The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13813
PAGE 1 of 2
First, I am not defending this guy...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/26/trooper.racism.ap/index.html
State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan
OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said.
Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.
An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.
"The integrity of Nebraska's law enforcement is at risk," Attorney General Jon Bruning said at news conference in Lincoln. "The Constitution does not require law enforcement to employ anyone tied to the KKK."
In a summary of the causes for firing Henderson in March, the State Patrol said membership in the KKK "seriously compromised" Henderson's ability to do his job.
Henderson and the state troopers union appealed and, under its contract, went to binding arbitration, to get his job back.
Arbitrator Paul J. Caffera, a New York lawyer, last week overturned the firing.
He said Henderson was entitled to his First Amendment rights of free speech and that the state violated the troopers' contract, in part when it fired Henderson "because of his association with the Knights Party ... and the Ku Klux Klan."
According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.
Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.
Attempts to reach Henderson on Friday were unsuccessful. The state troopers union refused to comment, referring calls to its attorney, Vincent Valentino.
Valentino said Henderson has resigned his Knights Party membership and apologized to the State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma. The attorney also said Bruning and Tuma blew Henderson's membership and activities out of proportion.
"Bob Henderson wasn't running around in a sheet and hood," he said.
Besides, Valentino said, "State employees have a right to think in private what they think."
Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.
"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.
Nonetheless, Bruning said, "This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."
Now, I know I have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, but do state workers?
Obviously, most of us wouldn't want a racist cop patrolling our neighborhoods, but doesn't this cat have the same rights as everyone else (In US, I know you Europeans have hate laws we don't)?
Just wondeing what everyone thinks.
And if that prosecutor (Hero, maybe) is around, what does the law actually say? I seem to remember the Supreme Court ruling that states don't have to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act and other "worker's" laws. Does that somehow apply?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From over here as a public servant he should only be allowed to operate in that capacity if he can offer impartial treatment to any situation.
Being a member of a white supremicist group proves he can not.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Watck the movie Clerks to get an idea how one can serve the public, while hating them imensily.
At least this trooper only hates a part of the public!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's easy to treat situations even handedly if one hates everybody.
It's impossible if you only hate a certain group.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to agree with Citizen. How would this man uphold the public trust? Civil Servants need to be held to a higher standard. How can this man swear to serve and protect and then be a card carrying member of an organization that kills babies while bombing churches.
Even if he hasn't been involved - his organization has.
When I was a Fed Government worker, there were some part time jobs and some organizations I was prohibited from. I didn't have a problem with it.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I get that. I guess my concern is where they draw the line.
While racism is (almost) universally condemned, what's to stop the state for using the same excuse to fire anybody that holds views outside of the mainstream.
On both sides of the idealogical spectrum, don't we all have some extreme views about one thing or the other?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Watck the movie Clerks to get an idea how one can serve the public, while hating them imensily.
At least this trooper only hates a part of the public!
Yeah, "this job would be great if it wasn't for the f*cking customers."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You draw the line at a point where someone can actually treat people impartially.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Yeah, I get that. I guess my concern is where they draw the line.
While racism is (almost) universally condemned, what's to stop the state for using the same excuse to fire anybody that holds views outside of the mainstream.
On both sides of the idealogical spectrum, don't we all have some extreme views about one thing or the other?
A conservative can treat a liberal and vice versa impartially, a member of the KKK can not treat a black man impartially. A member of a Nazi group would be unable to treat a Jew impartially.
I doubt a member of the Westboro Baptist Church could treat anyone who is not a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (so bascially anyone they're not related too) impartially.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I gnawed over this story for a while. I see Citizen's argument, which is valid. But ultimately, if everyone gets fired for joining groups of which the govt. disapproves there's no end to is.
Obviously, we have to look at the immediate effect on society. The Klan and all organizations like it will take this as a cue to go much more underground.
Next, look at where this ends. Has a cop ever been fired for being a member of the Black Panthers? How about a civil servant? No one ever fired WV Sen. Robert Byrd.
What about Nation of Islam? Should we ban members of the NoI from public office? If we do that, why not go with banning muslims in general?
Okay, I have to side with fellow traveler on this one. I see your point Citizen, but I think it would have to be proven. If this guy can demonstrate that he can be objective in his job, how he feels personally is not a matter for the govt's concern. If he participated in actual acts of violence against minorities, it would be another matter, but I think this enters into the realm of thought police, ie it goes too far.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isn't the Klan a criminal organization? Didn't Harry Truman infiltrate them in the 50's with the FBI? Wasn't it a crime back then , just to be a member? ( all of which I seem to remember, more or less, from when I studied history.) If so, aren't they probably still at least an outlaw organization?
So, should a government employee be allowed to be a member of an illegal organization?
And a second point, " the right to peaceably assemble." Maybe they don't riot or kill folk at meetings nowadays, but don't they burn crosses, which has a history as an act of violence and intimidation? And don't they advocate violence at those meetings?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
another thought-- maybe they oughtta partner this dude with a black trooper who has seniority on him,
stick 'em both in a black-n-white eight hours a day, six days a week, for like a year, in a high risk situation, and find out what he really believes, by how he reacts to that situation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Isn't the Klan a criminal organization? Didn't Harry Truman infiltrate them in the 50's with the FBI? Wasn't it a crime back then , just to be a member? ( all of which I seem to remember, more or less, from when I studied history.) If so, aren't they probably still at least an outlaw organization?
So, should a government employee be allowed to be a member of an illegal organization?
And a second point, " the right to peaceably assemble." Maybe they don't riot or kill folk at meetings nowadays, but don't they burn crosses, which has a history as an act of violence and intimidation? And don't they advocate violence at those meetings?
I don't know if it is a criminal organization. Although, I know Mike Moore claimed so in "Bowling for Columbine". Was looking through Wikipedia entry on the KKK and (so far) I don't see anything saying it's illegal.
As for the FBI infiltrating the KKK, they did same the thing to the Peace and Civil Rights movements, so I'm not sure that matters.
And I've never been to a Klan meeting, so I don't know if they still advocate violence. But I think it is probably safe to assume so.
Edit- The peace and civil rights movements were considered extreme. Was it okay for Spelman College to fire Howard Zinn for being a member of those groups?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By night a lyncher of the 'black' by day mild mannered impartially civil servant.
You should talk to DC Comics mate, seems like you've got a really twisted version of Superman going there.
Quote:Operative words I think.
"This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."
You can't be a member of a violent racist organisation and be expected to be put in a position of authority over people of a different race to yourself. The indication of incapabillity to impartiality is in the membership of a violent organisation, if he was capable of doing his job he would give up his KKK membership.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
id have to agree, there seems to be an obvious conflict of interests here. maybe if the nature of the KKK werent overtly discriminatory, but as it is... although i realize the question then becomes where do you draw the line? only there is no denying the KKK as a hate group; obiously an obstacle for inbiased justice and impartiality. maybe the doctrines of the KKK should be methodically scrutinized to see if a member can even coexist peacefully with all varieties of people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Now, I know I have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, but do state workers?
State worker have the same rights as you do. They choose to limit their rights because of their voluntary affiliation with the government as an employee.
As an employee they must adhere to a code of conduct. Like any such code, it can be challenged in court on its own merits. Is mere membership and off duty participation enough to warrent being fired. Probably not. The State's action likely violates the code of conduct and union agreements, which is why he was rehired with back pay. They could make this a restriction, but they probably have not done so. I suspect that as long as his offensive conduct is
off duty, he should be ok.
H
Edited to add: The KKK may have a special distinction because of their history of violence and such. I'd have to look it up, but I seem to recall some cases along the lines of government/KKK affiliation.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Many human beings live their lives with bigotry, prejudice, and hatred in there hearts and minds for one group or another. It could be religious, political, sexual orientation, or for the opposite sex. We are probably talking about 60% or more world wide. These people are Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, and even police officers. They all have to take some sort of an oath. As long as they uphold that oath I couldn't care what their personal beliefs are, nor should you. Only when they put those beliefs before their duties should they have to answer to anyone about them.....Well, it's true
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
State workers may have the same rights as everyone else, but I do think there should be a higher standard. Not everyone gets to carry a gun and badge, nor do they have the authority to arrest.
As a teacher, I am held to higher moral standards than average citizens, though we hold the same rights. There are things I could do 2 years ago, in my prior occupation, which I could get fired for now. A teacher was forced to resign last week because perfectly legal, artistic nude photos of her surfaced. She didn't do anything illeagal or wrong by the standards general citizens are held to, yet because of her occupation, she was forced to resign against her wishes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold police to higher standards as well.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages. 
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I can just imagine how impartial he'd be when he pulled over a car with a mix-ed race couple.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can certainly agree with that.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It really is amazing at how some KKK types try to spin their own racist views. They say they don't HATE the black ( or the Jew, chink, etc.. ) just as long as all those minorities stay with their own kind. Using that " logic ", I can see how a lawyer could make the case that a State Trooper could uphold his duties with no conflict of interest. Just as long as he doesn't have to deal w/ any inter-racial marriages.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
For the record, I'm not a KKK type nor am I defending this individual, but:
State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma
Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.
"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.
Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOBC
Harry Truman was probably a charter member. The Klan is the key architect of the new democratic party. They created Woodrow Wilson out of whole cloth. I suppose if one wanted, one could call the Klan a terrorist organization, and get no argument from me.
But that doesn't mean a member of a monoethnic cult should not be allowed to participate in public life, because that's absurd. There are countless members of cults devoted to the creation of a monoethnic society at high positions in public life, including all of zionism.
In order to be a successful member of a black political establishment or even blackodemic, it helps to be a member of one of the pro-black groups. There is absolutely no difference between one and the other. The notion that there is is really a racist one.
What matters is: "is he going to act on that."
I read a similar story about nation of islam, which is why I brought it up. I'm sure, btw, that louis farrahkhan is filling the ranks of urban police departments.
But there's another issue, which I think was the one put here. Who gives who that power, and what precedent does it say.
Any case, Nazis, kiddieporn, etc., is always an ugly precedent for something else. Set X measure in place to give govt. power to block Y activity, which the govt. really doesn't care about, but people do, and then the govt. will use that precedent to block Z activity, thus restricting everyone else. It's a pretty old trick. If anyone bothered to read the Clinton era child pornography act, it never mentioned child pornography once, but instead just gave the govt. permission to block any website it didn't want running. Since then it's been repealed, but I think this is a classic model.
So, ban klan cop may be a precedent for something else. If the guy is a racist in his line of work, there will be an incident for which you can not only ban him, but arrest him. That's not the issue. The issue is what kind of case is this, and why would people have such a case.
I'm sure you'll see nation of islam come up in cases similar to this, and my suspicion is that there may be an agenda item afoot.
"It is a threat to the very fabric of our society," U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said.
Both groups groups, nation of islam and the klan, are anti-semitic.
BTW, I don't know if this impacts on the argument, but I don't believe Robert Henderson is white. He's remarkably non-white in the picture. I would be pretty sure he's a native american.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think auraptor's accusations can be ignored. The "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" is an old rhetorical trick, and is frequently used to silence debate on civil liberties. I think it's pretty much that anyone posting here is not a Klan type. We're a fan group of a show with two black characters, an interracial marriage and a latina, in which everyone speaks chinese. It's not exactly happy klan land.
See if this guy look indian to anyone else
BTW, this thread was not posted in support of the Klan, it was posted to look at the 1st amendment angle of the case, which is the spirit in which I took it. If you turn it into a debate on racism, than obviously the anti-klan side wins. But the anti-klan side is also the anti-1st amendment side. What this means is here are a bunch of fans of a show about a new libertarian ideal, attacking core values of the ideology essentially because, IMHO, they are being played.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe we should ignore your "Everyone who disagrees with me is a freedom of speech hating facist accusation"?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
From over here as a public servant he should only be allowed to operate in that capacity if he can offer impartial treatment to any situation.
Being a member of a white supremicist group proves he can not.[\b]
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?
Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. People join the Klan because it's a violent racist organisation.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?
Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.
Maybe this trooper thought they were chicken fanciers or something the "Coo Cluck Clan"?
Attempting to draw a parallel between someone who is a member of a violent racist organisation and someone who was born with black skin is beyond ridiculous.
Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?
I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
dreamtrove wrote:
Monday, August 28, 2006 09:38
I think auraptor's accusations can be ignored. The "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" is an old rhetorical trick, and is frequently used to silence debate on civil liberties.
I gotta ask, where did I accuse anyone of anything here ? Show me, please!
Seems to me you're just asking for my comments to be ignored simply because. I'm at a loss here as to what you find at issue. Quote:Folk are folk. I think we all agree on that, right ? We all got on this boat for different reasons....
I think it's pretty much that anyone posting here is not a Klan type. We're a fan group of a show with two black characters, an interracial marriage and a latina, in which everyone speaks chinese. It's not exactly happy klan land.
I don't know if the guy 'looks' Indian or not.
But there is a legitimate question as to whether a Klan member can serve the public's interest, as in the role of State Trooper. Where does this question get resolved ? Is it with this one individual? His record, according to State Patrol commander Tuma, suggests he's (Henderson) suitable for the job. So, is there a need to pry through every state trooper's records to see if they had dealings w/ the Klan, or similar groups? Don't think that stuff isn't taken into account, because it is. And thankfully so.
This might be one of those situations where it just doesn't 'feel' right, but for the freedoms we have in this country, we have to accept it.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's how I see it. Any person who is overtly racist cannot effectivly police a mixed population. Whether or not his affiliation with the Klan spills over into his job or not, the fact remains that he has joined an overtly racist group (which is against more than just one minority), and it undermines his ability to do his job.
So what are the problems with a KKK member being a cop? Easy, first off there is the obvious things, if he can't look past his prejudice then he will probably end up harrasing, falsely charging, etc. minorities.
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?
What it really comes down to is this. His membership in the KKK negatively affects his ability to do his job, since he is no longer as capable of doing his job he should be released.
But that's just me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.
Damn straight!!!
Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?
Good point. Enough to make me re-consider my position.
Not nessesarily changing it.
Just applying further though.
And it hurts.
Damn these moral quandaries.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!
Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:No. People join the Klan because it's a violent racist organisation.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Doesn't this make the same kinda' assumption that the Klan does?
Because somebody is a member of a certain group (black, Jewish, Catholic) they will behave a certain way.
Attempting to draw a parallel between someone who is a member of a violent racist organisation and someone who was born with black skin is beyond ridiculous.
Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?
I'm not allowed to run for president of the United States, I guess you guys are discriminating against the British.
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.
And yes, you not being able to be President is discrimination.
But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Ahh c'mon, you know I'd do a better job than Texan's
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Damn straight!!!
Limey's trying to run for President, feh! What's the world coming to?
Hmmmmmmm.....Citizen...or...Cheney/Rice...decisions, decisions.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
These are excellent points that I (hangs head in shame) didn't consider.
Thank you, and no reason to hang your head, after all we can't all be super-geniuses (why no that isn't a blimp, it's my head!).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.
Quote:That was basically my point yes.
But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.
Quote:I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?
Quote:Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?
Quote:Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.
Quote:Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?
You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.
Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's easy to treat situations even handedly if one hates everybody.
Yeah it does make it easy, and if you ever need to learn how, take up cab driving.
Quote:
another thought-- maybe they oughtta partner this dude with a black trooper who has seniority on him,
stick 'em both in a black-n-white eight hours a day, six days a week, for like a year, in a high risk situation, and find out what he really believes, by how he reacts to that situation.
Works for me, and if there are no problems, then there are no problems, right ?
I think it's a major conflict of interest, but even in a case like this I will not go levelling judgements without some evidence of misconduct while in uniform, or misuse of police data outside the job.
That last I would have internal affairs quietly investigate, as it's been a common practice for a great many years in the south to put a guy like this on the force, and have him behave himself, but pass on 'useful' information garnered by his job, to the Klan... so in essence the officer himself doesn't get his hands dirty, but in the end it amounts to the same thing.
I'd be real close on information security with this guy around.
Quote:
Is barring a known member of the KGB in from being put in charge of national security indicative of the same assumptions as made by the klan?
Umm, sort of off-topic, but we kinda did the exact opposite of that...
You see, that punk Chertoff went around and hired most of his little inner circle from ex-KGB and ex-STASI sleazeballs.
So, being that we specifically hired, rather than blocked, these guys, the assumption falls flat, alas.
Fred made some good points, but I have a hard time comprehending them because I see the police themselves as an adversarial thing, much like any other street gang, just that this one is officially sponsored and recognized....
Still, whether we like what he believes, whether we agree with what he believes, that's not our business so much as how he ACTS, and besides, Law Enforcement officers take an Oath (most of which ignore it..) and logically, in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.
Just some thoughts,
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The further question would be can a person of character join an organisation like the Klan?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
in a person of character that Oath would supecede any responsibility to what is primarily a social organisation, even one with such a bent.
I think not.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:And drawing a parallel between an organisation whose only reason for existence is too perpetuate racist violence and Christianity or Judaism is just as ridiculous.
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
That's why I included Jews and Catholics. People do choose to join those faiths.Quote:That was basically my point yes.
But to discriminate isn't necessarily bad. As you have said, it was okay to for the state to discriminate against this racist cop.Quote:I wasn't aware that the purpose of the Nation of Islam's existence was to burn churches and kill minorities. If that isn't the NoI's reason for existence there is no parallel between them and the Klan.
But as DT asked, would it be okay to discriminate against one who is a member of the Nation of Islam (with their white and Jewish devils)?Quote:Ditto. Though I already said I wouldn't let a member of Westbro Church or similar hold a police position.
Evangelical Christians often look down on others who don't share their faith. Should we not allow those people to hold any position of authority?Quote:Last I checked not everyone was a member of violent organisations whose only reason for existence was to attack people who they were prejudice against. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm in a minority here?
Doesn't nearly everyone hold some prejudice or another? Not necessarily race based, but in the literal, dictionary definition kinda' way.Quote:Last I checked I wasn't advocating killing all white supremacists, nor silencing them. I merely said that such a person should not be put in a position of authority over other people.
Finally, would it be acceptable to forbid you from being a cop because you might not treat a white supremacist fairly? Aren't we supposed to be judged on our actions, not our thoughts?
You don't join a group by accident; you join a group because you agree with its ideals and purpose. The Ku Klux Klan's ideals and purpose are to terrorise and kill anyone not Christian and white, such a person can not be trusted in a position of authority over anyone not white and Christian.
Further more nothing in your posts refutes that this trooper should be removed from his position, it is merely asking where you draw the line, a question I think I answered already.
Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.
I said that both you and the Klan are making assumptions based on membership of a certain group. In no way did I compare the Klan to the Jewish or Catholic faith (although, I did to Evangelical Christians). Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you assume that this guy can't do his job because he's a member of a specific group. The Klan assumes many things about people because they are members of a specific group. Both assumptions are not based on any facts, but on prejudice.
Second point: We agree
Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.
Fourth point: We (appear) to agree.
Fifth point: I think I understand. It's not that the guy is a racist f*ck that is the problem? It is his membership in that particular organization?
Sixth point: I would agree if his boss didn't explicitly say there are no issues with his treatment of minorities.
Seventh point: Fair enough. I have not taken a position because I find the entire affair troubling. I understand the concern one would have with this man being charged to uphold the law, but I am not comfortable with the government limiting speech of any kind.
While "slippery slope" is a fallacy, I've seen that you give these guys an inch, they take a mile (thinking patriot act, then NSA in cahoots with the telecoms, then warrentless surveillance, God knows what's next).
I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure there is an answer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To me, the answer to this seems obvious. Anyone involved with an organization such as the KKK, which preaches hatred and employs violence, has ablsolutely no business working in a position of authority. Can you honestly expect that a white supremacist will treat people of color in the same manner that he would treat other whites? I don't think so. The man's a racist, and he shouldn't be wearing a badge. After all, the police are supposed to be there to protect and serve. Something tells me that this guy would have a problem protecting and serving the very races he apparently despises.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This certainly is an interesting situation. And, as much as this goes against my instincts... he should be allowed to keep his job. Until such a time as it can be demonstrated that he treats those he works with in different ways based on their heritage/ethnicity, or is charged with a crime (related to the KKK or not), there should be no reason to treat him differently. It rubs me the wrong way to come to this conclusion, but... it doesn't seem as if he's had any problems, so he shouldn't be discriminated against because of an organization he's affiliated with (even such a blatenly violent one). 
---
I'm a trouble-maker; Kaneman said so!
::points to 'I'm a trouble-maker' sticker on shirt and makes a platypus noise::
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was nothing of the sort, and my conclusion of what you were saying seems quite logical.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.
Quote:It's nothing of the sort. The klan is a violent racist organisation, that's not my prejudice, that's unbiased fact. I think even Klan members would agree with that.
I said that both you and the Klan are making assumptions based on membership of a certain group. In no way did I compare the Klan to the Jewish or Catholic faith (although, I did to Evangelical Christians). Not meant as a personal attack on you, but you assume that this guy can't do his job because he's a member of a specific group. The Klan assumes many things about people because they are members of a specific group. Both assumptions are not based on any facts, but on prejudice.
I don't assume someone’s a racist because they happen to be a member of the Klan, I assume they're a racist and a violent one because they choose to join a violent racist organisation. The same way as I assume someone who converts to Christianity is a Christian or someone who joins this site is a fan of Firefly. The assumptions are nothing alike.
Why would someone who is not a violent racist want to join a violent racist organisation?
Quote:We're talking about the difference between a group who happen to hold some prejudices and a group that IS a group to perpetuate prejudices and attack their target. The two are worlds apart.
Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.
Quote:Yes. For him to be impartial he'd have to put his job above his membership in the Klan. If he's not willing to leave the Klan then that would be an indication that he holds his Klan membership as more important than his job, in which case his racist beliefs would be more important to him than the need to be impartial.
Fifth point: I think I understand. It's not that the guy is a racist f*ck that is the problem? It is his membership in that particular organization?
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.
Seventh point: Fair enough. I have not taken a position because I find the entire affair troubling. I understand the concern one would have with this man being charged to uphold the law, but I am not comfortable with the government limiting speech of any kind.
If you were a member of a group that sells information to technology companies you'd probably find you'd lose a job in the technology sector, even if you've never sold any of your company’s secrets. Your employer isn't infringing your freedom of speech, they haven't prevented you from doing or saying anything you want, nor have they prevented you from remaining a member of the group. But your membership of the group goes counter to the trust they have put in you and so the two (your employment and continued participation in Technology Secrets 'R' Us) are mutually exclusive. In other words you can't have your cake and eat it.
I work for the British government. China is on the black list of destinations, I can travel to China if I want, no ones going to stop me, the Gov. isn't infringing my rights to travel where ever I wish, but I'd lose my job. And I should, travel to China, especially without permission, would make me a security risk which mean's I shouldn't be put in a trusted position.
Like I said the guy can do and say what he likes as long as it's not illegal, but if any of those come into conflict with his work, whether it's in or out of work time, he should lose 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
My apologies, misread your post.
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.
Maybe Bush should have painted Saddam Hussein as a child rapist, then everyone would be up for war with Iraq. The question on the thread was about the first amendment.
Quote:
This might be one of those situations where it just doesn't 'feel' right, but for the freedoms we have in this country, we have to accept it.
I'm not sure which way this was intended. I don't think which groups people are associated should be part of the profile, I think every population in america has groups which forward agendas, and if anyone is doing this sort of profiling, it will be someone who is a member of one of those groups, and what they will be doing is knocking out competing groups.
Fred,
I don't think a cop has any power. He can accuse black people all he wants, and they can be proven innocent, and then he can get fired. In fact, he's probably already behaved in a biased manner for which you can fire him without any objection to me. 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.
Quote:
FT: Didn't almost everyone who participated in the poll last week say that freedom is more important than security? Does that freedom only extend to those that we agree with?
Well said.
FT,
Many police depts. around the country have actually used public money to fund Nation of Islam, by hiring their members for "Sensitivity Training." It's not something that gets me all upset. I don't go "oooh, Nation of Islam, scary." I don't have that reaction to the Klan either, but then, I don't have that reaction to Al Qaeda.
But someone does. Undoubtedly out there is someone who's saying "Hey, these guys are antisemitic," and maybe someone's listening, or even "Hey, these are anti-white," and no one is listening. But in response to either, there's probably people out these who would say "Racist" but then support the ousting of this klan schmuck.
The thing is, people are more or less responding to what they are programmed to respond to. Say Nazi to anyone, they'll probably give you a healthy negative reaction. Come back in five or ten years, you'll get that by saying arab or moslem. In some left wing circles you can say "fundie" and get it. It's a pavlovian dog reponse. If people actually cared, they'd have gotten up in arms about the NoI. I didn't, because I didn't care, and still don't. But I don't want to see some guys racist group ties used as a benchmark to repeal my first amendment rights to be a member of some random anti-war group because of it. People here don't see that happening, but I think we're laying the groundwork for it right here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Misbehaven,
So you support the idea that Sen. Robert Byrd should resign?
I'd just like to add that the LAPD is a much worse offender to blacks all by itself than the KKK in nationally, on a year to year basis. The same could probably be said of at least a dozen police depts. I don't get that this is an infection by an insurgent racist element into a pure institution. It's the expelling of one asshole from a thoroughly racist institution, the police. The issue is not about race, it's about the first amendment, and setting a precendent which can be used against other groups.
Quote:
YinYang:
This certainly is an interesting situation. And, as much as this goes against my instincts... he should be allowed to keep his job. Until such a time as it can be demonstrated that he treats those he works with in different ways based on their heritage/ethnicity, or is charged with a crime (related to the KKK or not), there should be no reason to treat him differently. It rubs me the wrong way to come to this conclusion, but... it doesn't seem as if he's had any problems, so he shouldn't be discriminated against because of an organization he's affiliated with (even such a blatenly violent one).
I don't know if it helps, but well said. The key is the specifics of how he gets fired for being a racist. The sad thing is that many many police officers are actively and brutally racist daily in assaults on blacks and never get in trouble for it. Does anyone remember Mark Furman?
I don't want to see a test case for a first amendment repeal. Has anyone seen/read the handmaid's tale? There's a brilliant seen where the liberal feminist elite lynch their own leader because they are misled by their opponents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Misbehaven,
So you support the idea that Sen. Robert Byrd should resign?
Yes. Byrd is a racist
hole just like Sen. Allen, and neither of them have any business serving in Congress."The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Misbehaven,
So you support the idea that Sen. Robert Byrd should resign?
Yes. Byrd is a racist
The bosses of Senator Byrd and Senator Allen are the voters in their respective states. In Senator Byrd's case, he has been re-elected a number of times. So blame the West Virginians who continue to vote for him. I wish he had done what millions of racist southern Democrats did during the fifties and sixties and jumped ship to the Republican Party. As it is, Byrd provides great ammunition for Republicans who want to paint racism as bi-partisan, "Look. There's a racist Senator in the Democratic Party." Unsaid: "That makes up for the millions of racists who vote Republican." The problem is, they're not fooling the victims.
There is a difference in my mind between an elected official and someone who is hired for a position. The first question I have is what is the policy of this particular police department? If it is against their policy to hire a member of the KKK (or various other hate groups) then the officer knew that when he joined the KKK he put his job in jeopardy. Then the firing would be justified. If the officer doesn't think the policy is justified then they should challenge that policy. If the police department does not have a policy with regards to membership in hate groups then that's a different thing.
We've already seen what happens when large numbers of police officers and other elected officials belong to the KKK. It was called the twenties and thirties. Things didn't work out so well if you weren't a WASP.
Is it an infringement on a police officer's first amendment rights to deny employment based on membership in a group that has a history of terrorizing unknown scores of Americans and killing hundreds (if not thousands)? I don't know. What I do know is that it must be hard to protect and serve people that you think are less human than you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Is it an infringement on a police officer's first amendment rights to deny employment based on membership in a group...
From what I understand, the thing about constitutional rights is that they aren't there to protect people from being fired. The right to free speech and peaceable assembly is the right to do those things, and not be afraid of being arrested or being "disappeared" by the midnight knock. THIS is what our constitution protects us from:
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. Free speech and freedom of assembly doesn't apply in this case. Short of racial and gender discrimination, the police dept can fire whoever they want to.
"BEIJING, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Chinese police hauled off a small group of people on Thursday who had arrived in Beijing's Tiananmen Square to protest what they say are bad vaccines which have crippled their children, one of the demonstrators said."
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=PEK202650
The more accurate question is: Should any public sector employer prohibit membership in organizations whose ideology encourage crime, even if it doesn't interfere with their job performance? *I* think so. I don't want my tax dollars paying the salary of a cop belonging to the KKK, or a teacher belonging to the Man-Boy Love Association. Constitutionally, I would defend their right to belong to such organizations, but they need to find other jobs where they don't interact with the public at taxpayers' expense.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL. People with guns always have power.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't think a cop has any 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The more accurate question is: Should any public sector employer prohibit membership in organizations whose ideology encourage crime, even if it doesn't interfere with their job performance? *I* think so. I don't want my tax dollars paying the salary of a cop belonging to the KKK, or a teacher belonging to the Man-Boy Love Association. Constitutionally, I would defend their right to belong to such organizations, but they need to find other jobs where they don't interact with the public at taxpayers' expense.
Seems logical to me (although, based on the other thread, I am open to the suggestion that I'm not using the word logical accurately
).Your story about your cop-magnet friend reminds me of myself (although definitely not to the extent of your friend's experience). I used to get pulled over all the time. According to a friend who worked in law enforcement, I fit a profile for someone who had a decent probability of having an outstanding warrant (long hair, old car not in the greatest physical condition, car registered to a name ending in a vowel, etc.). So if I did have an outstanding warrant I was an easy catch. If I didn't, no harm no foul. His analysis made sense to me since most of the time I was sent on my way after sitting on the side of the road for a while. At most, I would get a fix-it ticket. I asked him what I could do and we worked out a routine. His perspective was that a traffic stop was a dangerous activity and the law enforcement officer was going to be on edge. My perspective was that I wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. Whenever I got pulled over I would roll down my window and stick both hands out the side of my car. When the officer came up and asked for my papers I would tell him or her exactly what move I was going to make before I made it and then make that move very slowly.
Once I cut my hair and bought a newer truck I stopped getting pulled over. I'm kind of bummed that I don't get to use my routine anymore
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahh, so now anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have any insight.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The bosses of Senator Byrd and Senator Allen are the voters in their respective states. In Senator Byrd's case, he has been re-elected a number of times. So blame the West Virginians who continue to vote for him.
I do blame them, and I think it's pathetic that they feel the best person they can find to represent them is a racist, former Klansman.
Quote:
The problem is, they're not fooling the victims.
I agree, they're not. Nor are they fooling those who won't vote for them.
Quote:
There is a difference in my mind between an elected official and someone who is hired for a position.
The first question I have is what is the policy of this particular police department? If it is against their policy to hire a member of the KKK (or various other hate groups) then the officer knew that when he joined the KKK he put his job in jeopardy. Then the firing would be justified. If the officer doesn't think the policy is justified then they should challenge that policy. If the police department does not have a policy with regards to membership in hate groups then that's a different thing.
I see where you're coming from on this and it's a valid point, but I think that public servants, regradless of whether they are functioning at a local, state, or federal level, should be held to a higher standard, as they are representatives of our government. I know in many cases they aren't, but they should be. There's no place in government for racists. And if there's not a policy prohibiting a police officer or a United States senator from being associated (present or past) with a violent, hate group, then there's an obvious failure in policy. These men are supposed to serve all the people, not just the ones who have the same skin tone.
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.
I couldn't agree with you more
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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: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.
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.
Quote:No it's freedom of travel, which is basically the same thing.
Finally, traveling to China is not speech.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote:Yes the state government should hold it's employees to a higher standard than McDonalds.
This wasn't McyD's that tryed to fire him. It was the state government.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote: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.
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.
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: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.
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.Quote:No it's freedom of travel, which is basically the same thing.
Finally, traveling to China is not speech.Quote: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.
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.Quote:Yes the state government should hold it's employees to a higher standard than McDonalds.
This wasn't McyD's that tryed to fire him. It was the state government.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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.
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:I wonder how long a US senator would last if they admitted to supporting Al Qaeda.
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.
Quote: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.
I'm not saying this guy isn't a douche. It sounds like he is. But being a racist is not against the law.
Quote:It's still not a limit on speech.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Perhaps, the KKK's sole purpose is to commit crime, but that doesn't mean every member is a criminal.
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: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?
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.
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: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.
Moral or material support?
Quote: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.
Agreed, he was suspended for belonging to a racist organization. That's really parsing words, isn't it?
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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.
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: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.
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:It's called an analogy, it its rather an pertinent one even if I do say so myself.
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.
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: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.
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.
Quote:Easy, and I think I answered this already, when someone is prevented from taking that stance. He's not been prevented, not once.
But on the last question, what do you consider limiting speech?
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:Not in any European state I've ever heard of. I'll check: God's a big smelly poo poo pants! Nope not here.
Was just reading about free speech in Europe and you guys do not have the same rights as we do in the US.:
Blasphemy
Quote: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...
Holocaust Denial
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Freedom of double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's amazing how you so magnificently miss the point.
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".
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:If you don't like Firefly why are you here.
In your mind it may be a safe assumption.
Quote: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?
No, it's called a "red herring".
Quote:Talking of irrelevancies, we have our first.
Israel and the USA do not share a Constitution.
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: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.
Again, your comparing illegal and legal behavior. Material support of Al-Quaida is illegal. Being a member of the Klan is not.
Quote: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?
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?
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: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.
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.
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 lega
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's a very narrow and convient definition of material effect.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
[
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Argggg!!! Weird double postiness!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Freedom of double post.
There is no such thing. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:That's a very narrow and convient definition of material effect.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What that the KKK was a violent racist organisation. That's not an assumption.
Originally posted by FellowTraveller:
I was referring to your other assumption.
Quote:No, it has everything to do with it. Nazis marching have nothing to do with the police forces ability to do its job.
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.
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: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.
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.
Quote: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.
And, of course, one is illegal. That's a difference.
Quote: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.
Huh? You have lost me here, brother.
Quote: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.
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...
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:Is not an official secrets act, It doesn't apply to everyone. What you thought I d
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.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man, we are just in two different worlds.
You win. I surrender. Talk amongst yourselves...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
But as you say, onward:
Quote: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?
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote: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.
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.
But I do it with a smile.
Quote:Quote: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.
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.
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: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?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was the D##@@D BUSH Supreme Court that decided!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
did it again. That was not all a quote . The less intelligent parts are my responsibliity...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
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.
None of those infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the people in question. At the same time none of those reduce the effectiveness of the people at doing their jobs. The cop being a member of the KKK reduces his capacity to do his job.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME