The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 6 of 13

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

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:06 AM

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

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

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

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

MISBEHAVEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:43 PM

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:56 PM

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...

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:09 PM

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...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Finally, traveling to China is not speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's still not a limit on speech.

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

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

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

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:07 PM

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!

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Moral or material support?

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

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

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

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

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

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:23 PM

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

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