The right to Free Speech and Peaceably Assemble
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 13695
PAGE 10 of 13
Haven't had time to read thru ALL the posts, but I DO have to say I changd my mind at least five times thru the first 20 posts or so. You guys are so persuasive!
My off-the-cuff response is that I don't think ths guy should have been fired. I work for a regulatory agency that is more than usually political and we were all told at one point that we could not "advocate" for or against various agency positions. My response: Bullshit. When I started working here I didn't give up my free speech rights. And as long as I do my job properly, they have no right to fire me.
Also, being a supervisor, it's been drilled into me that you can not reprimand or fire a person for "being" something, only for what they do. If the guy's head is full of hate but he manages to pull it together for the job... GREAT! That goes for teachers who work strip clubs on the weekends, cops who are card-carrying ACLU (or KKK) members, or preachers who boink every willing lady in town. Their own time is their own time. If they do something illegal it should be handled thru the justice system same as everybody else, not thru the employment system.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
That was my response as well.
Too many 'programs' have been instituted to solve 'problems' that good OTJ supervision would fix. Drug screening comes to mind, as the cure all for workplace accidents or poor performance. Unfortunately it impinges on what you do in your 'free time' and doesn't take into account you could be showing up for work completely sober and on-task. There are other programs out there that are both intrusive AND ineffective.
Unfortunately, government employees sepcifically have recently lost important free-speech rights. You cannot comment on policies, procedures, or even whistle-blow on things that are part of your job and be protected from being fired.
Your ass is theirs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh...my. How did THAT travesty happen? I'll bet it was a Bush employee.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was the D##@@D BUSH Supreme Court that decided!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I said I would shut the Hell up, but to all those who say firing this man is not a violation of his rights, that nobody has put duct tape on his mouth or sent him to prison, a few examples using this rationale and other civil rights:
Governor Blanco tells all black, state workers for the state of Louisiana if they vote, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still vote. They just can't vote and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Pataki tells all state workers for the state of New York that if they own a firearm, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still own firearms. They just can't own firearms and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Schwarzenegger tells all state workers for the state of California that they cannot be practicing Baptists or they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still be practicing Baptists. They just can't be practicing Baptists and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Kaine tells all state workers for the state of Virginia that they cannot be a member of the Rainbow Coalition (or the Masons, or the Lions Club, or the Chamber of Commerce, or the ACLU, or the Christian Coalition, or the Klan) or they lose their jobs. They can still be a member of these organizations. They just can't be a member and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fellow- If true, your statements point to a serious problem. Links, please??
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
I want to jump in on this particular point. I have seen in print, numerous times, assertions by people who should know, including ex-cops and Joseph Wambaugh, the ex-LAPD cop, that the average cop does not actually fire his weapon ever during his career in a real-life situation.
Don't know how true that is in today's urban paramilitary police forces and situations, and I don't want cops disarmed, but I think the lethal violence against cops argument is overstatedNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
did it again. That was not all a quote . The less intelligent parts are my responsibliity...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I want to jump in on this particular point. I have seen in print, numerous times, assertions by people who should know, including ex-cops and Joseph Wambaugh, the ex-LAPD cop, that the average cop does not actually fire his weapon ever during his career in a real-life situation.
Don't know how true that is in today's urban paramilitary police forces and situations, and I don't want cops disarmed, but I think the lethal violence against cops argument is overstated
Perhaps, but let me ask you this: how many criminals would not think twice about shooting cops if the cops couldn't shoot back?
Right now, if you shoot a cop you know that the cop (and his partner, and (if you hurt/kill the cop) the entire police department) will be shooting at you, on the other hand if none of them (except the SWAT team) have guns, the reprecussions will likely be at worst a taser (not pleasant but not a gun).
For the most part I think cops with guns work on the detterent principle, but if you take away the detterent...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Yeah, I said I would shut the Hell up, but to all those who say firing this man is not a violation of his rights, that nobody has put duct tape on his mouth or sent him to prison, a few examples using this rationale and other civil rights:
Governor Blanco tells all black, state workers for the state of Louisiana if they vote, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still vote. They just can't vote and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Pataki tells all state workers for the state of New York that if they own a firearm, they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still own firearms. They just can't own firearms and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Schwarzenegger tells all state workers for the state of California that they cannot be practicing Baptists or they lose their jobs. Nobody arrests them. They can still be practicing Baptists. They just can't be practicing Baptists and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
Governor Kaine tells all state workers for the state of Virginia that they cannot be a member of the Rainbow Coalition (or the Masons, or the Lions Club, or the Chamber of Commerce, or the ACLU, or the Christian Coalition, or the Klan) or they lose their jobs. They can still be a member of these organizations. They just can't be a member and work for the state. So, this must not be a violation of their civil rights.
None of those infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the people in question. At the same time none of those reduce the effectiveness of the people at doing their jobs. The cop being a member of the KKK reduces his capacity to do his job.
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand: the cop got fired because his choices reduced his ability to do his job. If I work in Sales in a conservative Christian area, and I decide to cover my face with Satanic tattoos my ability to do my job is reduced, therefore my company will fire me. That doesn't mean my 1st amendment rights have been violated, just that I'm a retard who did something that would obviously make me unfit for my job.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME