The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 5 of 13

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

YINYANG

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:54 PM

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::

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Your first point: Nice bait and switch, brother/sister, but that's not what I said.

It was nothing of the sort, and my conclusion of what you were saying seems quite logical.

Quote:
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.

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 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:
Third point: It may not be, but hatred is hatred.

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.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:57 AM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:07 AM

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.

MISBEHAVEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:28 AM

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

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:45 AM

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.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:41 AM

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 hole just like Sen. Allen, and neither of them have any business serving in Congress.

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:07 AM

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:
"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

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.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:22 AM

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

LOL. People with guns always have power.

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

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

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

And this guy isn't even black.

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:45 AM

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

.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE