RE: Is this free speech?

RE: Is this free speech? (Full Version)

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

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 10:43:20 AM)
That the video has some disturbing words in it is a given. The question is: "Disturbing to whom?" I saw a man, angrily stating his opposition to gun regulation. I saw a man speaking such awful things as to suggest that our government has become tyranical. I saw a man, saying that he would not give up his legally obtained and owned weapons. Do I think there was maybe the tiniest trickle of foam coming out of his mouth? Yes, I do and I don't think his behavior is something that he should be proud of. He has broken no laws. He is passionate about his beliefs. The disturbing part is how many people want to shut this guy up. I wonder if it would be the same if a "militant" female police chief were to make a video containing an inmpassioned plea against abortion control laws? My thinking is that the usual suspects would staunchly defend that free speech, no matter how many "feelings" it hurt. The shoe's on the other foot. Peace Thom McCann

DomKen -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 1:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr That the video has some disturbing words in it is a given. The question is: "Disturbing to whom?" I saw a man, angrily stating his opposition to gun regulation. I saw a man speaking such awful things as to suggest that our government has become tyranical. I saw a man, saying that he would not give up his legally obtained and owned weapons. Do I think there was maybe the tiniest trickle of foam coming out of his mouth? Yes, I do and I don't think his behavior is something that he should be proud of. He has broken no laws. He is passionate about his beliefs. The disturbing part is how many people want to shut this guy up. I wonder if it would be the same if a "militant" female police chief were to make a video containing an inmpassioned plea against abortion control laws? My thinking is that the usual suspects would staunchly defend that free speech, no matter how many "feelings" it hurt. The shoe's on the other foot. If a chief of police produced a video where she clearly identified herself as a chief of police and stated that she would not enforce laws on abortion access that were legally in force she would still be subject to firing. Further if she encouraged the rape of conservatives I doubt there would be anyone defending her.

Wendel27 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 1:38:45 PM)
His job is to uphold the law for all citizensw. In his videos he clearly brings questions as to whether he would do so for those he considers liberal. A police chief making public videos telling ''Liberals'' that they take it up the arse and are retarded hardly inspires confidence in his professionalism. I believe he is extremely lucky not to have been fired and still think he should be.

DomKen -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 His job is to uphold the law for all citizensw. In his videos he clearly brings questions as to whether he would do so for those he considers liberal. A police chief making public videos telling ''Liberals'' that they take it up the arse and are retarded hardly inspires confidence in his professionalism. I believe he is extremely lucky not to have been fired and still think he should be. 30 days off with no pay will either get his attention or ruin his attitude. One way he could keep his job the other he will give the city council some easy reason to remove him.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 His job is to uphold the law for all citizensw. In his videos he clearly brings questions as to whether he would do so for those he considers liberal. A police chief making public videos telling ''Liberals'' that they take it up the arse and are retarded hardly inspires confidence in his professionalism. I believe he is extremely lucky not to have been fired and still think he should be. You do not have the right to never be offended by what someone says. Free speech in the US is a different thing- apparently then across the pond.

Wendel27 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:05:48 PM)
No it's the same thing despite your blinkered jingoism Pahunk. My problem is not with his comments being offensive but that they indicate he is not capable of upholding his duty. As I said earlier if he made a video declaring that all black people are dumb cunts I presume you would see the problem in him being employed to protect the rights of all without fear or favour.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:34:02 PM)
so take action even though you have no demonstrateable evidence to support your opinion.

Wendel27 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 2:38:40 PM)
The thread asked for my opinion and I gave it what's your point? I think his videos amount to misconduct and certainly bring the force into disrepute. The demonstrable evidence for this is the videos he has made and uploaded in which he describes all liberals as retarded and that they take it up the arse.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:18:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Which is just fine Ken..... Both sytems work for our respective Countries. One could argue that with the introduction of the Human Rights Act, we have protections that some of your countrymen view as "communist" Polite, please edify us. Aren't your laws and traditions reviewed by Appelate Courts that uphold or reject precedence in a similar fashion that our SCOTUS reviews Constitutional precedents? I`m unsure what you are asking...... Judges are bound by the law of precedent in the UK, which means they are bound to follow previous court rulings on an issue. Our appeal Courts dont challenge precedent, they challenge whether the lower Courts decision was correct or if there were any procedural errors. A conviction can be heard on appeal if new evidence has since come to light and an appeal can only be made if there is some chance of success.

dcnovice -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:29:51 PM)
quote: ruin his attitude Could it possibly get worse?

tazzygirl -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 3:30:51 PM)
Vincent, in Foley, the comments were directed at the officials, not the general public. As the court stated, its a matter of public concern. What in the rants of these videos were considered of "public concern"? (Please keep in mind..... Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context.) In Garcetti v. Ceballos, again, its based upon criticism of the employer. My objection isnt what he said about Pelosi, or about those who lead the country.... my objection is about his use of some colorful phrases to describe many who he is paid to protect. Gilberton,PA Political Information According to voter data, Gilberton, PA votes 54.7% Republican. Expand the Voting Results box to find out more details on your area voting results. Which means at least some of the rest vote Democratic, leaving room for Independents. I have no issue with him being protected for criticizing his bosses... but the demographics of the people he is protecting?

metamorfosis -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 4:33:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Vincent, in Foley, the comments were directed at the officials, not the general public. No, they were addressed to the press, and therefore the public. "While he was in uniform and in the midst of fire suppression activities, he spoke to the press." quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As the court stated, its a matter of public concern. What in the rants of these videos were considered of "public concern"? I would venture to say they were about a matter of public concern, regardless of how offensively they were phrased. Ergo, they pass vincent's two prong test. "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." Was Kessler speaking about a matter of public concern? In my opinion, yes. Was he speaking as a private citizen? According to the Court's definition, yes, because he was not speaking pursuant to his official duties and not about departmental matters. (Except for the bit about refusing to disarm citizens, and I think his comments there were sufficiently vague that he could argue that people misunderstood his meaning.) quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl My objection isnt what he said about Pelosi, or about those who lead the country.... my objection is about his use of some colorful phrases to describe many who he is paid to protect . That is the part where Kessler fails to meet the Court's standards, because in fact, the two prong test is really a three prong test. The part vincent left out is that the Court, in addition to considering the previous two criteria, must also consider whether a public employee's words and actions interfere with the efficient provision of public services. "The Court has held that 'so long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary to operate efficiently and effectively.' " Does Kessler's speech interfere with the department's ability to effectively protect the public? Absolutely. It is principally on that basis that his speech merits censure. ETA: Quotes were taken from vincent's link ( www.piercedavis.com/?t=40&an=3784&format=xml ) as well as federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/foley-v-town-randolph-77953713

dcnovice -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 4:39:47 PM)
quote: My objection isnt what he said about Pelosi, or about those who lead the country.... my objection is about his use of some colorful phrases to describe many who he is paid to protect. My objection is that he appears to be off his rocker.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 5:21:18 PM)
quote: No, they were addressed to the press, and therefore the public. "While he was in uniform and in the midst of fire suppression activities, he spoke to the press." I meant the issues brought up were in regards to the officials.... While he was in uniform and in the midst of fire suppression activities, he spoke to the press. He was critical about the fire details and commented on what he considered to be inadequate funding and a lack of fire department staffing. The chief lamented that proposed overrides to Proposition 2½ were rejected by the voters. While he bitched, people would be hard pressed, beyond his bosses, for being singled out because they were part of a group. I may be looking at "public concern" ina different way. When I hear that expression, I immediately think of the public's health and welfare. Not political agends. quote: "The Court has held that 'so long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary to operate efficiently and effectively.' " Does Kessler's speak interfere with the department's ability to effectively protect the public? Absolutely. It is principally on that basis that his speech merits censure. And it is exactly that which concerns me. After the videos, how hard would it be for a hungry lawyer aching to make a name for himself to have a field day with every case the "Chief" was involved in related to a "libtard" defendant? Or, for that matter, how hard will it be to prosecute future cases?

Real0ne -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 10:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: My objection isnt what he said about Pelosi, or about those who lead the country.... my objection is about his use of some colorful phrases to describe many who he is paid to protect. My objection is that he appears to be off his rocker. what do you suppose kinksters look like to center bell mainstream? They think kinksters appear to be fucking loons.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/4/2013 10:32:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis "The Court has held that 'so long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary to operate efficiently and effectively.' " Does Kessler's speech interfere with the department's ability to effectively protect the public? Absolutely. It is principally on that basis that his speech merits censure. AGAIN: Sworn to protect "people"? do show us what "people" they are "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! AGAIN: The gubmint has NO as in NO obligation to "protect", which is what citizenship is based upon, hence the gubmint is in default, the contract is broken, hence citizenship is abrogated.

vincentML -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/5/2013 7:11:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Which is just fine Ken..... Both sytems work for our respective Countries. One could argue that with the introduction of the Human Rights Act, we have protections that some of your countrymen view as "communist" Polite, please edify us. Aren't your laws and traditions reviewed by Appelate Courts that uphold or reject precedence in a similar fashion that our SCOTUS reviews Constitutional precedents? I`m unsure what you are asking...... Judges are bound by the law of precedent in the UK, which means they are bound to follow previous court rulings on an issue. Our appeal Courts dont challenge precedent, they challenge whether the lower Courts decision was correct or if there were any procedural errors. A conviction can be heard on appeal if new evidence has since come to light and an appeal can only be made if there is some chance of success. Exactly what I wished to know. TYVM. Then, your judicial process is much the same as ours even without your having a ratified Constitution.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/5/2013 3:43:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Exactly what I wished to know. TYVM. Then, your judicial process is much the same as ours even without your having a ratified Constitution. Most welcome. I have been saying there isnt much difference between the two systems since the day I first started posting on here.

evesgrden -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/5/2013 4:46:15 PM)
FR Free speech means that the government cannot press charges against you for expressing your opinion. It does not mean that you can't be fired for things you say. I have the right to say all kinds of offensive things, and the owners of this website have every right to ban me if they want.. because it's their site. That has nothing to do with free speech. I can shout how (pick a group) are taking up too much space on the planet. I can be disowned by family, fired, banned from websites, but I cannot be arrested for it--that's what free speech gets you. I can say the US govt is stupid, that democracy is doomed to fail, that communism or despotism is far superior.. and I won't get arrested for it. I am entitled to that opinion, but that is not to say that expressing cerain opinions are not without consequences. Paula Deen is a perfect example of free speech.. and its consequences. Food network can fire her for her opinions. Just like Mel Gibson had every right to make his drunken diatribe way back when .. he has the right to be an asshole bigot and not be arrested for it. And other people have the right to have nothing to do with him. Free speech, well it's about defending someone's right to advocate that which you find loathesome and repulsive. That's the test of free speech. That's why the ACLU had to defend the KKK so that they could march.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this free speech? (8/7/2013 4:33:11 AM)
http://www.abreureport.com/2013/08/dhs-prepares-for-confrontation-against.html?m=1 I am of 2 minds of this now. 1- if he did harass the opposition- that does not set well with me. Disent has to be allowed on all sides- not just the side I agree with. 2- LOCALs should handle this- not the fed.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875