would be an agent of the Soviet Union. The point is moot.

Quote:
I wonder how long a US senator would last if they admitted to supporting Al Qaeda.

Moral or material support? The latter is a crime and he would likely be charged (or shipped off to Gitmo, the American Gulag). Moral support, eeehhhh, probably until the next election cycle. One never knows... I don't think his colleagues could kick him outta' the Senate for that, but I might be wrong.

Quote:
He wasn't suspended for being a racist.

Agreed, he was suspended for belonging to a racist organization. That's really parsing words, isn't it?

Quote:
Nor is the only way you can be removed from a position one where you are breaking the law.

Can't deny that.

Quote:
It's still not a limit on speech.

What do you consider a limit on speech? Must one go to prison?

Edit - Woo-Hoo! I gots' the formatting right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Perhaps, the KKK's sole purpose is to commit crime, but that doesn't mean every member is a criminal.

By the same token just because you are a member of an organisation that helps burglars to improve their skills doesn't mean you are a burglar or teaching them in anyway.

Logically I would have to assume that you would allow a member of an organisation like some sort of theives guild to operate as a police officer.

However I find it interesting that you'll say this then judge a similar situation by completely different criteria:

Quote:
You did not say the KGB guy would be a spy. But by definition, he would be an agent of the Soviet Union. The point is moot.

By definition a member of the Ku Klux Klan would surely be someone who sees nothing wrong with violence against racial minorities and sees those people as less than Human. How can such a person really be trusted in a position of authority over racial minorties?

Would it be unreasonable for Israel to stop members of a Nazi group joining the police force?

Wouldn't jews have some reason to believe that a member of a Nazi group would be incapable of treating them fairly?

Quote:
Moral or material support?

What level of involvement did the trooper have with the KKK? Turning up for meetings? Do memebers of the Klan have to pay 'subscriptions'? I imagine material support.

Quote:
Agreed, he was suspended for belonging to a racist organization. That's really parsing words, isn't it?

No, if he had a tendency to say 'bloody nigers' over the dinner table that is a completely different thing to joining a violent racist organisation.

Quote:
For example, I am a registered Democrat, but I am not culpable for the crimes commited by James Traficant (D-OH). Just being a member of the same organization doesn't make me responsible for that organization's misdeeds, past, present, or future. Your a Brit, right, are you responsible for the (alleged) crimes committed by PM Blair? Individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit.

We're talking about the difference between organisations that have one or two 'bad apples' that commit crimes, and an organisation whose 'bad apples' are the ones who DON'T commit crimes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:23 AM

Quote:
We're talking about the difference between organisations that have one or two 'bad apples' that commit crimes, and an organisation whose 'bad apples' are the ones who DON'T commit crimes.

Ahhhh, touche...

Quote:
However I find it interesting that you'll say this then judge a similar situation by completely different criteria:

I don't concede these are two similar examples. One is a crime, the other is not. As long as the cop does not commit burglary (crime) or assist others it committing burglary (crime), then yes, I don't have a problem with him belonging to such an organization.

Quote:
By definition a member of the Ku Klux Klan would surely be someone who sees nothing wrong with violence against racial minorities...

I disagree, that's an assumption. And even if that was the case, that still doesn't mean this person would commit violence. In fact, the article says the dude did not.

Quote:
Would it be unreasonable for Israel to stop members of a Nazi group joining the police force?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? This isn't about the rights of Israelis. It's about rights in the US. I imagine there are several differences between the two.

Quote:
What level of involvement did the trooper have with the KKK? Turning up for meetings? Do memebers of the Klan have to pay 'subscriptions'? I imagine material support.

Your question wasn't about the KKK. It was about a Senator supporting Al-Quaida. And there is a distinction in the US between material and moral support.

But on the last question, what do you consider limiting speech?

And is it possible that cultural differences are responsible for this disagreement?

Was just reading about free speech in Europe and you guys do not have the same rights as we do in the US. Blasphemy and Holocaust Denial are just two examples of many, many, restrictions on free speech in Europe that do not exist in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:50 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Yes. Byrd is a racist hole just like Sen. Allen, and neither of them have any business serving in Congress.

So at least you're consistant.

Fred,

I have to confess, we have no cops, so I'm really out of my element on this one.

Soup,

You make a good point, much of the constituency is at least as racist as Byrd.

Quote:
CTTS: LOL. People with guns always have power.

Good point. Take his gun away.

Quote:
What I do know is that it must be hard to protect and serve people that you think are less human than you are.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this exactly what we're doing in Iraq?

And please, don't tell me that the admin and the people it has put in charge don't think of the Iraqis as some lesser form of human. All you have to do is listen to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
I don't concede these are two similar examples. One is a crime, the other is not. As long as the cop does not commit burglary (crime) or assist others it committing burglary (crime), then yes, I don't have a problem with him belonging to such an organization.

But you recognise that people can be barred from government service, not because they have done something but because of a group they are a member of. Therefore your argument can't hold merely to "as long as they have done nothing wrong" but must take in to consideration that it is a level of where to draw the line.

For you that is being a member of an intelligence organisation for a rival government (even though that individual is not spying on the US) for me that include people who hang with violent racists if they are expected to be in a position of authority over other races.

Quote:
I disagree, that's an assumption. And even if that was the case, that still doesn't mean this person would commit violence. In fact, the article says the dude did not.

It's an assumption like I assume you're into Firefly. This is nothing like the KKK assumption, which would be you're into Firefly so you are lower than a dog and I can kill you and rape your family.

Quote:
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? This isn't about the rights of Israelis. It's about rights in the US. I imagine there are several differences between the two.

It's called an analogy, it its rather an pertinent one even if I do say so myself.

What's the price of Tea in India got to do with the price of Tea in China? Rather a lot if you are looking to buy Tea.

Quote:
Your question wasn't about the KKK. It was about a Senator supporting Al-Quaida. And there is a distinction in the US between material and moral support.

If a senator (a person in public office) put as much time and effort in to a violent organisation as the trooper did into the KKK, again an analogy, I really don't see the problem.

Quote:
But on the last question, what do you consider limiting speech?

Easy, and I think I answered this already, when someone is prevented from taking that stance. He's not been prevented, not once.

He was fired because his involvement with the KKK shows a demonstratable conflict of interests that gives very serious reasons to believe he would be incapable of carrying out his duties, and also brings the organisation into disrepute. You can't have a member of the KKK protecting and serving a black neighbourhood, it's as simple as that.

But still, no one has taken away any freedoms of his, no one has locked him up, no one has beaten him or in anyway forced him too give up his membership. Lifes full of these either or questions, either I can eat a ton of cake or I can lose weight, can't do both but no ones forcing me "to eat or not to eat", cake.

Quote:
Was just reading about free speech in Europe and you guys do not have the same rights as we do in the US.:
Blasphemy

Not in any European state I've ever heard of. I'll check: God's a big smelly poo poo pants! Nope not here.

Quote:
Holocaust Denial

Yeah, in Germany, and only in Germany, where it's also a felony to wear the swastika, but there's some pretty good reasons behind that, got something to do with places like Belsen where you can still find discarded belongings...

Of course I think you'll be more in support of limits to freedom of speech than you realise. It's freedom of speech for a Klan member to stand outside a black man's house and tell him he's going to rape and murder his daughter. I imagine he can try to use it as his defence when his pulled up on charges for threatening behaviour.

Its freedom of Speech for a government official to handout leaflets containing all of America's secrets to random people on the Street.

If I were you rather than getting up in arms about prevention of state sponsored Klan membership you should try this story:
http://www.local6.com/news/9714394/detail.html

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Freedom of double post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:17 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

just saw the capper to this thread on CNN.com
the story was video & I don't subscribe, but the headline read, " Trooper was off duty when he wrote racist note, so he keeps job." Assuming that the story supports the headline, I think that this is a wonderful solution ( Joke, OK ? )
glad they won't let him wear his robe and hood on duty, they might clash with the color scheme of the car...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:42 AM

Quote:
But you recognise that people can be barred from government service, not because they have done something but because of a group they are a member of. Therefore your argument can't hold merely to "as long as they have done nothing wrong" but must take in to consideration that it is a level of where to draw the line.

No, I don't. I do concede that being an agent of a foreign power precludes one from working in a setting where a security clearence is required. It's already illegal. Therefore, the analogy does not apply. You are comparing legal and illegal behavior. That's a "red herring".

Quote:
It's an assumption like I assume you're into Firefly. This is nothing like the KKK assumption, which would be you're into Firefly so you are lower than a dog and I can kill you and rape your family.

In your mind it may be a safe assumption. But you are ignoring the article that this whole discussion was based on. If you would read it again, you would see that it clearly states that there was no concern over the trooper's treatment of minorities. He did not attack, or profile, or rape, or murder anyone. He posted on a website.

Quote:
It's called an analogy, it its rather an pertinent one even if I do say so myself.

No, it's called a "red herring". The requirements choosen by the government of Israel have nothing to do with this.

Israel and the USA do not share a Constitution.

Quote:
If a senator (a person in public office) put as much time and effort in to a violent organisation as the trooper did into the KKK, again an analogy, I really don't see the problem.

Again, you're comparing illegal and legal behavior. Material support of Al-Quaida is illegal. Being a member of the Klan is not.

Quote:
Easy, and I think I answered this already, when someone is prevented from taking that stance. He's not been prevented, not once.

What is prevention? Must he go to prison to be prevented from expressing his views? The only way to really stop him from expressing his views is to kill him. Does the government have to kill him to violate his First Amendment rights?

Quote:
He was fired because his involvement with the KKK shows a demonstratable conflict of interests that gives very serious reasons to believe he would be incapable of carrying out his duties

Nope. Please read the article again! It clearly states that there were no issues with his on the job performance. That there were no issues with his treatment of minorities. Nor does it say that his beliefs prevented him from carrying out his duty.

Quote:
Not in any European state I've ever heard of. I'll check: God's a big smelly poo poo pants! Nope not here.

Oh, I get it. Because the cops didn't arrest you it must be legal. That's great news! Because I'm smoking a bowl right now and there are no cops arresting me. WOO-HOO, marijuana must have been legalized last night!

From the link you must have ignored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Restrictions on free speech

*Blasphemy is illegal in Finland and several other Western countries. Defense of freedom of religion is cited.

*In some European countries, holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the holocaust in February, 2006.

*Some countries still have censorship laws that are rarely used. British law technically still prohibits blasphemy, displays of erect penises and promotion of suicide.

*In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" (Roughly translated "people offense") denies promotion of racism and homophobia.

Quote:
Of course I think you'll be more in support of limits to freedom of speech than you realise. It's freedom of speech for a Klan member to stand outside a black man's house and tell him he's going to rape and murder his daughter. I imagine he can try to use it as his defence when his pulled up on charges for threatening behaviour.

Again, your comparing legal and illegal behavior. It is against the law to threaten people in the US. Another "red herring".

Quote:
Its freedom of Speech for a government official to handout leaflets containing all of America's secrets to random people on the Street.

Yet again, comparing illegal and legal behavior...

Quote:
If I were you rather than getting up in arms about prevention of state sponsored Klan membership you should try this story:
http://www.local6.com/news/9714394/detail.html

This is the logical fallacy "Appeal to Ridicule". I'm a baaaaad person because I am defending the First Amendment rights of an asshole.

If one ignores that the teacher probably did break the law by having an bonfire in his classroom, yes this could be a First Amendment issue.

Unfortunately, the administrators at this school were smart enough to suspend him for the fire, not for burning the flags.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:39 AM

Quote:
No, I don't. I do concede that being an agent of a foreign power precludes one from working in a setting where a security clearence is required. It's already illegal. Therefore, the analogy does not apply. You are comparing legal and illegal behaviour. That's a "red herring".

It's amazing how you so magnificently miss the point.

Magnificent dodge, it's illegal! All you've done is push the decision making process on to someone else. Why is it illegal? Because being a member of another countries security service makes you unsuitable for work in security conscious concerns, whether or not they've done anything wrong.

Quote:
In your mind it may be a safe assumption.

If you don't like Firefly why are you here.

Quote:
No, it's called a "red herring".

No it's still called an analogy. Would you be happy with a member of a group that violently hates you being responsible for your safety or wellbeing?

Quote:
Israel and the USA do not share a Constitution.

Talking of irrelevancies, we have our first.

It's an analogy; I find it amusing how often people on this site are unable to understand such an amazingly simple concept. I asked whether it would be reasonable for Israel to prevent Nazis to join there police force, is it reasonable to prevent Nazis from having authority over Jews, the question is, are there ever any limits to freedom of speech within society. Rather than forever coming up with reasons why the analogy isn't a perfect fit (that's because it's an analogy, if it was a perfect fit it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the story) you actually answer the question at hand.

Quote:
Again, your comparing illegal and legal behavior. Material support of Al-Quaida is illegal. Being a member of the Klan is not.

Both Al Qaeda and the Klan are actually pretty similar, both have track records of violence and terrorism. The only difference between the two circumstances (a senator supporting Al Qaeda and a trooper supporting the KKK) is one of extremes, but you cop out and say "yeah but it's illegal!" pushing the decision on to someone else. Why is it illegal? For the exact same reasons I think membership of the KKK precludes being a state trooper. So by simply supporting the above because it's illegal you are recognising its any issue of where you draw the line, not absolutes, whether you realise or admit to it or not.

Quote:
What is prevention? Must he go to prison to be prevented from expressing his views? The only way to really stop him from expressing his views is to kill him. Does the government have to kill him to violate his First Amendment rights?

Uhuh like the only way to prevent a burglar from recommitting is too kill them. So maybe you can explain why burglars are sent to prison?

This really is the most logically false statement so far. By this logic China has full freedom of speech because the Chinese government only locks people up if they express the 'wrong' opinion. Firing someone in a position of public trust for being a member of a violent racist organisation does not prevent him from being a member of that organisation at all.

Quote:
Nope. Please read the article again! It clearly states that there were no issues with his on the job performance. That there were no issues with his treatment of minorities. Nor does it say that his beliefs prevented him from carrying out his duty.

Erm yes. I find it laughable that you can't see the basic fact that a person in a position of public trust can keep the public trust while being a member of a group that is invested in terrorising the public.

There's been a fair few reasons why his involvement make him unsuitable for work as a state trooper brought up already. Unsuitability is unsuitability, whether your unsuitability is down to your actions or not.

Quote:
Oh, I get it. Because the cops didn't arrest you it must be legal. That's great news! Because I'm smoking a bowl right now and there are no cops arresting me. WOO-HOO, marijuana must have been legalized last night!

It appears you enjoy logical fallacies. Way to miss the point.

Quote:
From the link you must have ignored:

A snarky comment deserves one in kind. From the link you obviously misunderstood:

Quote:
*Some countries still have censorship laws that are rarely used. British law technically still prohibits blasphemy, displays of erect penises and promotion of suicide.

Yes technically, like it's technically legal for me to kill Welshman crossing the border on market days as long as I use a crossbow. Guess I'll go do that then.

A law not being repealed doesn't make it law. Blaspheme isn't against the law, neither are any of the other things, technically means nothing.

For a long time, to use your 'example' Cannabis wasn't illegal in the US. You just couldn't import it or grow it without a stamp, stamps which were never given out by the government.

In Britain taking cannabis isn't illegal, possessing it is.

Quote:
Again, your comparing legal and illegal behavior. It is against the law to threaten people in the US.

And again you miss the point entirely, or maybe you just don't like the implication. Like I said you support curbing of freedom of speech, preventing a Klansman from threatening whoever they want but not physically harming them is curbing of freedom of speech. I said nothing more than that, I never compared it to the present case, I was merely making the point that you support curbing of freedom of speech under certain circumstances, nice dodge.

Quote:
Yet again, comparing illegal and legal behavior...

Well actually no it isn't. The US has no official secrets act. People have to sign a contract in order to prevent them from releasing official secrets. So it's a breach of contract issue.

Though that brings up an interesting question about US vs Rosen. http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/rosen080906.pdf

Quote:
This is the logical fallacy "Appeal to Ridicule". I'm a baaaaad person because I am defending the First Amendment rights of an asshole.

If that's how you wish to frame it. BTW since we're keeping track of logical fallacies this one would be called Straw Man.

Quote:
If one ignores that the teacher probably did break the law by having an bonfire in his classroom, yes this could be a First Amendment issue.

Unfortunately, the administrators at this school were smart enough to suspend him for the fire, not for burning the flags.

So it's a bonfire is it, we seem to have some pretty big differences in our definition of bonfire.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:59 AM

Good times, this. I'm going to jump in here, but first the following disclaimer: I am not a member of the KKK nor any other racially motivated organization. However, I know a lot about the bastards, having studied them rather extensively for research into a screenplay.

Officially, the KKK, while a white and protestant supremist organization, does not advocate violence against any member of any group except in self-defense. So the constant references to the KKK as a violent and criminal organization are not completely accurate. While it is very true that the KKK has quite the history of violent action on the part of its members, it does not--in its modern incarnation--publicly support violence against minorities. Keep in mind as well that a big white hood is an excellent disguise, whether you're a member of the Klan or not.

Now then, any speech which directly advocates or incites unprovoked violence against another does not fall under protected speech. The KKK knows this and they toe the line these days. They support segregation, but not violence--not officially.

This means that the KKK's views are protected under the First Amendment.

So in order to fire this guy for being a member of the KKK, one of two things has to happen: either they need to prove that the group itself is officially promoting violence, or they need to prove that his affiliation has a material effect upon his ability to do his job.

For the record, allow me to define "material effect" in this context. They would need to be able to show his racist views manifest in discriminatory or inappropriate conduct which fundamentally alters the right of all members of the public to be "equal before the law" under his service. The initial post makes a special point of noting that this has not been the case.

White supremists are an easy group to pick on because, quite frankly, they're utterly abhorrent to the majority of reasonable people. But the ugly truth about freedom of speech is that speech is sometimes ugly or untrue. But that's not our call to make.

Besides, there are plenty of bigoted and objectionable opinions for which there are no organizations. This guy just happens to hold a disgusting set of views that has its own support group. What about all the cops who are misogynists? Or virulently anti-immigrant? Or hate gay people?

As long as it doesn't affect their job in a material fashion, they can believe whatever they want and they can talk about it with others of like mind. It's ugly, but the alternative is much worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
For the record, allow me to define "material effect" in this context. They would need to be able to show his racist views manifest in discriminatory or inappropriate conduct which fundamentally alters the right of all members of the public to be "equal before the law" under his service. The initial post makes a special point of noting that this has not been the case.

That's a very narrow and convient definition of material effect.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:56 AM

Quote:
It's amazing how you so magnificently miss the point.

I would argue you're missing the point.

Quote:
If you don't like Firefly why are you here.

I was referring to your other assumption.
EDIT- And you ignored the rest of the comment. And I'm dodging....

Quote:
Would you be happy with a member of a group that violently hates you being responsible for your safety or wellbeing?

Nope. But me being happy has nothing to do with it. I'm not happy that Nazis can march through my town, but their rights are as protected as mine.

Quote:
Talking of irrelevancies, we have our first.

Wait... You compare the USA to Israel and it's irrelavant that the two have different laws? I would argue that the law is relevant considering this discussion is about civil rights in the US, not Israel.
Edit- And the issue isn't the limits in any society (which could explain the rub. Are we discussing two different things?). It is limits in the US. This didn't happen is Israel. All societies do not have a Constitution identical to that of the US.

Quote:
Both Al Qaeda and the Klan are actually pretty similar, both have track records of violence and terrorism. The only difference between the two circumstances (a senator supporting Al Qaeda and a trooper supporting the KKK) is one of extremes...

And, of course, one is illegal. That's a difference.

Quote:
This really is the most logically false statement so far. By this logic China has full freedom of speech because the Chinese government only locks people up if they express the 'wrong' opinion.

Huh? You have lost me here, brother.

Quote:
It appears you enjoy logical fallacies. Way to miss the point.

You said: "Not in any European state I've ever heard of. I'll check: God's a big smelly poo poo pants! Nope not here." Because you were not punished for that means it's legal, right? If that wasn't your point, what was it? And I'm dodging...

Quote:
A snarky comment deserves one in kind.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Well actually no it isn't. The US has no official secrets act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act

"While many of the laws were repealed in 1921, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law (18 USC 793, 794)."

http://www.the7thfire.com/treason/prior_high_profile_convictions_under
_18_USC_794.html

"The Supreme Court has held that the Espionage Act of 1917 makes criminal, and subject to the prescribed penalties, the communication of the prohibited information to the advantage of 'any foreign nation,' even if such communication does not injure this country."

"According to data gathered by the Department of Justice, there were 67 indictments under the espionage laws between 1975 and August 1996. Figures compiled by the Department of Defense Security Institute show 86 new espionage cases reported between 1975 and 1995. (Both sets of materials are on file at the Commission offices.) Aldrich Ames was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 794(c) of the Espionage Act for a conspiracy “to directly or indirectly communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents and information related to the national defense . . . to a foreign government or a representative or officer thereof . . . with the intent or reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign government.” His wife, Rosario, was also indicted for conspiracy under a separate provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(g), for “a willful combination or agreement” with her husband “to communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents relating to the national defense . . . to persons not authorized to receive them.”

Quote:
BTW since we're keeping track of logical fallacies this one would be called Straw Man.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=straw%20man

straw man: An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

Then what was your point of the "up in arms" comment, if not ridicule?

Quote:
So it's a bonfire is it, we seem to have some pretty big differences in our definition of bonfire.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bonfire&x=0&y=0

bonfire: any fire built in the open.

Edit- Good God, this is getting tiresome. Wanna' argue over something else?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
Good times, this. I'm going to jump in here, but first the following disclaimer: I am not a member of the KKK nor any other racially motivated organization. However, I know a lot about the bastards, having studied them rather extensively for research into a screenplay.

Officially, the KKK, while a white and protestant supremist organization, does not advocate violence against any member of any group except in self-defense. So the constant references to the KKK as a violent and criminal organization are not completely accurate. While it is very true that the KKK has quite the history of violent action on the part of its members, it does not--in its modern incarnation--publicly support violence against minorities. Keep in mind as well that a big white hood is an excellent disguise, whether you're a member of the Klan or not.

Now then, any speech which directly advocates or incites unprovoked violence against another does not fall under protected speech. The KKK knows this and they toe the line these days. They support segregation, but not violence--not officially.

This means that the KKK's views are protected under the First Amendment.

So in order to fire this guy for being a member of the KKK, one of two things has to happen: either they need to prove that the group itself is officially promoting violence, or they need to prove that his affiliation has a material effect upon his ability to do his job.

For the record, allow me to define "material effect" in this context. They would need to be able to show his racist views manifest in discriminatory or inappropriate conduct which fundamentally alters the right of all members of the public to be "equal before the law" under his service. The initial post makes a special point of noting that this has not been the case.

White supremists are an easy group to pick on because, quite frankly, they're utterly abhorrent to the majority of reasonable people. But the ugly truth about freedom of speech is that speech is sometimes ugly or untrue. But that's not our call to make.

Besides, there are plenty of bigoted and objectionable opinions for which there are no organizations. This guy just happens to hold a disgusting set of views that has its own support group. What about all the cops who are misogynists? Or virulently anti-immigrant? Or hate gay people?

As long as it doesn't affect their job in a material fashion, they can believe whatever they want and they can talk about it with others of like mind. It's ugly, but the alternative is much worse.

Yeah! What he said!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:38 AM

Argggg!!! Weird double postiness!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
CTTS: LOL. People with guns always have power.

Good point. Take his gun away.

I hope you're joking, but I have to assume you aren't. Taking a cops gun away will in all likelyhood (at least in urban environments) end up with you having one less cop on the streets in relatively short order. That is usually considered a bad idea.

Quote:
Quote:
What I do know is that it must be hard to protect and serve people that you think are less human than you are.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this exactly what we're doing in Iraq?

And please, don't tell me that the admin and the people it has put in charge don't think of the Iraqis as some lesser form of human. All you have to do is listen to them.

I don't disagree about the administration, but the soldiers usually see them as people, the same as everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Freedom of double post.

There is no such thing. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
For the record, allow me to define "material effect" in this context. They would need to be able to show his racist views manifest in discriminatory or inappropriate conduct which fundamentally alters the right of all members of the public to be "equal before the law" under his service. The initial post makes a special point of noting that this has not been the case.
That's a very narrow and convient definition of material effect.

Please note my use of the modifier, "in this context." Such modifiers are used to narrow a concept to the subject at hand, in order to make conversation more convenient.

So, looking at it that way, I couldn't agree more! Narrow to apply context, so we can talk without being distracted by tangentials; convenient, isn't it?

However, in the interests of completeness, materiality concerns a litmus test of relevance and significance applied to a fact or piece of evidence within a lawsuit. A fact is deemed to be material if it has impact on the matter in question. For example, evidence of racist leanings in an officer of the law is material only if allegations of discriminatory conduct exist. Such allegations are material only if a person's legal rights were violated by said conduct. In the above case, no such allegations have been brought to light. Therefore, evidence of this officer's racism is legally immaterial with regards to his fitness for duty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
Please note my use of the modifier, "in this context." Such modifiers are used to narrow a concept to the subject at hand, in order to make conversation more convenient.

So, looking at it that way, I couldn't agree more! Narrow to apply context, so we can talk without being distracted by tangentials; convenient, isn't it?

No I said it is narrow and convenient because it only includes the circumstances you feel you can argue against, not all those that can affect his performance or ability to do his job.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
For example, evidence of racist leanings in an officer of the law is material only if allegations of discriminatory conduct exist. Such allegations are material only if a person's legal rights were violated by said conduct. In the above case, no such allegations have been brought to light. Therefore, evidence of this officer's racism is legally immaterial with regards to his fitness for duty.

I would disagree based off of my previous points. If his affiliation is widely known it will impact his job, not neccesarily in easily measurable ways either.

For instance (like I said earlier) he is much less likely to successfully investigate happening in minority filled areas if the people know he is a KKK member, they are much more likely to avoid him, lie to him, and play dumb than they would be to a non-KKK member.

Also, like I said earlier the race card is a valuable defensive weapon in a lawyers arsenal, it could easily be used to get a case dismissed or a ruling successfully appealed. Unfortunetely by the time this happened it would be too late to fire him, the damage would be done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
I was referring to your other assumption.

What that the KKK was a violent racist organisation. That's not an assumption.

Quote:
Nope. But me being happy has nothing to do with it. I'm not happy that Nazis can march through my town, but their rights are as protected as mine.

No, it has everything to do with it. Nazis marching have nothing to do with the police forces ability to do its job.

If the community doesn't trust the police, which is pretty certain not to happen within racial minority communities if officers that are known to be members of the KKK are patrolling those communities, the police can't do their job. Ergo the officer being a member of the KKK prevents him from doing his job.

Quote:
Wait... You compare the USA to Israel and it's irrelavant that the two have different laws? I would argue that the law is relevant considering this discussion is about civil rights.

I apologise, you obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy even after me explaining it, I'll stop using them since it's obviously complicating the issue.

Quote:
And, of course, one is illegal. That's a difference.

Again your ability to ignore (since I outlaid the point) is near miraculous. Why is it illegal for a senator to support Al Qaeda? For the same reasons that I think the trooper shouldn't be a trooper and a member of the KKK, so all your arguing is where to draw the line, and annoyingly repeating yourself over and over to prevent yourself from having to admit it.

Quote:
Huh? You have lost me here, brother.

You're the one who said the only way to prevent someone’s freedom of speech is to kill them, not I. It's your argument not mine, you tell me.

Quote:
Because you were not punished for that means it's legal, right? If that wasn't your point, what was it? And I'm dodging...

Yes you are, you've cut out specific parts of my post and taken them out of context and you've also failed to answer any reasonable questions, simply because, I must assume, you don't like the answers.

Also, as you should well know, I have already answered this. It would help things along greatly if you actually read the posts you reply to.

My point was that it wasn't illegal; I chose to make that point with some humour to lighten the mood.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act

"While many of the laws were repealed in 1921, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law (18 USC 793, 794)."

http://www.the7thfire.com/treason/prior_high_profile_convictions_under
_18_USC_794.html

"The Supreme Court has held that the Espionage Act of 1917 makes criminal, and subject to the prescribed penalties, the communication of the prohibited information to the advantage of 'any foreign nation,' even if such communication does not injure this country."

"According to data gathered by the Department of Justice, there were 67 indictments under the espionage laws between 1975 and August 1996. Figures compiled by the Department of Defense Security Institute show 86 new espionage cases reported between 1975 and 1995. (Both sets of materials are on file at the Commission offices.) Aldrich Ames was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 794(c) of the Espionage Act for a conspiracy “to directly or indirectly communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents and information related to the national defense . . . to a foreign government or a representative or officer thereof . . . with the intent or reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign government.” His wife, Rosario, was also indicted for conspiracy under a separate provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(g), for “a willful combination or agreement” with her husband “to communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents relating to the national defense . . . to persons not authorized to receive them.”

Is not an official secrets act, It doesn't apply to everyone. What you thought I didn't know about this?

Quote:
Then what was your point of the "up in arms" comment?

So you're not arguing that this is terrible because it's against the First Amendment? Also you didn't flat-out lie and say that I was calling you a bad man or implying you were a racists supporting racists and all they stand for. Because it damn well seems like it.

Quote:
bonfire: any fire built in the open.

Well even by your definition it isn't a bonfire, because by your definition a bonfire is built in the open, not in a class room. In fact this fire wasn't even built. I was more talking about the laughable idea that a burning flag can be called a bonfire though.

Now what is tiresome is your insistence that the government can't impede freedom of speech in anyway shape or form while simultaneously supporting it, and you’re nitpicking of any analogy I use to try and further the debate.

What's really tiresome is with one breath you say absolute no to any requirement for civil servants to mediate their involvement with certain groups and then support civil servants being prevented from membership of groups with the next breath. You continually avoid the obvious conclusion that you aren't arguing for absolutely no control here by repeating over and over "illegal" while completely ignoring the reasons why these things are illegal. This debate will continue to be mired in an endless circle until you can be honest with me and yourself about what it is you are arguing.

Either you support laws against membership of Al Qaeda (for instance), in which case you are in favour of there being a line drawn, or you are against any prevention of freedom of speech in which case you hold freedom of speech as an absolute. Which is it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:02 PM

No, no, no . . . It contains the circumstances that best illustrate my point with regards to my position. A) In no way is even the most honest of debators required to apply counter-arguments to his own position; that's the other guy's job. B) I was very clear in my definition being contextual, and in no way defined the terms of the argument in a misleading or loaded way. I cited a relevant definition of material effect and presented it to butress my argument. C) Calling me on an overly narrow definition of a term is utterly meritless unless you can broaden that definition in such a way as to render my argument invalid or fallacious. Just saying it's narrow means nothing.

So, if I were you, I'd get crackin' with that rhetoric and reasonin' and recitative. . . c'mon there boyo. Illustrate my supposed begging of the question in greater detail.

Hit me with your best shot!
C'mon and hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
FIRE AWAAAAAAAAAAYYY!!!!!!

_________________________________________
It's not the side-effects of the cocaine; I'm thinking that it must be love

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:12 PM

Well your childish baiting aside If you bothered to read any of my other posts or any of the responses to you by other posters you'd know what I was talking about already.

But since you need it stated again:
The Troopers fitness for his job can be affected by things other than his own conduct while at work. For instance (and there are others) his membership of a racist organisation will prevent racial minorities from responding well to him and certainly prevent any level of basic trust absolutely required for him to do his job.

Since this prevents him from doing his job where racial minorities are concerned he can not fully fulfil all requirements of his employment.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
For example, evidence of racist leanings in an officer of the law is material only if allegations of discriminatory conduct exist. Such allegations are material only if a person's legal rights were violated by said conduct. In the above case, no such allegations have been brought to light. Therefore, evidence of this officer's racism is legally immaterial with regards to his fitness for duty.

I would disagree based off of my previous points. If his affiliation is widely known it will impact his job, not neccesarily in easily measurable ways either.

For instance (like I said earlier) he is much less likely to successfully investigate happening in minority filled areas if the people know he is a KKK member, they are much more likely to avoid him, lie to him, and play dumb than they would be to a non-KKK member.

Also, like I said earlier the race card is a valuable defensive weapon in a lawyers arsenal, it could easily be used to get a case dismissed or a ruling successfully appealed. Unfortunetely by the time this happened it would be too late to fire him, the damage would be done.

To this point, I must concede. Public perception being what it is, this guy is a potential liability out on the street, just because he's so damn easy to accuse of malfeasance. He'd have to shoot three times as straight (metaphorically speaking) in order to ensure that he never, ever, EVER broke from picture perfect procedure. The only way to defend against the racism charge is to be airtight with regards to professional integrity in a way that can be demonstrated repeatedly and consistently. His conduct would need to be 100% above reproach to counteract his well-known views on the inferiority of non-WASPs.

In effect, this does sort of link back to my thing about materiality, though. This guy would just need to be prepared to prove the immateriality of his racism as regards his actual conduct. A tall order, but his rights under the law still preclude him from being denied employment for these reasons.

Still, this is the place where my argument feels a lot shakier, fred. Public perception is a bitch, and has nothing to do with either legal or ethical philosophy. Simply put, you can't reason with the mob.

Again, this has to be a point I ultimately concede to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:30 PM

Man, we are just in two different worlds.

You win. I surrender. Talk amongst yourselves...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well your childish baiting aside If you bothered to read any of my other posts or any of the responses to you by other posters you'd know what I was talking about already.

But since you need it stated again:
The Troopers fitness for his job can be affected by things other than his own conduct while at work. For instance (and there are others) his membership of a racist organisation will prevent racial minorities from responding well to him and certainly prevent any level of basic trust absolutely required for him to do his job.

Since this prevents him from doing his job where racial minorities are concerned he can not fully fulfil all requirements of his employment.

My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.

In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose. I made a concise argument regarding a matter of law as it relates to what can be proven. I'm posting to a discussion forum, not penning a dissertation; diversionary ramblings are unbecoming.

In response to your actual point (see my grudging concession to fredgiblet's similar one above), my biggest problem here is one of the slippery slope. I admit (grudgingly, see above) that a cop's known affiliation with a racist organization is going to tarnish his ability to interact with some (probably many) members of the public. But if that alone is grounds for dismissal, we have to be very, very clear as to what sorts of unpopular opinions and affiliations represent such a public relations nightmare as to qualify for such treatment. If racist opinions are sufficient, are religious ones? Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?

Although I have to concede that his fitness for the job is unavoidably strained by his membership in an unpopular group, I can't get around the precedent it sets, theoretically speaking. By this same rationale, a deputy in a small Bible Belt town who is openly gay is unfit for the job by virtue of his orientation, since it will prevent virulently bigoted citizens from responding well to him (due to their certainty that he's come to spread his gayness to their children, he constitutes a public menace in their eyes) and certainly prevent any level of basic trust absolutely required for him to do his job.

Since this prevents him from doing his job where the staunchly fundamentalist are concerned, he cannot fully fulfill all requirements of his employment.

Your words.

Does that seem right to you?

Therefore, in order for me to accept this argument, it has to go beyond simple public relations. Blacks hate/distrust Klansmen (and rightly so). Fundamentalist religion hates/distrusts queer culture and what they see as the "gay agenda" (in their minds, equally justified). If potential public relations backlash alone is recognized as acceptable grounds for firing, then it would seem to have certain demographic inequalities that fly in the face of the entire concept of equal protection before the law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:31 PM

@TwilightJack

I don't disagree about it being a slippery slope, but I think it's slippery in both directions. If we ignore affiliations for everyone then situations arise like I posted about, namely affiliations causing issues with the job at hand. Conversely, like you said, if we kick out anyone that could contreversial it's almost as bad.

I would say that the criteria for having to fire them would be two-fold (at least off the top of my head).

One: Participation must be voluntary. No one made the cop join the KKK, and personally I find his reason a little weak. A gay man has no choice in the matter (regardless of what the protesters might say).

Two: The organization must actively and intentionally reinforce the prejudices at hand. For instance, the KKK goes out of their way to show their prejudice and attemp to negatively affect minorities around them. On the other hand, the Church Of Satan doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them (in fact if I remember correctly that's one of LaVey's rules).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.

So I'm dishonest. It's kind of amusing to me that you accuse me of something while doing that thing yourself in your own accusation.

Quote:
In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose.

You accused me of not making a case I had already made, and I was also referencing words in posts already made toward you. It is not my job to ensure you get your facts straight.

But as you say, onward:

Quote:
Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?

Well as per my discussion with FellowTraveller I have to know where you really stand before I can hope to address this. Is it, too your mind a matter of absolutism, no matter what group a public servant supports they can not be fired for that, or is it a case of where the line is drawn?

Furthermore it seems to me that attempting to draw a parallel between someone born white/black gay/straight and someone choosing to join the KKK is ridiculous. Stick to organisations that, like Satan’s church, are conscious choices.

Now if anyone is a member of an organisation that preaches hate, especially violent or repressive hate (both of which are true for the Klan, but at the very least segregation is repressive) then such a person is unfit to be put in a position of public trust until such time they prove that, that trust is more important to them than their bigotry (which is an utmost requirement for true impartiality). How can this be inferred if they are willing to lose their position of public trust before their membership in said organisation?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Now if anyone is a member of an organisation that preaches hate, especially violent or repressive hate (both of which are true for the Klan, but at the very least segregation is repressive) then such a person is unfit to be put in a position of public trust until such time they prove that, that trust is more important to them than their bigotry (which is an utmost requirement for true impartiality). How can this be inferred if they are willing to lose their position of public trust before their membership in said organisation?

The ironic thing is this: more likely than not the situation that would allow them to prove their trustworthiness would be negatively affected by their affiliation. And also, even if they were sincere in their attempts to be trustworthy, if they failed in those situations it would be seen as damning evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
[B]@TwilightJack

I don't disagree about it being a slippery slope, but I think it's slippery in both directions. If we ignore affiliations for everyone then situations arise like I posted about, namely affiliations causing issues with the job at hand. Conversely, like you said, if we kick out anyone that could contreversial it's almost as bad.

I would say that the criteria for having to fire them would be two-fold (at least off the top of my head).

One: Participation must be voluntary. No one made the cop join the KKK, and personally I find his reason a little weak. A gay man has no choice in the matter (regardless of what the protesters might say).

Cool! Now we're getting somewhere! You've established an important distinction with the voluntary membership requirement. Some could argue the choice thing with homosexuality (they'll never believe otherwise), but we've at least got grounds here.

Quote:
Two: The organization must actively and intentionally reinforce the prejudices at hand. For instance, the KKK goes out of their way to show their prejudice and attemp to negatively affect minorities around them. On the other hand, the Church Of Satan doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them (in fact if I remember correctly that's one of LaVey's rules).

Okay, once again we're narrowing this down. I'm still not signing up for your side of the issue (I get all big on Voltaire's ". . . your right to say it" crap), but we're exploring workable and fair solutions that remain in keeping with the moral philosophies that underpin the rule of law.

On the whole, I'm pleased with this. Having only gotten 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night, I'm going to respond in a more adversarial light tomorrow. I need to refresh my brain-meats first, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
(I get all big on Voltaire's ". . . your right to say it" crap)

I believe that everyone has the right to express themselves (by getting tattoos, joining the KKK etc.) and the responsibility to accept the consequences of the actions (getting infections and regretting the tattoos when they get older, getting fired by sane people who don't want to be associated with the KKK, etc.)

Quote:
On the whole, I'm pleased with this. Having only gotten 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night, I'm going to respond in a more adversarial light tomorrow. I need to refresh my brain-meats first, though.

Bah!, your brain-meats need more than 1.5 hours? Weakling, mine can function perfectly with no sleep. Admittedly sleep has a tendency to assert itself later, but the brain-meats function fine until it does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY

I have been enjoying your posts, Twilightjack and Fredgiblet.

Everyone keeps talking about this man's free speech / free assembly rights. This man's free speech/free assembly rights are fine and intact. No one's come to arrest him for being a member of the KKK.

What I want to know is what are the rights of the state employer? Can a state employer set its policies to whatever it wants them to be? (Provided, of course, that there is no discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and maybe one day, sexual orientation.) Can a state employer set its policy to restrict any activity in an employee's personal life? Imagine: Everyone who smokes 7 or more cigarettes a day will be fired. Or everyone who visits porn sites for bestiality will be fired. Or everyone who posts comments on the internet to advocate Nazism will be fired. You get the drift.

Or does a state employer have no rights to set standards for employees outside of the job functions? Should it allow a member of the Man-Boy Love Association to be a public school teacher?

I can see both points of view. Personally, I'd like to see standards for the use of my tax dollars, but at the same time, once you start down that slope...where do you stop?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have been enjoying your posts, Twilightjack and Fredgiblet.

Thank you.

Quote:
Everyone keeps talking about this man's free speech / free assembly rights. This man's free speech/free assembly rights are fine and intact. No one's come to arrest him for being a member of the KKK.

Agree completely.

Quote:
Can a state employer set its policies to whatever it wants them to be? (Provided, of course, that there is no discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and maybe one day, sexual orientation.)

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Until they are challenged in court of course.

Quote:
Can a state employer set its policy to restrict any activity in an employee's personal life? Imagine: Everyone who smokes 7 or more cigarettes a day will be fired.

I believe there are companies (though maybe not the Feds) that are working on this...

Quote:
Or everyone who visits porn sites for bestiality will be fired. Or everyone who posts comments on the internet to advocate Nazism will be fired.

Well those puts me out of a job

Quote:
Should it allow a member of the Man-Boy Love Association to be a public school teacher?

Emphatic no.

Quote:
I can see both points of view. Personally, I'd like to see standards for the use of my tax dollars

A little OT but there's a bill in the works (with a senator trying to kill it) which would require a database of the budgets for the government to be made and accessible by anyone...you would finally be able to see where your tax dollars are going.

Quote:
but at the same time, once you start down that slope...where do you stop?

At the bottom...pressed firmly into the brick wall...

Quote:
Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Watch me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.
So I'm dishonest. It's kind of amusing to me that you accuse me of something while doing that thing yourself in your own accusation.

But I do it with a smile.

Quote:
Quote:
In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose.
You accused me of not making a case I had already made, and I was also referencing words in posts already made toward you. It is not my job to ensure you get your facts straight.

Actually, I accused you of failing to substantiate the claim that my contextual definition of materiality was overly narrow and therefore fallacious.

Quote:
But as you say, onward:

Indeed. "Onward!"

Quote:
Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?

I just want to know where the line is drawn. The litmus test has to be so clearly defined that it can never be used as precedent for depriving someone of their rights. My problem is that whenever folks in these kinds of discussions start slicing away and parsing down their definitions to ensure that the rule will not be abused, they always seem to reveal the the rule itself as abusive in fundament. The only real litmus test I can see that avoids this is that of conduct and material effect. It's his right to believe whatever he likes, but if his beliefs interfere materially with the rights of another, then he needs to go. Otherwise, I can't see rationale for firing him that doesn't open a door to the other side.

Quote:
Furthermore it seems to me that attempting to draw a parallel between someone born white/black gay/straight and someone choosing to join the KKK is ridiculous. Stick to organisations that, like Satan’s church, are conscious choices.

And ultimately, drawing such a parallel is ridiculous, on its face. However, unless you clearly define the groundrules and criteria for firing KKK members for being KKK members (without any other conduct or material activity which merits their termination) in such a way that these parallels cannot be drawn, you're just waiting for someone to make such connections. I used your own argument and switched the players, not because I truly think that you're making that argument, but because a complete rationale for action must apply equally across all circumstances where it may be applicable. It's a question of establishing a coherent rationale that cannot be twisted to evil ends. If such a rationale cannot be established, then the fundamental action must be reexamined. I hate to sound so Boolean in my logic, but unfortunately it's the way of both legal and ethical philosophy, in a Deontological vein.

Quote:
Now if anyone is a member of an organisation that preaches hate, especially violent or repressive hate (both of which are true for the Klan, but at the very least segregation is repressive) then such a person is unfit to be put in a position of public trust until such time they prove that, that trust is more important to them than their bigotry (which is an utmost requirement for true impartiality). How can this be inferred if they are willing to lose their position of public trust before their membership in said organisation?

So is it the membership in the organization or the bigotry that is really punishible here? A man can rescind his affiliations without renouncing his views. Most bigoted white-folk in the world are not members of any white-supremecist organization. A rank in the Knights of Whitey McWhiteWhite or the Aryan Brotherhood or the Christian Identity movement is not required to hate people for the color of their skin. Would quitting the KKK really make much difference for this guy? Doesn't his former membership prove his bigotry? So isn't he really being fired for being bigoted? My question then, I repeat: if his bigotry does not manifest itself in the pursuit of his public duty, and he endeavors to treat all as equal under the law, regardless of his personal feelings as to their functional equivalency with himself, then is it right to fire him? Are we opening ourselves to becoming the Thought Police at that point?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Haven't had time to read thru ALL the posts, but I DO have to say I changd my mind at least five times thru the first 20 posts or so. You guys are so persuasive!

My off-the-cuff response is that I don't think ths guy should have been fired. I work for a regulatory agency that is more than usually political and we were all told at one point that we could not "advocate" for or against various agency positions. My response: Bullshit. When I started working here I didn't give up my free speech rights. And as long as I do my job properly, they have no right to fire me.

Also, being a supervisor, it's been drilled into me that you can not reprimand or fire a person for "being" something, only for what they do. If the guy's head is full of hate but he manages to pull it together for the job... GREAT! That goes for teachers who work strip clubs on the weekends, cops who are card-carrying ACLU (or KKK) members, or preachers who boink every willing lady in town. Their own time is their own time. If they do something illegal it should be handled thru the justice system same as everybody else, not thru the employment system.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

That was my response as well.

Too many 'programs' have been instituted to solve 'problems' that good OTJ supervision would fix. Drug screening comes to mind, as the cure all for workplace accidents or poor performance. Unfortunately it impinges on what you do in your 'free time' and doesn't take into account you could be showing up for work completely sober and on-task. There are other programs out there that are both intrusive AND ineffective.

Unfortunately, government employees sepcifically have recently lost important free-speech rights. You cannot comment on policies, procedures, or even whistle-blow on things that are part of your job and be protected from being fired.

Your ass is theirs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh...my. How did THAT travesty happen? I'll bet it was a Bush employee.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It was the D##@@D BUSH Supreme Court that decided!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:29 AM

Yeah, I said I would shut the Hell up, but to all those who say firing this man is not a violation of his rights, that nobody has put duct tape on his mouth or sent him to prison, a few examples using this rationale and other civil rights:

Governor Blanco tells all black, state workers for the state of Louisiana if they vote, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still vote. They just can't vote and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.

Governor Pataki tells all state workers for the state of New York that if they own a firearm, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still own firearms. They just can't own firearms and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.

Governor Schwarzenegger tells all state workers for the state of California that they cannot be practicing Baptists or they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still be practicing Baptists. They just can't be practicing Baptists and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.

Governor Kaine tells all state workers for the state of Virginia that they cannot be a member of the Rainbow Coalition (or the Masons, or the Lions Club, or the Chamber of Commerce, or the ACLU, or the Christian Coalition, or the Klan) or they lose their jobs. They can still be a member of these organizations. They just can't be a member and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fellow- If true, your statements point to a serious problem. Links, please??

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:33 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Taking a cops gun away will in all likelyhood (at least in urban environments) end up with you having one less cop on the streets in relatively short order. That is usually considered a bad idea.

I want to jump in on this particular point. I have seen in print, numerous times, assertions by people who should know, including ex-cops and Joseph Wambaugh, the ex-LAPD cop, that the average cop does not actually fire his weapon ever during his career in a real-life situation.

Don't know how true that is in today's urban paramilitary police forces and situations, and I don't want cops disarmed, but I think the lethal violence against cops argument is overstated

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:35 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

did it again. That was not all a quote . The less intelligent parts are my responsibliity...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I want to jump in on this particular point. I have seen in print, numerous times, assertions by people who should know, including ex-cops and Joseph Wambaugh, the ex-LAPD cop, that the average cop does not actually fire his weapon ever during his career in a real-life situation.

Don't know how true that is in today's urban paramilitary police forces and situations, and I don't want cops disarmed, but I think the lethal violence against cops argument is overstated

Perhaps, but let me ask you this: how many criminals would not think twice about shooting cops if the cops couldn't shoot back?

Right now, if you shoot a cop you know that the cop (and his partner, and (if you hurt/kill the cop) the entire police department) will be shooting at you, on the other hand if none of them (except the SWAT team) have guns, the reprecussions will likely be at worst a taser (not pleasant but not a gun).

For the most part I think cops with guns work on the detterent principle, but if you take away the detterent...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:52 AM