The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 9 of 13
Man, we are just in two different worlds.
You win. I surrender. Talk amongst yourselves...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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.
My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.
In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose. I made a concise argument regarding a matter of law as it relates to what can be proven. I'm posting to a discussion forum, not penning a dissertation; diversionary ramblings are unbecoming.
In response to your actual point (see my grudging concession to fredgiblet's similar one above), my biggest problem here is one of the slippery slope. I admit (grudgingly, see above) that a cop's known affiliation with a racist organization is going to tarnish his ability to interact with some (probably many) members of the public. But if that alone is grounds for dismissal, we have to be very, very clear as to what sorts of unpopular opinions and affiliations represent such a public relations nightmare as to qualify for such treatment. If racist opinions are sufficient, are religious ones? Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?
Although I have to concede that his fitness for the job is unavoidably strained by his membership in an unpopular group, I can't get around the precedent it sets, theoretically speaking. By this same rationale, a deputy in a small Bible Belt town who is openly gay is unfit for the job by virtue of his orientation, since it will prevent virulently bigoted citizens from responding well to him (due to their certainty that he's come to spread his gayness to their children, he constitutes a public menace in their eyes) 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 the staunchly fundamentalist are concerned, he cannot fully fulfill all requirements of his employment.
Your words.
Does that seem right to you?
Therefore, in order for me to accept this argument, it has to go beyond simple public relations. Blacks hate/distrust Klansmen (and rightly so). Fundamentalist religion hates/distrusts queer culture and what they see as the "gay agenda" (in their minds, equally justified). If potential public relations backlash alone is recognized as acceptable grounds for firing, then it would seem to have certain demographic inequalities that fly in the face of the entire concept of equal protection before the law.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@TwilightJack
I don't disagree about it being a slippery slope, but I think it's slippery in both directions. If we ignore affiliations for everyone then situations arise like I posted about, namely affiliations causing issues with the job at hand. Conversely, like you said, if we kick out anyone that could contreversial it's almost as bad.
I would say that the criteria for having to fire them would be two-fold (at least off the top of my head).
One: Participation must be voluntary. No one made the cop join the KKK, and personally I find his reason a little weak. A gay man has no choice in the matter (regardless of what the protesters might say).
Two: The organization must actively and intentionally reinforce the prejudices at hand. For instance, the KKK goes out of their way to show their prejudice and attemp to negatively affect minorities around them. On the other hand, the Church Of Satan doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them (in fact if I remember correctly that's one of LaVey's rules).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So I'm dishonest. It's kind of amusing to me that you accuse me of something while doing that thing yourself in your own accusation.
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.
Quote:You accused me of not making a case I had already made, and I was also referencing words in posts already made toward you. It is not my job to ensure you get your facts straight.
In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose.
But as you say, onward:
Quote:Well as per my discussion with FellowTraveller I have to know where you really stand before I can hope to address this. Is it, too your mind a matter of absolutism, no matter what group a public servant supports they can not be fired for that, or is it a case of where the line is drawn?
Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?
Furthermore it seems to me that attempting to draw a parallel between someone born white/black gay/straight and someone choosing to join the KKK is ridiculous. Stick to organisations that, like Satan’s church, are conscious choices.
Now if anyone is a member of an organisation that preaches hate, especially violent or repressive hate (both of which are true for the Klan, but at the very least segregation is repressive) then such a person is unfit to be put in a position of public trust until such time they prove that, that trust is more important to them than their bigotry (which is an utmost requirement for true impartiality). How can this be inferred if they are willing to lose their position of public trust before their membership in said organisation?
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 citizen:
Now if anyone is a member of an organisation that preaches hate, especially violent or repressive hate (both of which are true for the Klan, but at the very least segregation is repressive) then such a person is unfit to be put in a position of public trust until such time they prove that, that trust is more important to them than their bigotry (which is an utmost requirement for true impartiality). How can this be inferred if they are willing to lose their position of public trust before their membership in said organisation?
The ironic thing is this: more likely than not the situation that would allow them to prove their trustworthiness would be negatively affected by their affiliation. And also, even if they were sincere in their attempts to be trustworthy, if they failed in those situations it would be seen as damning evidence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
[B]@TwilightJack
I don't disagree about it being a slippery slope, but I think it's slippery in both directions. If we ignore affiliations for everyone then situations arise like I posted about, namely affiliations causing issues with the job at hand. Conversely, like you said, if we kick out anyone that could contreversial it's almost as bad.
I would say that the criteria for having to fire them would be two-fold (at least off the top of my head).
One: Participation must be voluntary. No one made the cop join the KKK, and personally I find his reason a little weak. A gay man has no choice in the matter (regardless of what the protesters might say).
Cool! Now we're getting somewhere! You've established an important distinction with the voluntary membership requirement. Some could argue the choice thing with homosexuality (they'll never believe otherwise), but we've at least got grounds here.
Quote:
Two: The organization must actively and intentionally reinforce the prejudices at hand. For instance, the KKK goes out of their way to show their prejudice and attemp to negatively affect minorities around them. On the other hand, the Church Of Satan doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them (in fact if I remember correctly that's one of LaVey's rules).
Okay, once again we're narrowing this down. I'm still not signing up for your side of the issue (I get all big on Voltaire's ". . . your right to say it" crap), but we're exploring workable and fair solutions that remain in keeping with the moral philosophies that underpin the rule of law.
On the whole, I'm pleased with this. Having only gotten 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night, I'm going to respond in a more adversarial light tomorrow. I need to refresh my brain-meats first, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
(I get all big on Voltaire's ". . . your right to say it" crap)
I believe that everyone has the right to express themselves (by getting tattoos, joining the KKK etc.) and the responsibility to accept the consequences of the actions (getting infections and regretting the tattoos when they get older, getting fired by sane people who don't want to be associated with the KKK, etc.)
Quote:
On the whole, I'm pleased with this. Having only gotten 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night, I'm going to respond in a more adversarial light tomorrow. I need to refresh my brain-meats first, though.
Bah!, your brain-meats need more than 1.5 hours? Weakling, mine can function perfectly with no sleep. Admittedly sleep has a tendency to assert itself later, but the brain-meats function fine until it does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have been enjoying your posts, Twilightjack and Fredgiblet.
Everyone keeps talking about this man's free speech / free assembly rights. This man's free speech/free assembly rights are fine and intact. No one's come to arrest him for being a member of the KKK.
What I want to know is what are the rights of the state employer? Can a state employer set its policies to whatever it wants them to be? (Provided, of course, that there is no discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and maybe one day, sexual orientation.) Can a state employer set its policy to restrict any activity in an employee's personal life? Imagine: Everyone who smokes 7 or more cigarettes a day will be fired. Or everyone who visits porn sites for bestiality will be fired. Or everyone who posts comments on the internet to advocate Nazism will be fired. You get the drift.
Or does a state employer have no rights to set standards for employees outside of the job functions? Should it allow a member of the Man-Boy Love Association to be a public school teacher?
I can see both points of view. Personally, I'd like to see standards for the use of my tax dollars, but at the same time, once you start down that slope...where do you stop?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have been enjoying your posts, Twilightjack and Fredgiblet.
Thank you.
Quote:
Everyone keeps talking about this man's free speech / free assembly rights. This man's free speech/free assembly rights are fine and intact. No one's come to arrest him for being a member of the KKK.
Agree completely.
Quote:
Can a state employer set its policies to whatever it wants them to be? (Provided, of course, that there is no discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and maybe one day, sexual orientation.)
To the best of my knowledge, yes. Until they are challenged in court of course.
Quote:
Can a state employer set its policy to restrict any activity in an employee's personal life? Imagine: Everyone who smokes 7 or more cigarettes a day will be fired.
I believe there are companies (though maybe not the Feds) that are working on this...
Quote:
Or everyone who visits porn sites for bestiality will be fired. Or everyone who posts comments on the internet to advocate Nazism will be fired.
Well those puts me out of a job
Quote:
Should it allow a member of the Man-Boy Love Association to be a public school teacher?
Emphatic no.
Quote:
I can see both points of view. Personally, I'd like to see standards for the use of my tax dollars
A little OT but there's a bill in the works (with a senator trying to kill it) which would require a database of the budgets for the government to be made and accessible by anyone...you would finally be able to see where your tax dollars are going.
Quote:
but at the same time, once you start down that slope...where do you stop?
At the bottom...pressed firmly into the brick wall...
Quote:
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Watch me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So I'm dishonest. It's kind of amusing to me that you accuse me of something while doing that thing yourself in your own accusation.
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
My baiting may be childish, but it's at least intellectually honest, whereas your tendency to condescend and insinuate idiocy on the part of your opponent reeks of the worst in political punditry. I'm just calling attention where attention is due. I'll play nice if you do.
But I do it with a smile.
Quote:Quote:You accused me of not making a case I had already made, and I was also referencing words in posts already made toward you. It is not my job to ensure you get your facts straight.
In direct response to your latest insinuation of mental deficiency, illiteracy, or intellectual laziness on my part, please note that it was never my intention to address and rebut every point that has been made in 80+ posts, the margin being too narrow for my purpose.
Actually, I accused you of failing to substantiate the claim that my contextual definition of materiality was overly narrow and therefore fallacious.
Quote:
But as you say, onward:
Indeed. "Onward!"
Quote:Well as per my discussion with FellowTraveller I have to know where you really stand before I can hope to address this. Is it, too your mind a matter of absolutism, no matter what group a public servant supports they can not be fired for that, or is it a case of where the line is drawn?
Radically divergent political leanings? Should he have been fired if he were a member of the Church of Satan (which are a legitimate religious organization; see [link] www.churchofsatan.com])? How about obviously homosexual? Fundamentalist evangelical christian? Ties to the Socialist Party? Freemason? Would a Klansman deputy be acceptable in a small, insulated town without any minority population? Would a black deputy be inappropriate in a town with a huge Klan presence? How about a Scientologist in hard-core bible belt territory? A white man from the deep south in Harlem?
I just want to know where the line is drawn. The litmus test has to be so clearly defined that it can never be used as precedent for depriving someone of their rights. My problem is that whenever folks in these kinds of discussions start slicing away and parsing down their definitions to ensure that the rule will not be abused, they always seem to reveal the the rule itself as abusive in fundament. The only real litmus test I can see that avoids this is that of conduct and material effect. It's his right to believe whatever he likes, but if his beliefs interfere materially with the rights of another, then he needs to go. Otherwise, I can't see rationale for firing him that doesn't open a door to the other side.
Quote:
Furthermore it seems to me that attempting to draw a parallel between someone born white/black gay/straight and someone choosing to join the KKK is ridiculous. Stick to organisations that, like Satan’s church, are conscious choices.
And ultimately, drawing such a parallel is ridiculous, on its face. However, unless you clearly define the groundrules and criteria for firing KKK members for being KKK members (without any other conduct or material activity which merits their termination) in such a way that these parallels cannot be drawn, you're just waiting for someone to make such connections. I used your own argument and switched the players, not because I truly think that you're making that argument, but because a complete rationale for action must apply equally across all circumstances where it may be applicable. It's a question of establishing a coherent rationale that cannot be twisted to evil ends. If such a rationale cannot be established, then the fundamental action must be reexamined. I hate to sound so Boolean in my logic, but unfortunately it's the way of both legal and ethical philosophy, in a Deontological vein.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME