The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 12 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Specifically, the group with the "God Hates Fags" signs and the ones who were recently protesting at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church, as mentioned by a previous post.
A group of people who I would be in favor of executing and who no one should ever employ. The law shouldn't protect people for being assholes (but then we'd probably all be dead so...).Quote:
Can we further agree that this guy didn't attack anyone or harrass anyone? As stated in the article above.
Yes, but police departments spend a lot of time skating on the thin ice of public perception, if he did anything and his affiliation became known the lawyers would demolish the department.
Additionally you need to add a couple things on to your statement above: "yet", and "that we know of". Just because his membership hasn't caused an issue yet doesn't mean it won't, and just because we don't know about issues doesn't mean there aren't any.
I would be particularly worried about this because of the reinforcement, he may not be considereing attacking minorities yet, but his association with the KKK will likely deepen his emnity as time goes by.
Adtionally this still doesn't refute my points about his ability to do his job.
Cool. I wasn't trying to refute anything in the previous post. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. And cut me slack, brother. I'm treading real lightly so things don't turn nasty, again...
So, we agree that certain voluntary religious groups harrass and attack people and to this point the state has not asserted that this cop has harrassed or attacked anyone?
If this is the case, I would ask would it be legal and constitutional for the state of Idaho (random) to fire a cop for being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation and posting on their website, even though to the states knowledge the cop had not participated in any illegal conduct?
Not if it right. I agree it's the right thing to do. But, would it be legal and constitutional?
Now, before I try to address your point regarding negative public perception and the possibility of the cop's affiliation being used in court against him, may I again make sure we agree on the basic premise of my position.
That is, the Westboro Baptist Church is an organization similar in character today to the KKK. The groups they choose to harrass and intimadate are different, but they share the distinction of being minorities and having legimate fear of these organizations.
If we agree on that, would you agree that a cop being a congregant of the Westboro Baptist Church would make him just as likely to be mistrusted by that minority group and that his membership could be used in the same fashion in court?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
So, we agree that certain voluntary religious groups harrass and attack people and to this point the state has not asserted that this cop has harrassed or attacked anyone?
Agreed.
Quote:
If this is the case, I would ask would it be legal and constitutional for the state of Idaho (random) to fire a cop for being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation and posting on their website, even though to the states knowledge the cop had not participated in any illegal conduct?
I don't know, but I suspect that if the afilliation damages his ability to do his job (for instance a WBC member in the Village or San Fransisco), then the firing is legal.
Quote:
Now, before I try to address your point regarding negative public perception and the possibility of the cop's affiliation being used in court against him, may I again make sure we agree on the basic premise of my position.
That is, the Westboro Baptist Church is an organization similar in character today to the KKK. The groups they choose to harrass and intimadate are different, but they share the distinction of being minorities and having legimate fear of these organizations.
Agreed, in fact if they thought they could get away with killing gays they probably would.
Quote:
If we agree on that, would you agree that a cop being a congregant of the Westboro Baptist Church would make him just as likely to be mistrusted by that minority group and that his membership could be used in the same fashion in court?
Yes, and if he was fired not for his affiliation but rather for the damage to his ability to do his job that is caused by his afilliation then I see no problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, we're making progress.
Let me preface this with I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge and I could not find a case that reflects these circumstances exactly. My omission of such a case in not meant to imply that one does not exist. Merely, that I could not find it.
But, here are a few cases I did find that might indicate that, although it may be reasonable to punish someone for such an affiliation or speech, it is illegal or unconstitutional.
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=317
Pickering v. Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
"While criminal sanctions and damage awards have a somewhat different impact on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech from dismissal from employment, it is apparent that the threat of dismissal from public employment is nonetheless a potent means of inhibiting speech." (Justice Thurgood Marshall)"
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/speech/bldec_CuffleyMickes.
htm
Decision: Cuffley v. Mickes (1999)
"This decision reinformces the legal and constitutional principle that even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit and that even though the government may deny the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely.
In this case, the governemnt may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech. If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which [it] could not command directly." Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And if they were firing him just for being a member of the KKK then I might agree, but they fired him because his association with the KKK has a negative effect on his ability to do his job. And honestly it probably has an effect on the ability of everyone in the department.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's hard, in my mind, to make comparisons between the Klan and other groups. The Klan is clearly in a class by itself. It is the most successful American terrorist organization in the history of our country. At one time, millions of American men were Klan members. The rural regions of entire states were under the direct influence of the Klan. And they were effectively able to terrorize millions of Americans. There might be an effective comparison between Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Klan of the twenties and thirties but I'm not familiar enough with Hezbollah to confidently make that comparison.
The modern Klan and various off-shots are only a pale reflection, mainly because of their fear of monetary lawsuits by victims. They are, however, sympathetic to the more openly terrorist Klan of recent memory.
Employment of a known Klan member by a police department is at least tacit approval of the Klan by a government organization. Any legal measure should be taken to keep this from happening. In my mind, we should do whatever it takes, within the bounds of law, to prevent the recurrence of what happened in the twenties and thirties. If, however, it would be a violation of the first amendment to prevent employment based simply on Klan membership then that's that (and I don't know enough about that portion of the law to say yea or nay - and I've gone back and forth on this like SignyM). However, if I was the chief of this police department I would release the following statement: "We are a free country and so, in the interest of preserving freedom, we sometimes cannot stamp out evil. And we cannot fire someone simply for belonging to an evil organization. However, we want to go on public record that the Klan is an absolutely pitiful organization that we do not support in any way shape or form. Their ideology is abhorrent to me personally and to the mission of this police department. We must always be vigilant to make sure that the terror and fear the Klan was able to spread does not re-occur. If you would like to learn more about what you can do to combat the spread of racist organizations, such as the Klan, we have material available."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
However, if I was the chief of this police department I would release the following statement: "We are a free country and so, in the interest of preserving freedom, we sometimes cannot stamp out evil. And we cannot fire someone simply for belonging to an evil organization. However, we want to go on public record that the Klan is an absolutely pitiful organization that we do not support in any way shape or form. Their ideology is abhorrent to me personally and to the mission of this police department. We must always be vigilant to make sure that the terror and fear the Klan was able to spread does not re-occur. If you would like to learn more about what you can do to combat the spread of racist organizations, such as the Klan, we have material available."
Now there's a good idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For me, this comes down to this: If the Klan is currently so terrible, why is it not classified as a "terrorist organization" and made illegal? If a policeman shouldn't join, then neither should anybody else.
As far as KKK memeber possibly interfering with an officer's ability to do the job, "I smell a lot of 'if' coming offa that plan": IF he arrested a non-white and IF it came out in trial and IF the jury was swayed by that fact, and so forth.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For me, this comes down to this: If the Klan is currently so terrible, why is it not classified as a "terrorist organization" and made illegal? If a policeman shouldn't join, then neither should anybody else.
Because they have been keeping their heads down for the last few decades since almost everyone hates them. Also, I'd bet that there are a lot of high-ranking people in the South who hold sympathy for them. Also, it's a freedom of speech thing, same reason why we have a Nazi party.
Quote:
As far as KKK memeber possibly interfering with an officer's ability to do the job, "I smell a lot of 'if' coming offa that plan": IF he arrested a non-white
And if there is any significant amount of minorities in his area he will.
Quote:
and IF it came out in trial
Like many cases do (and if his afilliation is known probably every case he has will).
Quote:
and IF the jury was swayed by that fact, and so forth.
Very few people don't dislike the KKK, any minority will probably factor it in, many whites (myself included) would probably sbuconciously factor it in as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, kaneman, for reposting that, I missed it before, as I've stopped reading citizen's posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There certainly were many great posts.
As a union rep, I can see why this guy got his job back. As I mentioned before, being a member of the KKK is not a fireable offence. And there are mitigating factors in this instance. The guy was not a lifelong KKK member. He joined b/c of personal stress, and later quit. His work record was good. And this is a case where good supervision would fix any problems. Either it would catch bias /discrimination, or it would document that it didn't exist as far as the workplace was concerned.
As a rule of thumb, I don't care too much what people do in their real non-work life as long as it doesn't affect job performance. Along those lines, my observation is that when people do have deep-seated issues they can't help but bring them to work, and it shows up in measurable decrements in job performance. And THAT is something that can and should be addressed.
When it comes to obtaining convictions, it's possible that KKK membership would get in the way of perfectly good cases. But I can see it going another way. If you could show that this guy did everything by the book in an honest and capable way, it could make him look even stronger.
Ever see the movie "Crash"? If you did, you know the character I'm thinking of - the racist cop who risks his life to save a black woman in a burning car.
Sometimes being a hero, saving a life, doing your job well, is more important than your petty biases.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME