RE: Is this free speech?

RE: Is this free speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:29:40 AM)
~FR~ Perhaps hoping to avoid expensive legal action the town ducked the Constitutional issue by narrowly defining why they were suspending the chief. In a somewhat related case the First Circuit Court of Appeals applied two restrictions to public employee free speech: Constitutional protection of a public employee’s speech depends on whether he was both (1) speaking about a matter of public concern, and (2) speaking as a private citizen. If the answer to either question is “no,” then the employee has no appreciable First Amendment claim. JMO but I think this chief passes the test on both. The fact that he was out of uniform gives him the standing of a private citizen although it might be argued that using municipal owned weapons takes that away. That's a stretch I think but you never know. In Garcetti vs Ceballos Associate Justice Kennedy ruled for the majority that Deputy District Attorney Ceballos did not have free speech protection: The "controlling factor" was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which "owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities," did not in the Court's view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen. Instead, the restrictions were simply the control an employer exercised "over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." Based on the above I think the chief's speech was protected and the council doesn't want any part of that fight. Ya think?

Lucylastic -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:48:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I have no idea how competent as a police chief this person is but I can say that he does a very convincing impersonation of a psychopath. He seems to have serious anger management issues too. So the question for me would be: is this lunatic a suitable person to be a police chief? And the only answer to that question is: Definitely not. QFT There does seem to be a lot of it about But it seems "libtards" are the issue. Nothing like freedom and common sense in his arguments eh?

Aylee -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:51:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But it looks like from the articles that they were weapons he purchased and fired at a range in Texas while on vacation. All perfectly legal things. It said "Kessler said he purchased the ammunition and gun with his own money, among the many items he has funded for the police department." He was using their gun and ammo, regardless of whether he bought them. And is it legal to fire a fully automatic gun at a gun range? Why wouldn't it be legal? If it was legal for him to have the weapons in his possession, then it was legal for him to fire them on a range. Full-auto weapons are not illegal to own and fire. Merely difficult. quote: quote: ...what does the town charter and the state constitution say about political affiliations and employment? Because it looks like the angst is NOT over the profanity but instead of semi-political rant he was making. (Okay, it may have been an all political rant.) I thought that there were some protections in regards to civil service and political affiliation. It can be argued that he was making a terrorist threat. How? Is this a terroristic threat?: We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. It is singling out those of the "other side" for retribution. BTW, I think this whole, "terroristic threat" thing has gone so far as to have lost its meaning.

dcnovice -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:54:34 AM)
quote: Nothing like freedom and common sense in his arguments eh? He actually provides a better caricature of a "gun nut" than any "libtard" could create. And let's not forget the homophobia underlying his view that taking it in the ass is a major insult.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Nothing like freedom and common sense in his arguments eh? He actually provides a better caricature of a "gun nut" than any "libtard" could create. And let's not forget the homophobia underlying his view that taking it in the ass is a major insult. Did I miss something??

Lucylastic -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:00:59 AM)
yep he does Im all for taking it in the ass...catcher and pitcher(with my trusty strapon), but yep he didnt mean it nicely..poor chap just needs the right.....person:)

Lucylastic -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:03:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Nothing like freedom and common sense in his arguments eh? He actually provides a better caricature of a "gun nut" than any "libtard" could create. And let's not forget the homophobia underlying his view that taking it in the ass is a major insult. Did I miss something?? nope no more than usual:)

tweakabelle -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:09:58 AM)
Hmmmm .... "the right person" .... such a shame Sarah P is already spoken for .... and (as I understand them) her religious beliefs prohibit adultery and other "sins against Nature". Otherwise it would be a perfect match!

tazzygirl -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:27:14 AM)
quote: Constitutional protection of a public employee’s speech depends on whether he was both (1) speaking about a matter of public concern, and (2) speaking as a private citizen. If the answer to either question is “no,” then the employee has no appreciable First Amendment claim. How was he speaking as a private citizen when he pointed out he was the chief of police? And you mentioned him being out of uniform.... I think what disturbs me about the uniform issue is that he is in the normal dress he uses as a uniform... especially the hat, which is most recognizable. So lets agree he was in partial uniform. As far as his uniform... might want to check this out to see what I mean... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/24/fu-all-you-libtards-out-there-police-chief-records-explosive-and-vulgar-youtube-rants-should-he-lose-his-job/ 4th video down. In full uniform... note the hat.... also note he says "full uniform".... the gun is part of his uniform. Is this still free speech? Towards the bottom of that link.... According to local media, Kessler also sits on the school board and has formed his own “militia.” We did check out Kessler’s personal website that promotes his own Constitutional Security Force (CSF). Anyone interested in becoming a member must pledge a loyalty oath. It reads: CSF OATH I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS, I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC The mayor seems to have been unaware of this video when she gave a ringing endorsement. ~FR I said I would post my thoughts on this. I agree, that he is entitled to his own opinions. I agree the town cannot dictate his beliefs. The guns he purchased he donated to the town. They are no longer his private property. The title "Chief" he does not own, the town does. He has use of it while in office. Eventually someone else will have the use of it. I think my whole issue is centered around his use of the title in those videos. Someone pointed out how comfortable a liberal would feel being protected by this man. Im not sure too many would. As far as the video's going viral.... that was his intention. His group wants the recognition... what better way than to place such an incendiary video accompanied but the title he holds in trust? And where is that trust now?

Wendel27 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:36:40 AM)
I think his behaviour in infantile, embarrasing and generally ghastly. I think it brings the police force into disrepute and on that basis alone he should be fired. Quite apart from the fact that he identifies a huge swathe of people he has sworn to protect as retarded and beneath his contempt. He is a disgrace to the position he holds.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:47:08 AM)
BTW, I think this whole, "terroristic threat" thing has gone so far as to have lost its meaning. /snip I certainly agree with you.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:18:20 AM)
If he gets fired, I wonder if he'll go whining to the ACLU for his defense.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:19:27 AM)
That is an interesting point.... the lawsuit they hinted at. It sounded like the Chief is all for it, but the lawyer isnt sure.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl That is an interesting point.... the lawsuit they hinted at. It sounded like the Chief is all for it, but the lawyer isnt sure. The ACLU defended Rush when they wanted to prosecute him for buying large quantities of drugs, why shouldn't they defend this guy.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:22:41 AM)
Im wondering if it doesnt have to do with the video with him wearing the uniform.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:40:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Hmmmm .... "the right person" .... such a shame Sarah P is already spoken for .... and (as I understand them) her religious beliefs prohibit adultery and other "sins against Nature". Otherwise it would be a perfect match! In a nearby class 1 city presumably non-religious forced closure of a private "on the down low" play DUNGEON, what belief and whos religion is that? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Constitutional protection of a public employee’s speech depends on whether he was both (1) speaking about a matter of public concern, and (2) speaking as a private citizen. If the answer to either question is “no,” then the employee has no appreciable First Amendment claim. How was he speaking as a private citizen when he pointed out he was the chief of police? Was he punched in and on duty" 4th video down. In full uniform... note the hat.... also note he says "full uniform".... the gun is part of his uniform. Is this still free speech? Towards the bottom of that link.... According to local media, Kessler also sits on the school board and has formed his own “militia.” We did check out Kessler’s personal website that promotes his own Constitutional Security Force (CSF). Anyone interested in becoming a member must pledge a loyalty oath. It reads: CSF OATH I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS, I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC Whats not to like about that? The mayor seems to have been unaware of this video when she gave a ringing endorsement. So was she or wasnt she? ~FR I said I would post my thoughts on this. I agree, that he is entitled to his own opinions. I agree the town cannot dictate his beliefs. The guns he purchased he donated to the town. They are no longer his private property. The title "Chief" he does not own, the town does. He has use of it while in office. Eventually someone else will have the use of it. Neither does the town, it is an office, just like being a citizen in american is an "office" though as an american you have no rights of an officer as a citizen. Are you sure he has no connection to ownership? got that paperwork handy? I think my whole issue is centered around his use of the title in those videos. Someone pointed out how comfortable a liberal would feel being protected by this man. Im not sure too many would. As far as the video's going viral.... that was his intention. His group wants the recognition... what better way than to place such an incendiary video accompanied but the title he holds in trust? Wow a video that can burn shit down? Where can I try one? And where is that trust now? What trust? Police departments are private or "quasi" (bastard public) corporations generally and under contract. quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 he identifies a huge swathe of people he has sworn to protect as retarded and beneath his contempt. He is a disgrace to the position he holds. Sworn to protect "people"? do show us what "people" he is "sworn" to protect please? BUT SCOTUS determined that the Constitution does NOT impose affirmative obligations on government to help [as in PROTECT] citizens. They have NO OBLIGATION to provide welfare benefits, housing, or a public education. [or PROTECTION] The Constitution only restrains government from depriving persons the right to pursue various liberties. [among other things privacy in the public arena] DeShaney v Winnebago Dep't of Social Service (1989), Estate of Sinthasomphone v Milwaukee (1992), Castle Rock v Gonzales (2005) of course the really kool thing is that we have a BRANCH of government [COURT] determining the governments obligations, how fucking convenient is that!

Wendel27 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:44:13 AM)
I presume there is some form of oath of attestation where American police agree to uphold the law without fear or favour.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:47:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven "Free speech" is commonly misunderstood. It holds that the government cannot restrict speech of private individuals. It has exceptions for loudness and obnoxiousness (being a public nuisance) and intent to harm (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater). In the example chosen, the police chief is not a private citizen. He is the public face of a municipality that presumably has rules concerning how its officials present in public. It's standard that employers, public and private, would discipline employees who deliberately break rules about how they present. He does not have to agree with his department's views, but he cannot do so publicly. He seems too dense to understand that or care. The moron even has his website (http://chiefkessler.com/) in which he claims to have pushed legislation (how the hell can a police chief make laws?) that does nothing more than affirm the second amendment. yep you got it wrong too

FelineRanger -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 10:37:14 AM)
When you wear a uniform, you do give up some rights to free and unrestricted speech because your word is interpreted to be the policy of the government you represent. Since he is the chief of police, his rants can, and most likely would be seen as the guiding principles for his entire department. He has, therefore, violated any oath to enforce the law fairly and equally for all and should be fired immediately.

vincentML -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 11:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 I think his behaviour in infantile, embarrasing and generally ghastly. I think it brings the police force into disrepute and on that basis alone he should be fired. Quite apart from the fact that he identifies a huge swathe of people he has sworn to protect as retarded and beneath his contempt. He is a disgrace to the position he holds. No question he is a disgrace and I abhor his comments but being a disgrace does not leave a public employee's Constitutional speech unprotected as per the cases I cited above.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875