-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/are_police_officers_comments_about_obama_on_private_my_space_pages_protecte -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
For instance, hanging Sarah Palin in effigy, is a free expression of artistic rights.
For instance, hanging Barrack Obama in effigy, is a hate crime.
People, we have run off the tracks, there's something wrong here.
Now, the question is, what's going to happen to the folks who partake in those tactics in terms of their professional lives? That's what the story is really about, and it's a legitimate question/concern. Just consider law enforcement officers, and go back to the O.J. case -- and I grant you that we have no idea what their comments were in the above story, so what follows only holds true if the comments were racially derogatory. Do you think maybe police officers who publicly put negative comments toward African Americans out in the public on the Internet might get torn apart in criminal court cases, as Mark Furhman was? And therefore hurt their departments reputation, and the ability to prosecute criminals who happen to be African American? Sure seems likely to me --
So what are police departments to do? Allow this type of behavior by their officers even while they're off duty with the knowledge that future criminal cases could be compromised by their off duty actions, or uphold certain standards of conduct (that officers agree to when they sign on) to ensure the integrity of the law enforcement process?
protected.[/quote]
Do you approve of "hate crime" laws? That is thought crime, whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought. I don't think the First Amendment has a damn thing to do with destroying our flag or simulating the torture and death of a political opponent. Both are acts of intimidation, designed to suppress the free speech of others who disagree with the ideology of the perpetrator. They are, in fact, the opposite of free speech.
[/quote]
I think the officer is entitled to Due Process, starting with probable cause that a crime has been committed, or that your claim of compromising future cases can be proved to be true.
Acting out of fear that someone might not like it is the essence of leftie tyranny. The law should be about facts, not feelings.
I'll go backwards in terms of responding to some of what you wrote. First off, there's no need for "due process" in my opinion of the officers; as I wrote, I think whatever they wrote on the Web is freedom of speech, so there's no legal process to consider. What I raised was the issue of how employers (in this case, the police department/legal infrastructure) should react -- nothing at all to with the legality of the act. Glad you were able to throw in one of your "leftie tyranny" statements, though I must admit I wished it had been one of your "leftie liar" comments.
And also -- [quote]whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought[/quote] -- sorry, flag burning isn't an "actual crime" at all.
Officers under internal investigation ARE given due process rights under the Garrity Act.
The use of a racial slur isn't a crime (if there was one used in this case) but an administrative violation of departmental rules of conduct.
Under Garrity, any statement an officer makes in an internal investigation can't be used against him criminally anyway. Why? Because the officer is compelled to make that statement or be fired. And no statement made under compulsion is criminally admissible.
[quote] For the record, I think both flag burning and what the officers said above should be allowed under the first amendment (as should burning in effigy, on either side). Not a fan of any of the tactics, but I believe they should be protected.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Of course it is; destruction of property and destruction of a national symbol. What "free speech" purpose is being served by burning our national flag?
If you think disagreement is "hostility", you are sadly mistaken.
The probable cause and due process are appropriate in this case, since the officer is being denied his free speech rights, and faces actual losses as a result of his exercising his free speech rights in private.
What is it that the officers said that you think should be protected?
Probable cause isn't necessary in an internal (administrative) investigation. Only in criminal cases. And like I explained above, Garrity covers due process under the Police Officer's Bill of Rights unless the case turns criminal, and then Miranda applies.
So it depends of the intention of the match striker.
So it depends of the intention of the match striker.[/quote]
Wrong! Burning a worn out or damaged flag is allowed, but not a perfectly good one, or one which the burner has vandalized previously.
You lie again.
Hanging somebody in effigy, to be a crime there would have to be something more to show a real threat. If you hang somebody in effigy on their own lawn, probably a threat. If it is done in West Hollywood, probably not a threat.
The actions of these police officers, certainly not a crime. However, there is a code of conduct they agreed to. How can minority members of the public have any confidence in these officers willingness to protect them? This goes to their fitness to be a police officer. It these comments were racial than I think adminstrative actions, possibly up to firing are appropriate.
Once again, if there is no evidence of any diminshed protection from these officers, this is just about feelings, not facts.
Hanging someone in effigy is at least a hate crime, and if we allow some, why not all?
I probably agree with whatever racial slurs the officers say but I find better way of saying it.
You will not be able to do and say the same things about Obama that the left did and said against George Bush.
The "thought police " will be up your ass worse than a bad case of hemorrhoids.
Because they are critical of Barack Obama, the black community cannot count on these officers to protect them? That's assinine.
That's like saying the white community cannot count on any officer who is critical of Bush.
You're kidding right?
The comments don't necessarily have to be racist to be investigated. Any complaint to Internal Affairs requires an investigation. Unfortunately this type of complaint makes news.
Generally IA complaints are confidential pending the outcome. Someone leaked this.
Political agenda? maybe.
That's quite the assumption. Because they were deregetory they must be racist? Maybe they called him a baby killer. Maybe they called him a filthy socialist. Or a racist himself.
Just because they are investigated, doesn't mean there will be punishment.
You hear "criticized Barack Obama" and assume it was racist. Something wrong with your brain.
What?.. "Still" can't use the "N" word if you're white?
What the hell do we have to do in order to have the same freedom of speach that is extended to African Americans?
I thought whites were no longer considered "racist" prone, given the benefit of the doubt now?????
Hey!
I voted for BO to get this stuff off my back. Whaa Happen??
He said that could be it, but that it could also be nothing.
He also said that IA investigations are confidential, but this one got leaked...maybe because of politics.
If I recall correctly, there's a pretty decent sized corpus of law out there on this topic. Anyone that would like to find out what the answer is - as opposed to make asinine comparisons to hate crime laws - could do so.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction...
Have a great weekend folks, and keep up the good work here.
Hal
Why would you possibly put your job in jeopardy by posting anything out there for the whole world to see (not a judgment on what these officers did or didn't do, just a general thought about maintaining a little discretion).
Oh, the oppression!
I think it should be illegal to say stuff like,
"You'd have to be a complete f**king moron to believe that the world was made in seven days,"
or
"Whoever thinks he has spoken to 'God' is either lying or schizophrenic,"
or
"The world would be better off without Judeo-Christian religions,"
or
"Whoever wishes to convert others to their wackjob Fundamentalist religion is only doing so to secure themselves a place in an unprovable supermagicland after they die. These people are ultimately unenlightened and selfish."
or
"To deny Evolution is to deny that you have thumbs."
I agree. That's why it should be illegal. When I hear egghead liberals call me dumb n' shit I just wanna blow their faggy bigot heads off!
I DO cling to my guns and religion! Those are the two things that have made America so great!
I should now ban you on your own principle, censoring "hate speech" and all. Be careful what you wish for.
When you hold the power of life and death in your hands, their is no place for bigotry in your heart.
PLEASE!
"silly" is how you would characterize racially offensive comments? the point isn't about what they said, but rather that you would deem the act as "silly" - you're a tool, rob.
Learn to read, so that you look a bit less like a tool yourself.
I should now ban you on your own principle, censoring "hate speech" and all. Be careful what you wish for.
[/quote]
likwadsow,
I was showing rhetorical examples. Did I not clearly state that I oppose such hateful comments?