The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 1 of 13
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