The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 8 of 13
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