Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
There ate multiple issues here, Vincent is saying it is free speech of a private citizen and 'the court has upheld that'....First of all, let's look at the conflicting nature of the issues
Oh sure, lets look at my fav spies case where they explain in detail that the first 10 amendments of the federal constitution were not for the general inhabitants and can only be accessed as a "citizen".
Of course there is a minor problem and that is how the hell can a state, a piece of paper, commit treason? have freedom to exercize religion, or speech? Something naughty went on there, since I have never seen a "fucking piece of paper" talk.
-There is the first amendment, that says we have the freedom to say what we want (with burdens, like saying fire in a movie theater or incitement to riot) and not be prosecuted for it. It covers the government, it is clearly saying the government cannot abridge that right without a strong reason why.
again you are looking at government interlopers butting in where they do not belong.
A person has ever right to scream fire in a crowded theater and the owner and those affected have the right to file suits against that person for damages. The government has no right what so ever to butt into anyones freedom to do scream anytime they want by making a one shoe fits all ordinance or statute.
If its not specifically enumerated in the constitution what "legitimate" claim does the government have to stick its nose in again?
-There is no such right of the first amendment when it comes to employment, you cannot claim free speech if an employer fires you for something you said. Plenty of people have gotten fired for badmouthing their employer on Facebook, or getting caught saying something bad about them.In most at will employment states, you can be fired for saying things even if it has nothing to do with the company, if you work for Chic Fil A and say positive things about same sex marriage, they can fire you for that, and you wouldn't stand a chance under the 1st amendment, because Chic Fil A is private.
agreed
Most people would agree to this I think, in the private sector first amendment doesn't hold.
Here is where it gets tricky, what about when employees work for the government? If the government is not allowed to abridge speech because as the government they can't abridge speech, it seems a conflict, since employers can fire for speech....it is a unique problem, and here is what the courts have ruled over the years, that is the standing law as far as I know (this came up in one of my classes in grad school, about public employment law and rights).
not really, they cannot act extraconstitutional, at least that is the way it is supposed to roll out.
-Public employees are generally covered by freedom of speech, including political speech, as long as it is done representing themselves as private citizens. Thus a boss, who is a Democrat, cannot fire a public employee in his office who supports the GOP, who is an ardent supporter of their positions, for stuff they say and write outside the job, which is different than private employment (they can and do can people for political speech).
in fact many government employees under their breath are some of the most pointed and outpoken opponents of government.
-However, they can ban such politicizing around the office, and most do, as long as it goes both ways. They can't stop a Rand Paul supporter from speaking out in the office about him, if they don't forbid people from doing the same with let's say Obama. Most public offices ban political activity of any kind at the office, though obviously, two people talking about political beliefs is generally allowed.
and that is a violation of their rights as longf as there is no felony, or treasonous activity going on in which case they have no authority to "ban" it only to take them to court and sue for relief.
However the government has exempted themselves from the same formalities required of the inhabitants in the name of expediency and its sold to the public as "saving a buck" when in fact the results of these things are precisely the opposite
-In terms of private activity, the rulings have been that the person in question has to make clear it is private speech, as a private citizen, and they must do everything they can to separate the two. Thus, if someone says "I am Joe smith, and I support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage", that is protected. If someone, however, says "I am judge Joe Smith of the county court, and I support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage", it isn't, because he brought the office name into it and implied somehow official support of his position, which is a no no...could be the tax office, the mayor's office, whatever'
yeh we just had a case here in wi where a milwaukee judge tossed the mayor a nickel and he won
Judges can be a weird one, sometimes Judges are protected from this. Antonin Scalia can make political speeches, he does all the time, about personal beliefs, and cannot be thrown off the court for that, and it can apply in other cases, too, because unless someone is an idiot Scalia is famuous enough he does't have to say what he does.
so much for "equal" protection under the law and the "Just-Us" club as in your face as it can get
-However, there is another factor the courts Courts? You mean "Judges" operating as courts expecthave taken into consideration, and it is where Vincent's statement falls short. The other exception to speech by public employees and the first amendment is in the ability to do their job effectively and to promote a positive image of the government. This has been upheld by both state and federal courts, and it applies in this case.
huh? to promote a positive image of government?
So in other words they, BY DESIGN can sling us any shit they choose and call it caviar to promote and insure a positive image rather than what we REALLY want which is RESPONSIBLE government, another freebee to corruption that is now institutionalized
A public employee serves the public good, not just his/her own interests, and in doing so needs to maintain an image for himself and for the position he is in, of fairness and working for the whole public. If a private belief clashes with this the right to express that or act on those beliefs is limited by what is in the good of the department and the public good.
but they are interlopers and inserted themselves as the "People", so what is the substantiaal difference then between the government and the People, or people, not to forget inhabitants.....
This guy may have been out of uniform, so he was punched in then?but he identified himself as chief of police, not as kessler? which right then and there makes this subject to the idea of saying something officially, he identified himself as a public official. speaking in the capacity of his office? Where he runs into trouble is not defending the second amendment, that is protected even if he said he was chief of police, it was the way he did it. but there is no manualHe didn't say "As Americans, we have the right so do we now need attorneys to prove every word used in a casual protest? to bear arms, and some of us choose to use that right" and then show pictures of him shooting, that would be okay; but in the course of the video, his language and demeanor was hostile, so what? would have you preferred he came out protesting in a pink tutu?
would that satisfy the hate policehe uses words like enemies and retribution, then shoots off his guns. In doing so, he is giving the impression that as police chief, he thinks that people opposed to the 2nd amendment are 'the enemy', who 'deserve retribution' (if those quotes are right), and then is directly giving the impression he would like to shoot them. sounds like political speech to me, so what? Throw him in jail for his manner of expression that INJURED NO ONE?Even if you want to argue that is simply him firing guns, his statements about retribution and enemy implies that as police chief, he would see someone based on their political beliefs and would do his job based on how he felt about someone, and that is a no no. it makes no such implication what so ever, that is purely your interpretation and constructionIn public employee contracts there generally is a clause about maintaining the idea that the public is to be treated equally and fairly, and that employees are to go out of their way to not give the impression or idea that services and such will be done in anything but that manner.
now we get down to the bottom of it, who did he NOT treat fairly that would have a claim to support your accusations?
What this boils down to is public employees do have free speech rights private employees don't have but that that right is bounded by how that speech affects the ability to do that job. In a sense, if you think about it, polticians are a classic example, they can say what they want, but their 'employer' (us, the voters) can throw him out if we don't like what he says. Obviously it is not the same thing as a true employment contract, but public employees face the same thing, if what they say or do casts doubts on their ability to do their job or casts doubt on the office itself, the employer has the right to take action for that, and speech can affect this.
Political speech should be protected regardless if it is public or private. Likewise with the second. If someone whats to carry an arm they have that right not only in public but on my property as well, however if I object I have the right to ban them from entry unto my property, which satisfies both conditions.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/3/2013 4:11:04 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Is this free speech? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread