You can be first, take a shot at it. Looks like you're taking a pass though and should have just said nothing.
Calling out Hypocrites
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
Regist
A solid GOP family. Team Trump database described them as such in 2016. The ultimate never Trumper.
Police shoot, kill person near RNC perimeter in Milwaukee
Police shot and killed a person outside the the Republican National Convention security perimeter on Tuesday afternoon, sources confirmed to Fox News.
Police shoot, kill person near RNC perimeter in Milwaukee: sources
Shooting happened just outside Republican National Convention security perimeter, sources say
I know I'm going to be in the minority here and also expect to get some flack but...
I believe these people have every right to say what they want - no matter how disgusting most people feel the comments are. The consequences, if any, that come from those comments, like losing your job, etc. I'm more ambivalent about. Each case is an individual one.
The point is the 1st Amendment applies to EVERYONE. Even the speech and speakers we don't like. We have majority rule in this country but what makes it the greatest is the rights of the minority must also be protected. The approach most are taking on here is really no different than the approach taken on the View, major media outlets, social media platforms, etc. when it comes to Trump's posts and tweets. Both want censorship and repercussion for those who say the things that offend us.
It can't be that way. What's good for thee HAS to be good for me, too. That's what freedom of speech means.
Fire away...
I believe these people have every right to say what they want - no matter how disgusting most people feel the comments are. The consequences, if any, that come from those comments, like losing your job, etc. I'm more ambivalent about. Each case is an individual one.
The point is the 1st Amendment applies to EVERYONE. Even the speech and speakers we don't like. We have majority rule in this country but what makes it the greatest is the rights of the minority must also be protected. The approach most are taking on here is really no different than the approach taken on the View, major media outlets, social media platforms, etc. when it comes to Trump's posts and tweets. Both want censorship and repercussion for those who say the things that offend us.
It can't be that way. What's good for thee HAS to be good for me, too. That's what freedom of speech means.
Fire away...
Everyone has the right to free speech but the marketplace of ideas controls the public’s actions.
Your take justifies me being able to yell racial slurs in the office and the management should just let me speak.
Some of these people are teachers or public servants. Do you want them teaching your kids? One was a cop. They are briefed on using Social Media responsibly. If a Democrat President got shot at I would be pissed. But I'm not mentally ill either.
I would fire him. I could never trust him to do his job objectively again.
Yes. Exactly. They should let you speak because that is your right.
But again, there are consequences sometimes. I'm not opposed to your bosses firing you either, if they so choose. As you said, it is the marketplace that determines actions. Where I am opposed, generally, is when the GOVERNMENT gets involved.
Valid point.
Would you want a teacher fired who tried to proselytize to your child during class after catching them doing something having sex behind the stage - hetero or homo? Would you want a teacher fired who claimed on Snapchat Biden should be removed for having sex with his daughter? Would you want a cop fired who got on X and stated Michelle Obama is really a drag queen?
Could you trust these people to do their job objectively?
If the answer is yes, is it because YOU claim those same beliefs? Or would it be no because they are "breaking societal norms"?
That's why the 1st Amendment and its application is such an important right we ALL must have.
Trump got shot at. A supporter got killed. The cop posted aim better. You want him supporting the Secret Service the next time Trump visits Dallas?
As far as teachers go if you don't understand the damage many of these far left activist have done to the education system I'm not sure what else to tell you. Personally I don't want them anywhere near our children.
Yes I do.
I have, as I know you have, had to follow orders and do a job that we were totally against doing. But we did it because that's what was expected; we did it because if for nothing else we were protecting the person beside us and/or under our watch.
A person's actions or inactions should be what gets him canned. Not his beliefs. The free market can get away with firing people because there are always other options for everyone involved. The government doesn't get that protection, nor should it ever.
I see and completely understand your point about teachers and the far left. Personally, I wouldn't care if my kid's first grade teacher was a die hard liberal. If he can teach my child to read and to love reading, so be it. That's his job. It's my job to "put on the whole armor" against the evils of this world and to teach and give my child the same protection. A child or anyone who is kept isolated from the world has no armor nor need of any and thus would be overwhelmed when the world comes charging in at some point.
Where I'm going to disagree with you is that you have by implication placed those teachers and officers above yourself in the raising of your children. If a lefty teacher or cop can sway your child, then you have done a bad job of teaching your child YOUR values. That's why there's choice now in where you send your children to school - its nothing more than the application of the 1st amendment.
Free market? They are public servants. Theirs a standard of conduct. Retire or get a different career. Stop defending these nutjobs. They would absolutely destroy anyone who disagrees with their warped vision of the Socialist Utopia they want. So if I wasn't perfectly clear about how I feel about them I apologize. Please allow me to be perfectly clear.
"Fvck them Commies"!!!!
Or... to put it more personally...
Suppose someone from the Biden administration saw all the posts you've made about him.
You then receive a "strongly worded letter" from the government informing you that all of your government benefits, everything you've worked for, have been, effective immediately, forever cut. No VA, no Social Security, no pension, nothing. Oh yeah, forgot to mention to expect an audit of your finances each year for the rest of your life.
Would you say, "Oh well, I had that coming"? Or would you say, "They can't do that! For simply posting my beliefs and some memes!"?
My guess is it would be the latter - as it would be for most people who aren't insane.
Yet, you're ok with it when it happens to someone else whose beliefs you don't happen to share.
See the problem with that...
Suppose someone from the Biden administration saw all the posts you've made about him.
You then receive a "strongly worded letter" from the government informing you that all of your government benefits, everything you've worked for, have been, effective immediately, forever cut. No VA, no Social Security, no pension, nothing. Oh yeah, forgot to mention to expect an audit of your finances each year for the rest of your life.
Would you say, "Oh well, I had that coming"? Or would you say, "They can't do that! For simply posting my beliefs and some memes!"?
My guess is it would be the latter - as it would be for most people who aren't insane.
Yet, you're ok with it when it happens to someone else whose beliefs you don't happen to share.
See the problem with that...
Agreed. I’ve always felt if you know your teachers political beliefs, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, then they have failed you. Their job is to teach the required curriculum and only that.
I see your point. Emotionally, I agree with you. The Commie sickos would do all that and likely more if given the chance.
But, the 1st amendment "Trumps" what you and I agree with. The Commies have a right to express their warped beliefs the same as we do ours. That's what makes this country so great - ideas get expressed into the marketplace where they can be built and/or destroyed based on their merits.
I see your point and it does have some merit if just looking at it superficially.
But, when one looks at it more deeply, one sees is this type of thinking is exactly what was happening during Covid. Teachers across America tried to teach the required curriculum across the internet but largely failed as the results clearly showed.
Why?
Because it was the student-teacher relationship that was lacking. The bond between humans that causes a desire to learn. A person who teaches not only has to know the subject matter, he also has to know himself, his students, and teach all three. Because if you know all three equally well, you'll rarely lose a student and will inspire the next generation to greatness.
Sadly, rarely is this happening now in most schools in America. But, we're getting off the point of the 1st Amendment...
Right. That is the way it should be and what the Constitution says. The government can't restrict free speech, but as a private employer, I can terminate an employee for saying something I don't approve of.
The issue then becomes some are school teachers (public schools, I am assuming), so they are employed by the local governments. Due to the nature of services schools provide, the Bill of Rights are severely limited in schools such as the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. I can understand why a local government would not want its schoolteachers openly cheering for murder. The division that can cause in the workplace, especially a workplace whose job is to educate children and keep them safe, can interfere with the goals of the school.
For example, nobody complains when a kid gets expelled for making racial slurs in school. This is no different. The First Amendment often takes a back seat in schools.
But that scenario has nothing to do with employment. The government can't arbitrarily take people's benefits based on viewpoint discrimination. I discussed the First Amendment in schools already, now on to law enforcement. We can't have police officers openly cheering for murder, particularly the murder of someone they could be assigned to protect. That promotes lawlessness and should be quelched.
No different than the officer who got fired for posting that hilarious George Floyd Valentine's Day card "You take my breath away" on his social media. Can't openly support murder as a law enforcement officer.
Then if I understand you correctly, you would have agreed with the likes of Tipper Gore back in the 80s and would have held musicians like Dee Snider, Ozzy, and Judas Priest responsible for the suicides of young teens because of the lyrics. Is that accurate?
It does have to do with employment as the benefits were part of the employment's package deal, i.e. do that and receive this.
Oh, the government can do it. Would it stand up in court? Not likely (hopefully). But, that wouldn't stop them from trying.
I disagree with you on both of your scenarios - simply based on timing.
For example, an officer today who gets on social media and claims Hinkley should have used a bigger gun. Would he be fired for that statement today? No... a reprimand maybe, but not fired.
Would the second (Floyd) officer be fired today? Yes, likely so. But not because of the timing or even the content, but rather a PD that doesn't want to go through a public relations scandal. As proof, suppose instead of Floyd it was Emmitt Till on that card. Would the results be the same even though the events in question are almost 70 years apart?
Yes.
Good point.
This is getting into the weeds a bit. Into issues of prior restraint. Of the government restricting people from speaking their views based not just on what they say but WHO they are and represent.
A person doesn't give up his first amendment rights when one takes certain jobs. Of course, their are limitations that the courts have determined could apply. But, political viewpoints and speech have always been given the greatest leeway - even the most controversial ones.
However, if a company/business feels that the speech by one of its employees or executives damages the ability for the company/business to make profits for its shareholders or other employees, then they have the right to let that person go. You have the right to claim to be a Republican-Conservative, or a Democrat-Liberal, or an atheist, or a Christian, etc, and cannot be terminated for that, but its your words that could have consequences, not your beliefs.
I believe their argument is on the lines of the "clear and present danger" test. But the phrase "threat to democracy" is a bit stretching to fit that definition. Just my opinion, they would stand a better argument using the "bullseye" comment, but although it was not tasteful speech, it still doesn't fit the clear and present danger definition.
There's a reason the Founding Fathers put Free Speech/Press/Assembly/Religion as the FIRST Amendment.......because they saw it as the most important right to protect from the government.
I agree, however they're (Leftists) the ones calling for everyone else to "tone down" the incendiary rhetoric while they in fact are steady paving the road to the conflagration!
Last edited:
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
www.uscourts.gov
Freedom of speech protects the ability to voice our beliefs, views and ideas without the government preventing us from speaking or punishing us for what we say. It is not an unlimited right protecting the ability to say anything, anywhere, any time. It does not apply to private companies or workplaces.
Is hate speech covered? To a certain extent yes.
www.freedomforum.org
The First Amendment protects the right to peacefully assemble in protest. But like all First Amendment freedoms, this right is not unlimited.
Here's everything you need to know about what is — and isn't — protected when it comes to presidential convention protests.
www.freedomforum.org
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). - To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). - To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). - To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). - Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). - Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.
Freedom of speech protects the ability to voice our beliefs, views and ideas without the government preventing us from speaking or punishing us for what we say. It is not an unlimited right protecting the ability to say anything, anywhere, any time. It does not apply to private companies or workplaces.
Is hate speech covered? To a certain extent yes.
Is Hate Speech Illegal?
Is hate speech illegal? We explore one of the most common misconceptions about the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
www.freedomforum.org
Here's everything you need to know about what is — and isn't — protected when it comes to presidential convention protests.
Presidential Convention Protests: First Amendment Protections, Limits
Presidential nominating conventions draw crowds – and may draw protests. What are the limits on presidential convention protests?
www.freedomforum.org
Isn't it interesting how these "free speech" arguments from the Left don't get practiced when it comes to Christians wishing to freely express their Faith inside government schools? 🤔 Then we get the specious "separation of Church & State" arguments from these charlatans when in fact there is no such provision expressly delineated in the Constitution's free speech clause of the 1st amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution!
*
"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
law.stanford.edu
excerpt
the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture, while Congress is prohibited from enacting a state religion, the founding document says nothing about banishing religion from the public square.
*
"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Constitutional Expert On ‘Separation Of Church And State’: Framers Said Nothing Wrong With Religion In Culture | Stanford Law School
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having reli
law.stanford.edu
excerpt
the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture, while Congress is prohibited from enacting a state religion, the founding document says nothing about banishing religion from the public square.
Last edited:
I'm retired and you have no idea who I am. Because I don't put personal information on here. So I can say whatever the fvck I want. More importantly I'm not calling for the death of any politician. Matter of fact I've done the opposite. So you seem to be missing the point. If you are Cop or Teacher saying that after you have signed an acknowledge form that you can't say shit like. Then the Superintendent, Chief of Police, or Sheriff has the right to fire you if they choose.
I don't know anything about the involvement of Tipper Gore, Snider, Ozzy, or Juda Priest in teens' suicides from 4 decades ago. Sorry.
You are trying too hard.
Actually until Obama was elected you couldn't join the military if you had every been affiliated with a Communist Organization. You also can't yell fire crowded theater or threaten to harm someone. So nice attempt to defend treasonous punks but you stop playing dumb now.
Timing shouldn't have anything to do with it in this case. If an officer openly cheers for murder or any other serious crime, I can guarantee s/he will have violated their terms of employment. That is not viewpoint discrimination, which the government is prohibiting from doing, it is the subject that is the problem.
Whether a law enforcement agency would take action against the officer or not is not my focus. I am simply stating that officers can be fired for openly cheering or advocating serious crimes. This has been tested through the Courts. Repeatedly.
It's the wishing of someone dead. Not the fact he doesn't like a certain candidates political views.
That is wrong. You don't have to like it or agree with that principle, but the Courts are clear in this regard. And this has nothing to do with the clear and present danger doctrine.
The only thing that varies is the nature of the restriction(s) imposed by a government employer.
Exactly. The former is subject matter discrimination, which is acceptable in many circumstances. The latter is viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited.
