Freedom of speech? Not for our police officers

[OKTexas]

Police officers are held to higher standard by their employment contract which have been found to be immune to most 1st amendment challenges.

So where does it say in the Constitution that not all citizens have it's protections? The left claims that illegals have constitutional rights even though they don't live here, but a person born in this country doesn't just because he took a job as a police officer?

The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws restricting speech, that's all. Actual questions of speech are mostly left up to the states and is usually balanced against public safety.

I guess you haven't heard of the incorporation doctrine used by SCOTUS after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So where does it say in the Constitution that not all citizens have it's protections? The left claims that illegals have constitutional rights even though they don't live here, but a person born in this country doesn't just because he took a job as a police officer?

The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws restricting speech, that's all. Actual questions of speech are mostly left up to the states and is usually balanced against public safety.

Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion, so what does that have to do with a school locally funded from teaching religion? The ACLU takes these cases to court for constitutional violations because they don't restrict it to just Congress. The intent was for any part of government violating your rights.

Years ago there was a little town outside of the city, and actually in another county. People from the city began to move into Medina, Ohio in droves and it grew quite quickly. In their school hung a picture of Jesus Christ. When the city people invaded this community, some leftist called the ACLU to have the picture removed. It hung there for generations. The school was forced to take that picture down. Congress had nothing to do with it.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this officers rights were violated.

The separation of church and state is one issue and free speech is another. This is not a first amendment issue. In this case an officer violated his employment contract according to his employer by whatever due process that exists. He has legal standing to sue but the courts usually find for employers.

I see. So what you are saying is that we have constitutional protections of free speech unless it's contracted out?

Exactly, especially If you deal with the public. It has to be that way because you are acting as a representative of a company. This does not end when you clock out either.

BS, even the US military has a right to voice private opinions, they just have to make it clear the opinion is a personal one.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then what you are saying is because a person holds a position in government, he or she must sacrifice their rights to have that position. Again, if that's the case, what happens if Trump says no government employee can vote; it's part of the job? Or if a Democrat gets in and says no government employee can possess a firearm or CCW license because that's just part of the job?

They do not have to sacrifice their rights to have that position, they freely agree to sacrifice their rights while they have that position.

It is a known part of the employment agreement.

As for your examples, I do not think they would stand up in court, but if they did then the government employees would have to decided what they wanted to do.

So in other words, an employer or government can remove your rights simply by putting it in a contract? If so, then it should apply to all rights, and not just freedom of speech.

They are not removing your rights, you are freely setting them aside in exchange for a paycheck.

At my job, if I put something on FB that shed my employer in a bad light I would get fired, and I am ok with that. I also think that government employees should have the same threat, they should not be given special protections.

As for other "rights", if they felt that interfered with their business, they probably would. I am not allowed to bring a firearm on the property of my employer, including in my car. It is a setting aside of my rights I have agreed to as part of my employment.

Understood, but what if your employer contracted so you can't carry a gun anywhere? That's what the police department did to this officer.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Police officers are held to higher standard by their employment contract which have been found to be immune to most 1st amendment challenges.

So where does it say in the Constitution that not all citizens have it's protections? The left claims that illegals have constitutional rights even though they don't live here, but a person born in this country doesn't just because he took a job as a police officer?

Write his department.

 

[H B Lowrie]

From government retaliation... not employer retaliation.

He worked for government. He got paid by the government. He got fired by the government.

In short, he made the PD look like a bunch of racist douche-noodles.

FIRED!

Why is that? Unless you're an extremist, terrorist or anti-semite, everybody hates Farrakhan.

Ah, OK then, well if everyone hates something or someone the cop should as well. And say so, so we all know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From government retaliation... not employer retaliation.

He worked for government. He got paid by the government. He got fired by the government.

In short, he made the PD look like a bunch of racist douche-noodles.

FIRED!

Why is that? Unless you're an extremist, terrorist or anti-semite, everybody hates Farrakhan.

Ah, OK then, well if everyone hates something or someone the cop should as well. And say so, so we all know.

Unless you're a friend on his FB account, nobody knows but them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Understood, but what if your employer contracted so you can't carry a gun anywhere? That's what the police department did to this officer.

No, that is not what the police department did to this officer, they fired him for something he posted on his FB that shown a poor light on the department.

I would get fired if I posted something on FB or anywhere that did that. This cop should have no more protections than I do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Understood, but what if your employer contracted so you can't carry a gun anywhere? That's what the police department did to this officer.

No, that is not what the police department did to this officer, they fired him for something he posted on his FB that shown a poor light on the department.

I would get fired if I posted something on FB or anywhere that did that. This cop should have no more protections than I do.

What he posted had absolutely nothing to do with the police department.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Understood, but what if your employer contracted so you can't carry a gun anywhere? That's what the police department did to this officer.

No, that is not what the police department did to this officer, they fired him for something he posted on his FB that shown a poor light on the department.

I would get fired if I posted something on FB or anywhere that did that. This cop should have no more protections than I do.

What he posted had absolutely nothing to do with the police department.

The police department disagreed. Since they are the one writing the paycheck, it is their call just as it would be with my employer.

I can assure you that if I let it be known on my FB page who I worked for and then made what they thought were inappropriate comments on that page I would be toast. There is a reason that my employer is no where to be found on my FB page and why I have never mentioned them even on time on this forum.

 

[bodecea]

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

From government retaliation... not employer retaliation.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

In short, he made the PD look like a bunch of racist douche-noodles.

FIRED!

More of the same...right Joe?
Nuggas can talk all they shit they want about Whites, even go as far as fabricate lies and embellish truths....BUT as soon as a White points out simple FACTS such as “Blacks tend to be more criminal minded” or “Blacks tend to suck the .gov tit more than other groups” you White hating, truth defying filthy fucks shit your pants. Weird huh?

^conservative republican^

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Understood, but what if your employer contracted so you can't carry a gun anywhere? That's what the police department did to this officer.

No, that is not what the police department did to this officer, they fired him for something he posted on his FB that shown a poor light on the department.

I would get fired if I posted something on FB or anywhere that did that. This cop should have no more protections than I do.

What he posted had absolutely nothing to do with the police department.

The police department disagreed. Since they are the one writing the paycheck, it is their call just as it would be with my employer.

I can assure you that if I let it be known on my FB page who I worked for and then made what they thought were inappropriate comments on that page I would be toast. There is a reason that my employer is no where to be found on my FB page and why I have never mentioned them even on time on this forum.

Are you making assumptions here or do you know something I don't know? They write a paycheck when he is working. They don't pay him 24/7. What he does on his own time, out of uniform, speaking on behalf of himself only, is freedom of speech.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are you making assumptions here or do you know something I don't know? They write a paycheck when he is working. They don't pay him 24/7. What he does on his own time, out of uniform, speaking on behalf of himself only, is freedom of speech.

Perhaps in your line of work that is the case, but in the profession world if what you do on your own time causes harm to your employer then you are toast, that is the way the real world works.

And if you are causing harm or not is 100% up to the people writing the checks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you making assumptions here or do you know something I don't know? They write a paycheck when he is working. They don't pay him 24/7. What he does on his own time, out of uniform, speaking on behalf of himself only, is freedom of speech.

Perhaps in your line of work that is the case, but in the profession world if what you do on your own time causes harm to your employer then you are toast, that is the way the real world works.

And if you are causing harm or not is 100% up to the people writing the checks.

He didn't cause any harm to anybody. If he made a statement such as "We police should off this guy" then that is an inflammatory statement that does reflect on his department. What he said is he's surprised somebody didn't off Louie. HIs department or his line of work was not even hinted at.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are you making assumptions here or do you know something I don't know? They write a paycheck when he is working. They don't pay him 24/7. What he does on his own time, out of uniform, speaking on behalf of himself only, is freedom of speech.

Perhaps in your line of work that is the case, but in the profession world if what you do on your own time causes harm to your employer then you are toast, that is the way the real world works.

And if you are causing harm or not is 100% up to the people writing the checks.

He didn't cause any harm to anybody. If he made a statement such as "We police should off this guy" then that is an inflammatory statement that does reflect on his department. What he said is he's surprised somebody didn't off Louie. HIs department or his line of work was not even hinted at.

Only the one writing the paychecks get to make that choice.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[rightwinger]

The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws restricting speech, that's all. Actual questions of speech are mostly left up to the states and is usually balanced against public safety.

Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion, so what does that have to do with a school locally funded from teaching religion? The ACLU takes these cases to court for constitutional violations because they don't restrict it to just Congress. The intent was for any part of government violating your rights.

Years ago there was a little town outside of the city, and actually in another county. People from the city began to move into Medina, Ohio in droves and it grew quite quickly. In their school hung a picture of Jesus Christ. When the city people invaded this community, some leftist called the ACLU to have the picture removed. It hung there for generations. The school was forced to take that picture down. Congress had nothing to do with it.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this officers rights were violated.

The separation of church and state is one issue and free speech is another. This is not a first amendment issue. In this case an officer violated his employment contract according to his employer by whatever due process that exists. He has legal standing to sue but the courts usually find for employers.

I see. So what you are saying is that we have constitutional protections of free speech unless it's contracted out?

Exactly, especially If you deal with the public. It has to be that way because you are acting as a representative of a company. This does not end when you clock out either.

BS, even the US military has a right to voice private opinions, they just have to make it clear the opinion is a personal one.

.

No they don’t

If they voice personal opinions that are racist, unamerican or communist they will be discharged

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion, so what does that have to do with a school locally funded from teaching religion? The ACLU takes these cases to court for constitutional violations because they don't restrict it to just Congress. The intent was for any part of government violating your rights.

Years ago there was a little town outside of the city, and actually in another county. People from the city began to move into Medina, Ohio in droves and it grew quite quickly. In their school hung a picture of Jesus Christ. When the city people invaded this community, some leftist called the ACLU to have the picture removed. It hung there for generations. The school was forced to take that picture down. Congress had nothing to do with it.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this officers rights were violated.

The separation of church and state is one issue and free speech is another. This is not a first amendment issue. In this case an officer violated his employment contract according to his employer by whatever due process that exists. He has legal standing to sue but the courts usually find for employers.

I see. So what you are saying is that we have constitutional protections of free speech unless it's contracted out?

Exactly, especially If you deal with the public. It has to be that way because you are acting as a representative of a company. This does not end when you clock out either.

BS, even the US military has a right to voice private opinions, they just have to make it clear the opinion is a personal one.

.

No they don’t

If they voice personal opinions that are racist, unamerican or communist they will be discharged

And his comment were none of these things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you making assumptions here or do you know something I don't know? They write a paycheck when he is working. They don't pay him 24/7. What he does on his own time, out of uniform, speaking on behalf of himself only, is freedom of speech.

Perhaps in your line of work that is the case, but in the profession world if what you do on your own time causes harm to your employer then you are toast, that is the way the real world works.

And if you are causing harm or not is 100% up to the people writing the checks.

He didn't cause any harm to anybody. If he made a statement such as "We police should off this guy" then that is an inflammatory statement that does reflect on his department. What he said is he's surprised somebody didn't off Louie. HIs department or his line of work was not even hinted at.

Only the one writing the paychecks get to make that choice.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So what if he said Hillary is a moron, should they be able to fire him for that as well?

 

[OKTexas]

Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion, so what does that have to do with a school locally funded from teaching religion? The ACLU takes these cases to court for constitutional violations because they don't restrict it to just Congress. The intent was for any part of government violating your rights.

Years ago there was a little town outside of the city, and actually in another county. People from the city began to move into Medina, Ohio in droves and it grew quite quickly. In their school hung a picture of Jesus Christ. When the city people invaded this community, some leftist called the ACLU to have the picture removed. It hung there for generations. The school was forced to take that picture down. Congress had nothing to do with it.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this officers rights were violated.

The separation of church and state is one issue and free speech is another. This is not a first amendment issue. In this case an officer violated his employment contract according to his employer by whatever due process that exists. He has legal standing to sue but the courts usually find for employers.

I see. So what you are saying is that we have constitutional protections of free speech unless it's contracted out?

Exactly, especially If you deal with the public. It has to be that way because you are acting as a representative of a company. This does not end when you clock out either.

BS, even the US military has a right to voice private opinions, they just have to make it clear the opinion is a personal one.

.

No they don’t

If they voice personal opinions that are racist, unamerican or communist they will be discharged

I don't see how any of that applies to this thread. I'm amazed the race baiters on both sides are sill breathing. Feel free to point out how that is remotely racist. There was nothing racist about the opinion the officer expressed either.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

So in other words, an employer or government can remove your rights simply by putting it in a contract?

Laughable. Do you ever get off that victim shtick?

That ex-police officer always had that right to free speech. It wasn't taken away from him. That's why he not in jail. Just his employer thought his exercise of that right is irreconcilable with his continued employment, probably because the officer violated a promise to exercise restraint in public statements he made while signing his employment contract, and thus the employer chose to terminate the contract.

Now stop the whining already. It's unbecoming.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So what if he said Hillary is a moron, should they be able to fire him for that as well?

Unless you have a contract that says otherwise or maybe union protection, you can be fired for any damn thing your employer wishes to fire you for, with the exception of a half a dozen protected classes (i.e. race, sex, age).

You do not have a right to a job, you can be fired for being red headed if they wish.