REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble

POSTED BY: FELLOWTRAVELER
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9443
PAGE 3 of 3

Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:55 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fellow- If true, your statements point to a serious problem. Links, please??

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



I didn't mean this did happen, sorry. I should have been more clear. It's just a hypothetical. Several people in this post pointed out that the state firing this man (for being a member and posting on the Klan's website) did not violate his rights to free speech, because he can still speak.

Thus, him being fired is immaterial to his right to free speech.

Quote:

When did the government infringe his freedom of speech? He's not been forced to leave the Klan, no one has duct taped his mouth shut. His freedom of speech is not being infringed in anyway.


Quote:

From what I understand, the thing about constitutional rights is that they aren't there to protect people from being fired.


Quote:

Employment is a contract between the employer and employee. Outside of prohibiting discrimination because of gender or race, the constitution has no say in what conditions an employer wishes to impose on an employee.


Quote:

No one is infringing his rights of peaceable aassembly or freedom of speech, it's a pity with your lack of insight you can't understand that.


Quote:

It's still not a limit on speech.


Quote:

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


I was attempting to apply this position to other civil rights circumstances to demonstrate its weakness.

My arguement is this: The state can't fire you if you vote (Constitutional right), the state can't fire you if own a gun (Constitutional right), the state can't fire for your faith (Constitutional right), and thus the state can't fire you for speech (Constitutional right).

In non of those hypothetical circumstances is a person being prevented from voting, owning a weapon, or practicing their faith. Yet, I think most reasonable people would find this objectionable, in fact illegal, because these conditions do violate a persons rights.

The right to free expression is as protected as the right to vote, bear arms, and religion.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:16 AM

RUE

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


FT employees are assumed to have 'property rights' to their jobs. I'd think you can't violate their property rights (fire them) without due process. Some violations of work rules are cause for immediate dismissal whether you are employed by the government or private employer (OTJ violence). However, if belonging to the KKK or similar groups was not specifically forbidden by the employer, I can't imagine on what grounds the person could be fired.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:19 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

It really isn't a difficult concept to understand: the cop got fired because his choices reduced his ability to do his job. If I work in Sales in a conservative Christian area, and I decide to cover my face with Satanic tattoos my ability to do my job is reduced, therefore my company will fire me. That doesn't mean my 1st amendment rights have been violated, just that I'm a retard who did something that would obviously make me unfit for my job.



I conceded the point that his on the job performance could be impacted adversely 40 posts ago.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Second, even if he manages to keep his personal feeling seperate from his job think about this: he arrests a black man for something, the charge goes to court, the black mans lawyer finds out that the cop is a KKK member, the black man walks free, regardless of innocence or guilt, not a good outcome. *cough*O.J.*cough*

Third, if he is known to be a KKK member, then in all likelyhood people around him will react quite negatively, this can cause serious issues for a cop. Consider: if he is investigating a crime in a predominantly black area (or even an area with just a few blacks) and he has to get information from black people, what will the result be if they know of his affiliation? Probably not nearly as good as if he wasn't a KKK member. So what has to be done? Should the police have to send someone else whenever a black person is being interviewed?



These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.



But as TwilightJack aptly wrote:

Quote:

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 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?

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:22 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
However, if belonging to the KKK or similar groups was not specifically forbidden by the employer, I can't imagine on what grounds the person could be fired.



Like I keep saying, reduced ability to do his job. I'm a white guy, Norwegian-German by heritage, I wouldn't want a KKK member as a cop in my town, and I wouldn't be as likely to give him information. I can only imagine what a black person would feel about it.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:26 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
But as TwilightJack aptly wrote:

Quote:

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 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?



And I replied with some criteria: A voluntary association (thus race/sexual preference/etc. are out). And an association that actively reinforces negative prejudices against itself (members of the Lions club typically don't attack or harrass people in the name of the Lions Club).

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:44 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

And I replied with some criteria: A voluntary association (thus race/sexual preference/etc. are out). And an association that actively reinforces negative prejudices against itself (members of the Lions club typically don't attack or harrass people in the name of the Lions Club).



I agree totally that the Lions Club doesn't attack or harrass people. Those examples were meant to be extreme.

But can we agree that certain voluntary religious groups do?

Specifically, the group with the "God Hates Fags" signs and the ones who were recently protesting at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church, as mentioned by a previous post.

Can we further agree that this guy didn't attack anyone or harrass anyone? As stated in the article above.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:58 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Specifically, the group with the "God Hates Fags" signs and the ones who were recently protesting at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church, as mentioned by a previous post.



A group of people who I would be in favor of executing and who no one should ever employ. The law shouldn't protect people for being assholes (but then we'd probably all be dead so...).

Quote:

Can we further agree that this guy didn't attack anyone or harrass anyone? As stated in the article above.


Yes, but police departments spend a lot of time skating on the thin ice of public perception, if he did anything and his affiliation became known the lawyers would demolish the department.

Additionally you need to add a couple things on to your statement above: "yet", and "that we know of". Just because his membership hasn't caused an issue yet doesn't mean it won't, and just because we don't know about issues doesn't mean there aren't any.

I would be particularly worried about this because of the reinforcement, he may not be considereing attacking minorities yet, but his association with the KKK will likely deepen his emnity as time goes by.

Adtionally this still doesn't refute my points about his ability to do his job.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:09 AM

SASSALICIOUS


I don't have a hard answer for you, but this is similar to thoughts I had while at a protest this weekend. The National Socialist Movement (aka American Nazi Party) was having a demonstration in town this weekend. The whole time, they were on the capitol steps, behind a fence, with mounted police and state patrol in riot gear between them and the protesters. There were also regular and school police in the crowd. The armed guard included minorities and definitely some Jewish people.

I wondered how they felt about having to defend someone's right to free speech, even when the message was against their existence. I talked to people around me and they said that if they were in a similar position, they would see themself as "keeping the peace".

It's possible that this officer would feel the same way and would in fact be able to do his job fairly. It's also possible that he wouldn't. I think he should probably be put back, until he does something that demonstrates active discrimination.

But who knows if state workers actually have the same rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:10 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
My suspcion after reading this thread is that people are far less insightful here than I thought. If you frame any question the right way, they'd all fall right in line.

Ahh, so now anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have any insight.

No one is infringing his rights of peaceable aassembly or freedom of speech, it's a pity with your lack of insight you can't understand that. You hear "either let racist cops be in a position of authority over other races or your banning freedom of speech!" and you fall right in line. Bravo.



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.




Is the fact that CiTz, an English type gent, who resides in a country without the guarantees of freedom of press, speech, and assembly, blowing his hot air on all thingys American, Hilarious to anyone but me. According to the ISIL, over 6,250 people have been imprisoned in England for things of this nature. The US, having the most liberal laws when it comes to freedoms compared to most western nations, leads the way on this. We take our liberties seriously. This man has the right to join any org. he wants to. He doesn't have to explain it to me or anyone else. I haven't heard any complaints about his conduct on the job. It is no different than a black man joining Faracon's Nation of Islam. Don't let white mans guilt cloud your judgment. The KKK hasn't been a violent Org. in many years. And to be honest do you ever sit around and listen to what white and black people say about each other? I think we would have a hard time putting together a police force if you couldn't be a little "racist" ..Well, Sad but true.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:22 AM

SASSALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't think a cop has any power.

LOL. People with guns always have power.

I have a friend who is a cop magnet. For some strange reason, he can be doing absolutely nothing wrong, and they will zoom in right for him. He'll drive through a rural town, get pulled over, and have his comic book collection confiscated because some of them depicted upper body nudity, and pornography is against the law in that town. The ACLU tells him that he can sue them but he should know that everyone they've represented in that state has dropped their suit or moved out of state before it gets to court, because of severe cop harrassment.

Once I was with him when we pulled into a parking lot to check the oil in his car. A cop followed us and asked us to step out. He said to me, "Good evening ma'am can I see some ID?" Then he turned to my friend and said, "You. Up against the car, and spread your legs." I wouldn't have believed it if I weren't there.\

He's been arrested for walking down the street at 11:30 pm. They asked him for ID, he said he wasn't carrying any, cause you know, he wasn't driving but walking. They booked him for vagrancy. When he tried to protest, they said, "We can do anything we want to you, boy." And you know what? They can.

And this guy isn't even black.

So you know, I gotta chuckle when someone says a cop doesn't have any power.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky



My grandfather was a police officer in a crappy town in ND until recently. The guys in the next town/county over always pulled people over who weren't from the area because they were total pricks. Once they pulled my grandfather over and he verbally bitch slapped them. Funniest thing I've ever seen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:37 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Specifically, the group with the "God Hates Fags" signs and the ones who were recently protesting at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church, as mentioned by a previous post.



A group of people who I would be in favor of executing and who no one should ever employ. The law shouldn't protect people for being assholes (but then we'd probably all be dead so...).

Quote:

Can we further agree that this guy didn't attack anyone or harrass anyone? As stated in the article above.


Yes, but police departments spend a lot of time skating on the thin ice of public perception, if he did anything and his affiliation became known the lawyers would demolish the department.

Additionally you need to add a couple things on to your statement above: "yet", and "that we know of". Just because his membership hasn't caused an issue yet doesn't mean it won't, and just because we don't know about issues doesn't mean there aren't any.

I would be particularly worried about this because of the reinforcement, he may not be considereing attacking minorities yet, but his association with the KKK will likely deepen his emnity as time goes by.

Adtionally this still doesn't refute my points about his ability to do his job.



Cool. I wasn't trying to refute anything in the previous post. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. And cut me slack, brother. I'm treading real lightly so things don't turn nasty, again...

So, we agree that certain voluntary religious groups harrass and attack people and to this point the state has not asserted that this cop has harrassed or attacked anyone?

If this is the case, I would ask would it be legal and constitutional for the state of Idaho (random) to fire a cop for being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation and posting on their website, even though to the states knowledge the cop had not participated in any illegal conduct?

Not if it right. I agree it's the right thing to do. But, would it be legal and constitutional?

Now, before I try to address your point regarding negative public perception and the possibility of the cop's affiliation being used in court against him, may I again make sure we agree on the basic premise of my position.

That is, the Westboro Baptist Church is an organization similar in character today to the KKK. The groups they choose to harrass and intimadate are different, but they share the distinction of being minorities and having legimate fear of these organizations.

If we agree on that, would you agree that a cop being a congregant of the Westboro Baptist Church would make him just as likely to be mistrusted by that minority group and that his membership could be used in the same fashion in court?

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:49 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
So, we agree that certain voluntary religious groups harrass and attack people and to this point the state has not asserted that this cop has harrassed or attacked anyone?



Agreed.

Quote:

If this is the case, I would ask would it be legal and constitutional for the state of Idaho (random) to fire a cop for being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation and posting on their website, even though to the states knowledge the cop had not participated in any illegal conduct?


I don't know, but I suspect that if the afilliation damages his ability to do his job (for instance a WBC member in the Village or San Fransisco), then the firing is legal.

Quote:

Now, before I try to address your point regarding negative public perception and the possibility of the cop's affiliation being used in court against him, may I again make sure we agree on the basic premise of my position.

That is, the Westboro Baptist Church is an organization similar in character today to the KKK. The groups they choose to harrass and intimadate are different, but they share the distinction of being minorities and having legimate fear of these organizations.



Agreed, in fact if they thought they could get away with killing gays they probably would.

Quote:

If we agree on that, would you agree that a cop being a congregant of the Westboro Baptist Church would make him just as likely to be mistrusted by that minority group and that his membership could be used in the same fashion in court?


Yes, and if he was fired not for his affiliation but rather for the damage to his ability to do his job that is caused by his afilliation then I see no problem.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:53 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Okay, we're making progress.

Let me preface this with I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge and I could not find a case that reflects these circumstances exactly. My omission of such a case in not meant to imply that one does not exist. Merely, that I could not find it.

But, here are a few cases I did find that might indicate that, although it may be reasonable to punish someone for such an affiliation or speech, it is illegal or unconstitutional.

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=317

Pickering v. Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

"While criminal sanctions and damage awards have a somewhat different impact on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech from dismissal from employment, it is apparent that the threat of dismissal from public employment is nonetheless a potent means of inhibiting speech." (Justice Thurgood Marshall)"


http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/speech/bldec_CuffleyMickes.
htm


Decision: Cuffley v. Mickes (1999)

"This decision reinformces the legal and constitutional principle that even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit and that even though the government may deny the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely.

In this case, the governemnt may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech. If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which [it] could not command directly." Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio

"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:05 AM

FREDGIBLET


And if they were firing him just for being a member of the KKK then I might agree, but they fired him because his association with the KKK has a negative effect on his ability to do his job. And honestly it probably has an effect on the ability of everyone in the department.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:28 AM

SOUPCATCHER


It's hard, in my mind, to make comparisons between the Klan and other groups. The Klan is clearly in a class by itself. It is the most successful American terrorist organization in the history of our country. At one time, millions of American men were Klan members. The rural regions of entire states were under the direct influence of the Klan. And they were effectively able to terrorize millions of Americans. There might be an effective comparison between Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Klan of the twenties and thirties but I'm not familiar enough with Hezbollah to confidently make that comparison.

The modern Klan and various off-shots are only a pale reflection, mainly because of their fear of monetary lawsuits by victims. They are, however, sympathetic to the more openly terrorist Klan of recent memory.

Employment of a known Klan member by a police department is at least tacit approval of the Klan by a government organization. Any legal measure should be taken to keep this from happening. In my mind, we should do whatever it takes, within the bounds of law, to prevent the recurrence of what happened in the twenties and thirties. If, however, it would be a violation of the first amendment to prevent employment based simply on Klan membership then that's that (and I don't know enough about that portion of the law to say yea or nay - and I've gone back and forth on this like SignyM). However, if I was the chief of this police department I would release the following statement: "We are a free country and so, in the interest of preserving freedom, we sometimes cannot stamp out evil. And we cannot fire someone simply for belonging to an evil organization. However, we want to go on public record that the Klan is an absolutely pitiful organization that we do not support in any way shape or form. Their ideology is abhorrent to me personally and to the mission of this police department. We must always be vigilant to make sure that the terror and fear the Klan was able to spread does not re-occur. If you would like to learn more about what you can do to combat the spread of racist organizations, such as the Klan, we have material available."

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:34 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
However, if I was the chief of this police department I would release the following statement: "We are a free country and so, in the interest of preserving freedom, we sometimes cannot stamp out evil. And we cannot fire someone simply for belonging to an evil organization. However, we want to go on public record that the Klan is an absolutely pitiful organization that we do not support in any way shape or form. Their ideology is abhorrent to me personally and to the mission of this police department. We must always be vigilant to make sure that the terror and fear the Klan was able to spread does not re-occur. If you would like to learn more about what you can do to combat the spread of racist organizations, such as the Klan, we have material available."



Now there's a good idea.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For me, this comes down to this: If the Klan is currently so terrible, why is it not classified as a "terrorist organization" and made illegal? If a policeman shouldn't join, then neither should anybody else.

As far as KKK memeber possibly interfering with an officer's ability to do the job, "I smell a lot of 'if' coming offa that plan": IF he arrested a non-white and IF it came out in trial and IF the jury was swayed by that fact, and so forth.


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

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:56 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
For me, this comes down to this: If the Klan is currently so terrible, why is it not classified as a "terrorist organization" and made illegal? If a policeman shouldn't join, then neither should anybody else.



Because they have been keeping their heads down for the last few decades since almost everyone hates them. Also, I'd bet that there are a lot of high-ranking people in the South who hold sympathy for them. Also, it's a freedom of speech thing, same reason why we have a Nazi party.

Quote:

As far as KKK memeber possibly interfering with an officer's ability to do the job, "I smell a lot of 'if' coming offa that plan": IF he arrested a non-white


And if there is any significant amount of minorities in his area he will.

Quote:

and IF it came out in trial


Like many cases do (and if his afilliation is known probably every case he has will).

Quote:

and IF the jury was swayed by that fact, and so forth.


Very few people don't dislike the KKK, any minority will probably factor it in, many whites (myself included) would probably sbuconciously factor it in as well.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:01 PM

DREAMTROVE


Thanks, kaneman, for reposting that, I missed it before, as I've stopped reading citizen's posts.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:17 PM

RUE

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


There certainly were many great posts.

As a union rep, I can see why this guy got his job back. As I mentioned before, being a member of the KKK is not a fireable offence. And there are mitigating factors in this instance. The guy was not a lifelong KKK member. He joined b/c of personal stress, and later quit. His work record was good. And this is a case where good supervision would fix any problems. Either it would catch bias /discrimination, or it would document that it didn't exist as far as the workplace was concerned.

As a rule of thumb, I don't care too much what people do in their real non-work life as long as it doesn't affect job performance. Along those lines, my observation is that when people do have deep-seated issues they can't help but bring them to work, and it shows up in measurable decrements in job performance. And THAT is something that can and should be addressed.

When it comes to obtaining convictions, it's possible that KKK membership would get in the way of perfectly good cases. But I can see it going another way. If you could show that this guy did everything by the book in an honest and capable way, it could make him look even stronger.

Ever see the movie "Crash"? If you did, you know the character I'm thinking of - the racist cop who risks his life to save a black woman in a burning car.

Sometimes being a hero, saving a life, doing your job well, is more important than your petty biases.



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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:30 PM

RUE

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


Funny story about the American Nazi party ... if I told you this one before, just stop me ...

Karl Hand (sadly, still in the news for his hate-filled views) tried to get a Nazi rally going in Buffalo back in the 70's. He said there were THOUSANDS of people who secretly supported him who would show up. So with some trepidation the anti-Nazis dutifully showed up (including yours truly) to counter-demonstrate. Anyway, only a few demonstrators showed up - Karl and several friends. But an interesting and not well-known thing about Karl was that he had tried to commit suicide by drinking anti-freeze. So one of the counter-demonstrators who had brought a gallon of anti-freeze along was waving it in the air, yelling "have one on us Karl !"

Or maybe you had to be there.

http://forums.speakupwny.com/showthread.php?t=4356

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fred,

To count the fans of the KKK you have to start with the fact that it is an instution created by and for the post civil war democratic party, which hopefully has no use for it anymore. So, to count it's fans you'd have to say the radically anti-semitic or racist portion of the democratic party, so that's getting small, you're down to maybe the lyndon larouche faction. Then you take that lyndon larouche avidly rejects these people, and anyone like them, and lately has a fairly large number of minorities in his organization, which would undoubtedly make the KKK not want to join. Essentially this leaves an organization with zero friends. You'd be down to a block of partisan democrats who want to kill blacks, or at least marginalize blacks, who are their own constituents. Incidentally, my sister ran into a couple of them in N.C. Two women, democrats, who actively tried to sabotage party efforts to register blacks in their state (not because they were moles who wanted republicans to win, but because they didn't want blacks voting, period, even if they were going to vote for their chosen candidate.)


Rue,

Lol. Of course the American Nazi Party is even more of a non-event than the KKK. If you want to find the Nazis of today, they will be holding Bush signs, or soon, Hillary signs, and be ranting against arabs rather than jews. Hate crimes should be expanded to include Haditha, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and the invasion of Lebanon.


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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:56 PM

DREAMTROVE


Did anyone notice...

the ads on the left hand side for this thread?

Ads by Google
Become a State Trooper
Earn a degree in Criminal Justice 100% online and boost your career.
www.criminaljustice-degrees.com
Police Job Training
Train for Police jobs with a 100% online Criminal Justice degree.
www.policeofficer-school.com
Ritchie, Fels, & Dillard
Federal & State criminal defense Federal & State civil litigation
www.rfdlaw.com
Firefly Ringtone
Send this ringtone to your phone right now!
RingRingMobile.com
State Trooper Career?
Criminal Justice Training Req. 2-Year Online Program. Accredited.
www.degreex.com
Advertise on this site

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:59 PM

DREAMTROVE


Wait, it gets better...


Here are the ads from the thread

"JonBenet Ramsey: CIA's Electroshocked Mind-Control Sex Slave"


Ads by Google
Watch 'Inside 9/11'
See 'Inside 9/11' For A Compelling Look At The Events Of Sept. 11th
channel.nationalgeographic.com
Intelligence Degree
Course topics include competitive intelligence, espionage, terrorism
www.apus.edu
Law Enforcement Careers
Jumpstart your career with an online Criminal Justice degree!
www.aiuonline-degrees.com
Learn With The Experts
Graduate Study in National Security Institute of World Politics in DC
www.iwp.edu
FBI Is Hiring
Criminal Justice Degree needed. Get educated and take advantage.
eduselect.com/fbi
Advertise on this site

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2021 7:53 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


'I read this ACLU brief. This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means.'

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:00 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
'I read this ACLU brief. This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means.'

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944

Cutting through 28 pages of elaborate legalese and counter-arguments, the 1st Amendment gives the teachers the right to use any damn word the teachers feel appropriate to describe LGBTQ+ students. The teachers insist they can't be fired for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to insult LGBTQ+ students. (Or maybe the 2nd Amendment gives teachers the right to shoot their mouths off) On the other hand, the ACLU disagrees, supporting school boards that fire teachers who let their mouths run away from their brains. The mouthy teachers are free to go work somewhere else where school boards do NOT care what teachers say to students.

https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudoun-county-
school-board-et-al-amicus


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


"Free Speech" in 2021 means that a Democrat can say whatever bullshit they want to, but anybody who disagrees with them on anything must be silenced.

That's coming to an end.

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

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:16 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"Free Speech" in 2021 means that a Democrat can say whatever bullshit they want to, but anybody who disagrees with them on anything must be silenced.

That's coming to an end.

Since Trumptards never shut up, when were they silenced? The court case is about a school board suspending loudmouth teachers, definitely Trumptards, who won't shut up and at least pretend to do their job because they can't stop talking and whining that they own the jobs, not the school board. Just to give 6ix a hint, the board pays the teachers, which means the board owns the jobs, not the teachers. This is true in all kinds of jobs, in every Capitalist country on Earth. Trumptards don't understand they don't own the job and can't say whatever pleases themselves on the job, unless self-employed. Trumptards falsely believe the 1st Amendment protects them at work. Ha-ha! You're fired!

https://acluva.org/en/cases/byron-tanner-cross-et-al-v-loudoun-county-
school-board-et-al-amicus


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL