RE: Is this free speech?

RE: Is this free speech? (Full Version)

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

Message

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne if it violates his rights it is an unenforceable contract. Yes and no, because the 'right' you claim is not absolute. If his speech brings doubt on his ability to do the job fairly, if he makes it seem like he would only protect those he agrees with, his job effectiveness is in doubt and they have the right to act. There are over 100 years of court decisions on this, that with a public employee free speech ends when that speech casts doubt on his ability to do the job. Public employees don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve or how they serve them, they are supposed to treat all equally well (or as is typical of public employees, equally badly). of course you realize this violates due process yes? Fire someone simply because they "doubt" he cannot fulfill his position due to a presumption he.... [insert groundless accusation here] Nothing to do with due process. If he makes statements that can be assumed to impinge his ability to do his job, the bosses have the right to take action. We aren't talking criminal prosecution here, we are talking employment rules. A sherrif who uses racial epithets, a public official in a welfare office who says the poor are a bunch of freeloaders who are beneath contempt, have views that could affect how he does his job, or more importantly, how the citizens he is supposed to serve view him

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Every one of his videos is titled Chief Kessler... I don't that qualifies as private speech. You may not think so, but if I understand vincent's example, he has demonstrated that the Court disagrees, at least in a case very similar to this one. That verdict has made me reconsider my original position on this issue. He doesn't have to be speaking in his official capacity as police chief to be censored for actions, if he in some way ties his actions to his position. Let's say the chief of police of some town, speaking at some event, goes off on a tear against blacks.....do you think black citizens of that town would feel safe with him, feel comfortable dealing with him? He identified himself as chief of police and in some of the videos was in uniform, which associated himself with his position. Put it this way, if all he advocated for was the second amendment, he might not have had trouble, but when he shot those guns off and talked about liberals as the enemy and such, he established an image of himself that could be detrimental to him doing his job in an official capacity, when you serve the public there is a need to maintain the perception that he will deal fairly with all, since public officials serve all the people.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:34:45 PM)
When did the 2nd amendment become only for whites?

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:36:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: 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/ Thanks for the link, Tazzy! A few thoughts: -- My respect for the Blaze has risen as a result of its covering this. -- In the video you mentioned, he is indeed in his official uniform and in a position of authority (as a trainer). That makes it hard for me to see him as just a private citizen. -- He uses his official title as the URL for his website, which promotes a political agenda. -- Kessler is clearly an attention whore--immature and arguably unhinged. Why anyone would put him in a position of public trust is a complete mystery to me. for the obviously hearing impaired; was he or was he not speaking in his official capacity bonafide evidence only please not the whimsical bullshit I have seen so far. He doesn't need to be speaking in his official capacity if he goes out of his way to make it clear who he is. Kessler made those videos and id'ed himself as the chief of police, he said he would not enforce gun laws and did so when he was in uniform of the position.....if he wasn't speaking officially, he was using the position he has to push his private agenda.And ask yourself this, if he wasn't trying to use his position, then why did he id himself as chief, and wear the uniform? If he said "My name is ....Kessler, and here is what I think of guns and those wanting to take them away" while wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, he might have an argument, but he used the uniform and his title to try and further his agenda, and that is tantamount to doing it officially. A lot of public officials have lost jobs for similar actions, the burden is on them to separate their private opinions from the job, and when they try to use their position to enhance their position, they are in fact trying to give the impression they are speaking with the weight of the office.

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy ^ we are not the UK. We do not have the speech restriction that youns do--- not yet- and hopefully never. Where on earth did you get the idea that we have speech restrictions?? The UK does not have a formal right to free speech that is contained in the US constitution, the UK constitution has nothing in it. There is a tradition of it, but for example, last I checked the UK has laws that can be enforced for criticizing politicians or the crown, and you can be charged even if the accusations are true you are saying (I don't know if they have been used recently, but they still exist I believe).

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I do believe it and thats the truth. There is no hope for you then. There is a major difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. I would have expected you to at least get that. If you have hate speech statutes you don't have freedom of speech. The reason for the 1st amendment protections we have in the us is to protect unpopular speech, that no matter how unpopular it is, it has a right to be heard. The philosophy was best stated by Justice Brandeis, when he said that the answer to 'bad speech' was more speech, good speech, in answer to it. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder, which is the problem, some religious conservative could decide that someone criticizing orthodox religious belief was spouting hate, and have them arrested, a liberal could have a conservative arrested. The burdens on free speech are heavy in the US, to limit it you have to show that there is very real reason to limit it, and someone's feelings getting hurt is not one of them, you have to prove real harm. Speech by white supremacists, black panthers, radical muslims, born again Christians, and most of the commentators on Fox news are repugnant to me, but they have the right to say it, and all I can do is open my mouth and say what i feel about them. The fact is that hate speech, as bad as we may feel it is, is free speech, when you decide which speech is legal and which isn't based on a nebulous concept like hate is dangerous, it would be like limiting speech based on concepts like blasphemy and orthodoxy, or on the subject of the speech (i.e that Lord Haw Haw and Lady Hee Hee shan't be spoken about by mere commoners in a derisive manner).....

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 7:51:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I do believe it and thats the truth. There is no hope for you then. There is a major difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. I would have expected you to at least get that. If you have hate speech statutes you don't have freedom of speech. The reason for the 1st amendment protections we have in the us is to protect unpopular speech, that no matter how unpopular it is, it has a right to be heard. The philosophy was best stated by Justice Brandeis, when he said that the answer to 'bad speech' was more speech, good speech, in answer to it. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder, which is the problem, some religious conservative could decide that someone criticizing orthodox religious belief was spouting hate, and have them arrested, a liberal could have a conservative arrested. The burdens on free speech are heavy in the US, to limit it you have to show that there is very real reason to limit it, and someone's feelings getting hurt is not one of them, you have to prove real harm. Speech by white supremacists, black panthers, radical muslims, born again Christians, and most of the commentators on Fox news are repugnant to me, but they have the right to say it, and all I can do is open my mouth and say what i feel about them. The fact is that hate speech, as bad as we may feel it is, is free speech, when you decide which speech is legal and which isn't based on a nebulous concept like hate is dangerous, it would be like limiting speech based on concepts like blasphemy and orthodoxy, or on the subject of the speech (i.e that Lord Haw Haw and Lady Hee Hee shan't be spoken about by mere commoners in a derisive manner)..... I could not have said it better. Bravo!

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: -However, there is another factor the courts have 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. 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. Lauren raises two interesting exceptions to Constitutional protection for public employee speech: 1) ability to do the job effectively, and 2) good public image. By 1967 The Court took the position that public employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights. The problem for the Court then became how to balance the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's interest in free expression. In Pickering In ordering the teacher reinstated, the Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job. Does "substantial interference" come into play here? Not according to the grounds for action against Kessler given by this small town board IMO. He was suspended for using Township property. in Mt. Healthy v Doyle Doyle was fired for reasons other than complaining to a call-in radio program. SCOTUS remanded the case to determine if Doyle would have been fired absent the free speech protection. If so he would be out of luck. Gilberton suspended Kessler for improper use of town property. All they would have to show is they had grounds for suspenson absent the speech issue. IMO Kessler would lose. Please notice that in both Pickering and Doyle the employees identified themselves as school teachers. Seems to me Kessler is not in jeapordy for identifying himself as a police chief. That leaves us with Lauren's second issue: the public employee has a duty to maintain a good public image. It would not surprise me if a state law or town ordinance demanding such a duty would be upheld by SCOTUS but I was not able to find a case. Maybe Lauren can supply one on point. This reminds me of the old morals clauses. Again Gilberton Township did not raise this as an issue . . . yet. The Township of Gilberton school board has deftly danced around the protected speech issue IMO. [:D] Vincent- You make a good point, that the town didn't charge him with interference with the job, but what that leaves out is political expediency. The town faced a shitstorm over his statements, but if they accused him of interfering with his job by his statements, they would face not only a potential court battle to show it was a valid action, but also probably face pissed off townspeople who support the joker. By charging him with improper use of town property they make clear they aren't happy with him, but do so in a way that they are on easier grounds.....I suspect they didn't charge him for what he said because it would have been politically unpalatable. If they had had the will to do it, they probably could have passed muster on interference with the job, a police chief casting doubt on his ability to serve all is major interference with the job. In terms of making the town or department look bad, that would come down to employment and contract law, if the contract has a clause that an employees private behavior that puts the town or the job in a bad light, it can be enforced and has, morals clauses and such are enforceable in public and private contracts. I would have to do some research, but I am pretty certain these have been backed up in court.

njlauren -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Oh right! Everyone know the UK does not have the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. We don't need one. We aren't sooo stupid as to need every little thing witten down for us to refer to. quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Yous had the magna carta which you ruined and in part now- all of humity is doomed no thanks to the banking grip the City Of London and The Bank of England has grip on humanity! Oh really?? Try doing some reading. The whole banking crisis was brought to the world by..... TADA.... Leesons of the USA!! quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy People do not flea to the UK, they flea from the UK. Try telling that to the friggin millions of immigrants that run here. Unwritten law based on traditions is a lot weaker than written law. In the UK it depends on a tradition of those rights, but the problem is they can be taken away a lot easier then when they are written down.

MrBukani -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 8:11:25 PM)
Brennus (or Brennos) was a chieftain of the Senones, a Gaulish tribe originating from the modern areas of France known as Seine-et-Marne, Loiret, and Yonne, but which had expanded to occupy northern Italy.[1] More important historically was a branch of the above (called Senones, by Polybius), who about 400 B.C. made their way over the Alps and, having driven out the Umbrians, settled on the east coast of Italy from Ariminum to Ancona, in the so-called ager Gallicus, and founded the town of Sena Gallica (Sinigaglia), which became their capital. In 391 they invaded Etruria and besieged Clusium. The Clusines appealed to Rome, whose intervention, accompanied by a violation of the law of nations, led to war, the defeat of the Romans at the Allia (18 July 390) and the capture of Rome. In 387 BC he led an army of Cisalpine Gauls in their attack on Rome. In the Battle of the Allia, Brennus defeated the Romans, and entered the city itself. The Senones captured the entire city of Rome except for the Capitoline Hill, which was successfully held against them. However, seeing their city devastated, the Romans attempted to buy their salvation from Brennus. The Romans agreed to pay one thousand pounds weight of gold. According to Livy, during a dispute over the weights used to measure the gold (the Gauls had brought their own, heavier-than-standard) Brennus threw his sword onto the scales and uttered the famous words "Vae victis!", which translates to "Woe to the vanquished!". wiki it In short Brennus told the fuckin romans because you write down the law there is always someone who can circumcize it. Our law is not written down thats why you cant play with our law...[:D]

Powergamz1 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 9:57:23 PM)
There is no right enumerated in the Constitution that is an all or nothing proposition, or that is denied if it can't be done in unlimited fashion. Freedom doesn't meant the freedom to kill random people without legally justifiable cause, and freedom of speech isn't eliminated if someone pays a consequence for inciting murder, or conspiring to hold a lynching. The hate crimes statutes add an extra layer of consequence when the speech fails long standing tests about the greater good. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I do believe it and thats the truth. There is no hope for you then. There is a major difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. I would have expected you to at least get that. If you have hate speech statutes you don't have freedom of speech. The reason for the 1st amendment protections we have in the us is to protect unpopular speech, that no matter how unpopular it is, it has a right to be heard. The philosophy was best stated by Justice Brandeis, when he said that the answer to 'bad speech' was more speech, good speech, in answer to it. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder, which is the problem, some religious conservative could decide that someone criticizing orthodox religious belief was spouting hate, and have them arrested, a liberal could have a conservative arrested. The burdens on free speech are heavy in the US, to limit it you have to show that there is very real reason to limit it, and someone's feelings getting hurt is not one of them, you have to prove real harm. Speech by white supremacists, black panthers, radical muslims, born again Christians, and most of the commentators on Fox news are repugnant to me, but they have the right to say it, and all I can do is open my mouth and say what i feel about them. The fact is that hate speech, as bad as we may feel it is, is free speech, when you decide which speech is legal and which isn't based on a nebulous concept like hate is dangerous, it would be like limiting speech based on concepts like blasphemy and orthodoxy, or on the subject of the speech (i.e that Lord Haw Haw and Lady Hee Hee shan't be spoken about by mere commoners in a derisive manner).....

MrBukani -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 10:21:12 PM)
The Prodigy - Their Law (05 Edit) HD 720p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhGFGCwsM0 [image]http://noptialbe.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/330px-prodigy-02.jpg[/image]

Esinn -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 10:43:29 PM)
I applaud his actions. He is only about 100 notches less cool than Edward Snowden who is only about 20 notches from the coolest person on my list of whose cool and whose fool. I dunno..... Free speech - absolutely.... Right to use state issued fire arms, or anything of that nature... Hell naw....... If this was done on his own time, dollar, budget and far from the office..... Sadly it was not.... I agree with the most 30 days is not so bad. Some hands needed slapped. He will live - so will we. THE END

MrBukani -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/3/2013 11:37:54 PM)
Snowden is a traitor. I dont know what you think is cool bout traitors but hey put a daisy up his ass and see if it gets the light of day.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:35:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy free speech was not set in place to talk about the weather. it is in place to talk about things that are uncomfortable to people. The UK has stricter libel laws then the US. People sue there for things that are said-- and here very few people bother as it only goes so far in the courts. When Alex went to bilderburger- guess what? He could say things that a Brit can not say... as if he were to be sued it would have to be in American courts, not the UK. How does this make you feel that a foreigner has more rights then you do? We are all created equal. Blah blah blah. More of the same from you. No one, Alex included, can break UK criminal law........ Libel and Slander are civil laws which have Sweet FA to do with criminal laws.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Unwritten law based on traditions is a lot weaker than written law. In the UK it depends on a tradition of those rights, but the problem is they can be taken away a lot easier then when they are written down. This is a total misunderstanding of British law and its implementation. Do you really think nothing is written down ? Not having a Constitution is not the same as not having laws written down. As for the notion US laws are harder to change........ are you really serious ? Your laws are amended continually.

DomKen -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:04:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The Garcetti ruling says that a public employee may be disciplined for statements made pursuant to their duties. Since he publicly states he will use the power of his office to prevent any gun control laws from being enforced he can certainly be fired for that. He can also be fired for his t shirt where he encourages the rape of liberals on a video with his job title as part of the title. Furthermore his employment contract almost certainly contains a clause allowing him to be fired for embarrassing the town (a so called morals clause) so he can likely be fired simply for the bad publicity he has brought to the community. Then they're going about this the wrong way. Firing him for any of the above would make infinitely more sense than firing him for misusing their equipment or title. Except if they invoke most of the things in my post they could have to fight a wrongful termination lawsuit. The misuse of town property cause is so clear cut I doubt a lawsuit would get past a summary judgement request.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:08:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I do believe it and thats the truth. There is no hope for you then. There is a major difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. I would have expected you to at least get that. If you have hate speech statutes you don't have freedom of speech. The reason for the 1st amendment protections we have in the us is to protect unpopular speech, that no matter how unpopular it is, it has a right to be heard. The philosophy was best stated by Justice Brandeis, when he said that the answer to 'bad speech' was more speech, good speech, in answer to it. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder, which is the problem, some religious conservative could decide that someone criticizing orthodox religious belief was spouting hate, and have them arrested, a liberal could have a conservative arrested. The burdens on free speech are heavy in the US, to limit it you have to show that there is very real reason to limit it, and someone's feelings getting hurt is not one of them, you have to prove real harm. Speech by white supremacists, black panthers, radical muslims, born again Christians, and most of the commentators on Fox news are repugnant to me, but they have the right to say it, and all I can do is open my mouth and say what i feel about them. The fact is that hate speech, as bad as we may feel it is, is free speech, when you decide which speech is legal and which isn't based on a nebulous concept like hate is dangerous, it would be like limiting speech based on concepts like blasphemy and orthodoxy, or on the subject of the speech (i.e that Lord Haw Haw and Lady Hee Hee shan't be spoken about by mere commoners in a derisive manner)..... Oh for Gods sake....... You dont have freedom of speech either.......Go out and try telling a cop he is an arsehole and see how far that gets you. You and Pahunk of all people should know about hate speech. I suspect you would be pretty quick to complain to the cops if you were getting lots of verbal abuse advocating violence towards you, and rightly so. The same groups you name are able to say what they like in the UK. What they cant do is incite. I am guessing neither of you have an actual clue as to what the UK law states. quote: Racial and Religious haterd act 2006...... (Amended since to include sexual orientaion ) Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Its quite clear from this people can say WTF they like, however insulting......What they cant do is incite violence or threaten violence. So please, if you are going to spout on about UK law at least get a clue first.

DomKen -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:13:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Unwritten law based on traditions is a lot weaker than written law. In the UK it depends on a tradition of those rights, but the problem is they can be taken away a lot easier then when they are written down. This is a total misunderstanding of British law and its implementation. Do you really think nothing is written down ? Not having a Constitution is not the same as not having laws written down. As for the notion US laws are harder to change........ are you really serious ? Your laws are amended continually. We put a lot of stock in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as immutable. The idea of relying on laws and tradition just makes us uncomfortable and we have a long list of the naughtiness of the British in the 18th century, the Declaration of Independence, that seems to confirm that skepticism. Not saying its right or wrong just trying to explain.

metamorfosis -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:14:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis Then they're going about this the wrong way. Firing him for any of the above would make infinitely more sense than firing him for misusing their equipment or title. Except if they invoke most of the things in my post they could have to fight a wrongful termination lawsuit. The misuse of town property cause is so clear cut I doubt a lawsuit would get past a summary judgement request. Ah.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875