The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 7 of 13
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 legaNOTIFY: 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