|
njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 1:47:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
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.
I haven't looked at the video, but your statement itself is interesting. With public officials, there is a line with free speech, and it is an important distinction, the courts have held that public employees have the right to free speech but that if that speech casts doubt on their ability to perform the duties they are entrusted with, employers have the right to take action against them for speech. If some redneck sheriff does a video and says something like "we let goddam faggots rule this country, those sodomites should be put to death like the good book says", he would be fired, and rightfully so, because his statements cast doubt on his ability to be in charge of law enforcement..would you trust that person if, let's say a gay bar in his jurisdiction was bombed, to actually find out who did it? Would you believe a sherrif who called blacks n****** would do much to protect their rights?
A battle like this came about with good ole boy Roy Moore in Alabama, who insisted on having a cross and a copy of the 10 commandments in the courtroom, and he claimed first amendment right to have it in his courtroom. What the court rules is while he had the right to his beliefs, a courtroom is supposed to be about the law, which is supposed to be administered without bias or prejudice, and him putting them up gave the direct idea that his religious beliefs trumped the law, and even if he was a fair jurist, he could make a non Christian or a gay person feel like there would be no justice for them in that courtroom (and with Roy Moore, it was evident. In a divorce action, he gave custody of the kids to a father who had been convicted of physical abuse, who had a pattern of unemployment and drug use and alcoholism, over the mother, and simply because the mother was in a relationship with another woman (note, she didn't live with the woman, the kids weren't even involved, too young).....
As far as that being a terroristic threat, it could be considered one
"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. "
First of all, who is the enemy? Who is the other side? Liberals? People who don't believe the same way? Who is the enemy? Right then and there you have a problem, he is talking about punishing enemies, and you are talking about singling out the other side for retritubution....those are terms of war, those aren't disagreements about beliefs, that isn't saying "those damn liberals don't know anything", that is threatening retribution..and what does that mean when a public official says that? Is he going to go around and try and find out how people vote? Is he going to shoot up the house of the guy who has an Obama sign on his lawn?
More importantly, he was saying those things while firing weapons, which gives a direct idea that his idea of retribution is violence, and yes, that is terrorism. For once in his non illustrious career on the court, Clarence Thomas got something right, there was a case when a bunch of people like this police chief here, who think the same way, burned a cross on someone's lawn they considered the enemy. His right wing cohorts on the court at the time, Scalia and Rehnquist, argued this was free speech, that it showed displeasure, but Thomas wrote that this was not free speech, that that cross represented intimidation and threats of physical violence, that you couldn't argue it was just speech. This clown went over that line, spouting crap about liberal fucktards wouldn't get him in trouble probably, but if he talked about retribution, itself a loaded term, and then firing guns, it shows a sign that he things violence is appropriate, and being in law enforcement, designed to protect the laws of this country as a country of laws, is over the line, and yes, it is a terroristic threat, because the purpose in some ways is to try and intimidate people, scare them, and that is what terrorism is about, it is the threat of violence, implied or otherwise. If the police chief had simply made a video ranting about liberals, prob wouldn't have meant much, but if he used language line enemy and retribution, and then showed himself shooting off weapons, that is way, way over the line for a law enforcement office, would be like Bull Connor on videotape machine gunning dummies that were obviously representing black people.
|
|
|
|
