Welcome to Thunderdome

I guess we found out who is watching the Watchmen...

Site that archives FB posts by current and former cops.

This has, rightly, led to cops in Phily and St. Louis being suspended or simply having their cases ignored by the DA.

I like Phily's approach to this: Cops are taken off the street and their posts reviewed post by post.

An independent law firm will assist with the ongoing investigation, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross said Wednesday at a press conference. The department plans to review each post to see if the speech is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, he added.
"If the speech is determined to be protected, no further action will be taken," Ross said. "An example would be an opinion on a matter of public concern that may be unpopular ... but does not include threats of violence or pejorative language against any protected class."

If you review some of the posts, this makes sense. Some of the posts are just political, some are obvious jokes, some are locker room types of comments, and some are blatantly bigoted.

This will all inevitably lead to departments banning cops from social media for fear that any case they're involved in will get tossed.

Cop gets mad at McDonalds because an employee bit into his sandwich before the cop ate it.

Actually, the cop took a bite, stored the sandwich in a fridge, heated it up hours later, and had forgotten he was the one who bit into it.

How did that even become a news story?

Back to the issue at hand, this is going to become a huge free speech fight. Some cops are being fired, among other civil servants, for expressing their own opinions and beliefs. It might be good PR to fire them, but many lawyers think it violates their constitutional rights.

Should get interesting. I'm guessing this one will eventually get to SCOTUS.

Leisher wrote: How did that even become a news story?

It started out as a "McDonalds employee treating cop badly story," and was update hours later when the cop realized it was just himself.

Leisher wrote: Should get interesting. I'm guessing this one will eventually get to SCOTUS.

Maybe. People certainly have the right to say what they want. And most employers, varying by state and union, etc, have the right to fire people for most any non-protected reason.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Should get interesting. I'm guessing this one will eventually get to SCOTUS.

Maybe. People certainly have the right to say what they want. And most employers, varying by state and union, etc, have the right to fire people for most any non-protected reason.

Exactly. The problem for these employers is they have publicly stated it was due to the FB posts or whatever.

Leisher wrote: The problem for these employers i

What's the problem?
Per the original

"If the speech is determined to be protected, no further action will be taken," Ross said. "An example would be an opinion on a matter of public concern that may be unpopular ... but does not include threats of violence or pejorative language against any protected class."

Most cops and fireman have that "thin blue line" crap right up there in their profile pics. Makes it look like they represent the entire force. Can't fly the flag and also say you hate the n-words all.on the same page.

TheCatt wrote: but does not include threats of violence or pejorative language against any protected class.

I get the threats of violence, but they lose me at pejorative language. That seems pretty subjective, and thus, that's where your lawsuits are going to be created.

Is someone getting fired for complaining about a race/religion's culture? Why can't that be discussed? We have to pretend every culture is perfect?

Is someone using a racial slur? Shitty, but is it grounds for termination? Especially depending on context. Seems like something SCOTUS will need to judge. This one could get pretty fascinating all by itself. "White cop fired for saying "nigger", but his black co-workers use the word daily and are still employed." I have listened to a black cop complain about "niggers" in real life. The ridiculously important distinction there is he wasn't talking about black people. He was talking about the same segment of people, Chris Rock discussed in his famous stand up bit on "niggers".

Take that last paragraph, should I be fired for using a racial term in the context of a discussion on free speech?

Also, when does reality slip into the discussion? If cops are discussing domestic abuse calls and generalizing the look of the typical abuser, is that racist? What if the statistics back up their description? The point is, what if there's a white neighborhood that's pretty trashy. Some black cops are talking about looking different down there and one says, "If your neck isn't red, they're going to be hostile." Should that person be fired? What if another added, "crazy ass crackers" to lighten the mood?

It's honestly a fascinating discussion, and I'm not sure there's any easy answer.

GORDON wrote: Most cops and fireman have that "thin blue line" crap right up there in their profile pics.

FYI, Firemen have nothing to do with the "thin blue line".

Also, why is pride in a job crap? I'm just curious if the "Off duty Marines are badasses" thread is "crap" or if I should stop being a proud veteran because that's "crap"? Or are you specifically talking about the "us against the world" sort of attitude, in which case, yes that's crap, but of all the cops and their families I know exactly zero have that in their profile pics.

WOW you are touchy about that subject.

I thought it was a polite and legit question.

Guess I was wrong.

I slept like crap last night so I can't debate anything worth a damn today.

Leisher wrote: I thought it was a polite and legit question.

Guess I was wrong.

Maybe it was. I'm also suffering from 5k miles of travel in 9 days.

Great, we're all on our monthlies.

Bitches

When you guys are done being bitches, go back to the topic at hand. I think it's genuinely a fascinating first amendment discussion. It also extends far beyond law enforcement and other civil servants. Remember, social media searches are now a legit thing in the employment screening process.

When Gordon applies to be a fry cook at McDonald's and they reject him because of his "It's what America wants" comment at the end of some entertainment article about the A-Team being recast with BA Barracus being portrayed by a [insert most ridiculous casting choice possible here], will he have recourse?

If the line was just inciting violence, there wouldn't be an issue IMHO. However, once you say "pejorative language" now you open it up to the reader's opinion, which means that person is now in charge of your freedom of speech.

Once you allow that, you're telling HR people around the country to go ahead and apply their own politics to choosing candidates. Now some woman who posted "Trump is an idiot, but isn't all bad." has zero shot of getting that dream job or some dude who posted "Am I seriously 'full of hate' just because I don't want a person born biologically male sharing the same bathroom as my 9 year old girl?" can't find employment anywhere, except for a bakery in Colorado...

I truly hope this reaches SCOTUS because I think social media and how we're using it has created new issues for the first amendment that need to be clarified.

In related news:
Here's a story about a guy who had to give up his ownership stake in a restaurant because of his racist FB posts.

The same type of story because it's about a person's freedom of speech versus their job, but different because he's the owner and this is more about PR than some authority removing his 1st amendment right.

Leisher wrote: Once you allow that, you're telling HR people around the country to go ahead and apply their own politics to choosing candidates. Now some woman who posted "Trump is an idiot, but isn't all bad." has zero shot of getting that dream job or some dude who posted "Am I seriously 'full of hate' just because I don't want a person born biologically male sharing the same bathroom as my 9 year old girl?" can't find employment anywhere, except for a bakery in Colorado...

We already allow all of that.

Leisher wrote: When Gordon applies to be a fry cook at McDonald's and they reject him because of his "It's what America wants" comment at the end of some entertainment article about the A-Team being recast with BA Barracus being portrayed by a [insert most ridiculous casting choice possible here], will he have recourse?

Yes, post it on twitter. And if people agree, they shame the business. Otherwise, oh well.

Leisher wrote: I truly hope this reaches SCOTUS because I think social media and how we're using it has created new issues for the first amendment that need to be clarified.

The basics are: You can say what you want (mostly). And people can fire/not hire you for that.

Leisher wrote: The same type of story because it's about a person's freedom of speech versus their job, but different because he's the owner and this is more about PR than some authority removing his 1st amendment right.

He ran a business, people chose what business to give $$$ to.

Overall, I see no issues.

TheCatt wrote: We already allow all of that.

Just quoting the first one because the other two you quoted and made comments on are all the same.

That's my point, it goes on, but should it be allowed? That's why these lawsuits are going to get interesting. Just because we've all ignored it forever doesn't mean it's ok. After all, it is discrimination.

TheCatt wrote: He ran a business, people chose what business to give $$$ to.

Like I said, kinda related, but completely different. And yeah, I have no issue with that one.

Leisher wrote: That's my point, it goes on, but should it be allowed? That's why these lawsuits are going to get interesting. Just because we've all ignored it forever doesn't mean it's ok. After all, it is discrimination.

The speech is only protected to the extend that you can say what you want. It's not protected against other people's opinions of it, barring state/contract/etc law. Many states are "at will" states, so people can hire/fire you for pretty much any reason.

Since we're free speeching here, Man was arrested over FB page that parodied local police department. He was acquitted of that charge, but is now countersuing.

A federal appeals court on Monday said an Ohio man who was acquitted of a felony after creating a parody Facebook page that mocked a suburban Cleveland police department can sue the city and two police officers over his arrest.

In a 3-0 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Anthony Novak can pursue several claims over his March 2016 posting of what he admitted was an “insulting parody” of the Parma police department’s Facebook page.

Novak had sued for damages after being acquitted in August 2016 of disrupting police services over his parody page, which was taken down after about 12 hours.

The page included several posts, including for a food drive to help teenagers obtain abortions, a recruitment ad “strongly encouraging minorities to not apply,” and a “pedophile reform event” encouraging attendees to obtain honorary police officer status and “have fun out there!”