Judge Says City Wrongly Fired Workers for Racism New York

[Bill Blake]

City Wrongly Fired Workers for Racism at Parade, Judge Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 2:25 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- The city violated the First Amendment rights of two firefighters and a police officer when it fired them for riding on a parade float in blackface in 1998, a judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge John E. Sprizzo said the government ``may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because a segment of society finds it offensive.''

He rejected statements by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani that the firings stemmed from concerns over civil unrest, saying he concluded that the ``true motivation'' was Giuliani's belief that the float was a ``disgusting display of racism.''

Kate O'Brien Ahlers, a spokeswoman for the city law office, said, ``We will definitely be appealing this.''

Those on the Labor Day float threw watermelon and fried chicken to paradegoers, the city contended. They also made it appear as if one of the men in blackface was being dragged -- not long after the highly publicized case of a black man in Texas who was dragged to his death from a pickup truck, city officials said.

The white employees -- firefighters Jonathan Walters and Robert Steiner and police officer Joseph Locurto -- sued the city to get their jobs back.

They testified that they had no racist intent and that their actions were protected by the First Amendment because the float, titled ``Black to the Future: 2098,'' was a parody and should be protected by the First Amendment. They also argued they were poking fun at racist views in the predominantly white Queens neighborhood.

Sprizzo ruled after hearing evidence earlier this year, including testimony from Giuliani, who said he urged the firing of the three employees because he feared the controversy might lead to race riots.

At a hearing earlier this year, Sprizzo had cautioned a city lawyer that the mayor needed actual evidence the racism would cause disruption -- not just a belief.

``It's so easy to slip into a kind of political correctness that sooner or later will be the end of the First Amendment,'' the judge said at the time.

Chris Dunn, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling ``sends a message that city employees can't be scapegoated to serve a mayor's political agenda and that's exactly what happened here.''

Dunn, who represents Locurto, said he had argued from the start that Giuliani ordered the firing of Locurto, ``not out of a concern for any disruption but to atone for the mayor's own racial insensitivity.''

Giuliani was listed as a defendant in the case. A call requesting comment was not immediately returned by his spokeswoman.

Michael N. Block, a lawyer for Walters, said he and his client were ``very pleased.'' Robert Didio, a lawyer for Steiner, said he was ``absolutely thrilled.

[Moksha]

What do you think about this one Jamie?

[Bill Blake]

It’s a hard one for me because I don’t think Im taking EVERYTHING into consideration….but

First…I don’t buy the ‘they were just making fun of the racist mood of the neighborhood thing’.

Dressing up in black face, throwing out watermelons and fried chicken to the crowd and pretending you are being dragged behind a float seems like a far greater insult to blacks than the racist mood of the area.

Would anyone seeing the antics on that float IN ANY WAY take away the idea that it was a satire on racism? I think not.

Second the first amendment claims congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech.

It does not however regulated the hire and fire policies of executive agencies.

Is firing someone for expressing racist attitudes a violation of their first amendment rights?

The only problem is that agencies that fired these men were government agencies.

But in reality the answer to the above question is NO. Why? Because NO ONE has a right to a job.

If they had been arrested, or fined, criminal or civil action taken against them, then yes it would clearly be a violation of their rights but that didn’t happen. They got fired. If it had been a ‘private’ business they would not have a leg to stand on.

Also sexual harassment charges have clearly set a precedence in government agencies that some speech is not acceptable within the work place and there is no claim that ‘hey bitch lets **** on our lunch hour’ would be something someone could not get fired for.

As civil servants in their community as firemen and police officers on that float aren’t they commiting a similar offensive act?

Are you not FREE to say ‘hey bitch lets **** on our lunch hour’ yet also eligible for being terminated?

It seems so. Unless Im am overlooking some more complex aspect I have not considered yet, even in a government agency firing them does not appear to be a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of speech for making racial slurs………arresting them would.

[Moksha]

The sexual harassment analogy is a bit off. . .as they were off duty. . .thus, not in "the workplace."

[The Buddy Love Show]

i thought it was wrong to fire them
1. free speech rights were not respected
2. they were off duty
3. ummm racists in the fire department and police department of NYC "i'M SHOCKED" - Claude Raines

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Orion:
The sexual harassment analogy is a bit off. . .as they were off duty. . .thus, not in "the workplace." It was my understanding that the reason they were on the float was because they were firemen and police?

Both are pretty much '24' hour jobs?

Even if they were not on duty, they were in front of everyone that they are civil servants for...

So Im not so sure its 'that off'.

[mdpm99]

disgraceful.....

:(

d

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
i thought it was wrong to fire them
1. free speech rights were not respected
2. they were off duty
3. ummm racists in the fire department and police department of NYC "i'M SHOCKED" - Claude Raines Are you sure?

How does firing them violate their rights?

[Moksha]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
The sexual harassment analogy is a bit off. . .as they were off duty. . .thus, not in "the workplace." It was my understanding that the reason they were on the float was because they were firemen and police?

Both are pretty much '24' hour jobs?

Even if they were not on duty, they were in front of everyone that they are civil servants for...

So Im not so sure its 'that off'. </font>[/QUOTE]So, becoming a civil servant means you give up your civil liberties?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Orion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
The sexual harassment analogy is a bit off. . .as they were off duty. . .thus, not in "the workplace." It was my understanding that the reason they were on the float was because they were firemen and police?

Both are pretty much '24' hour jobs?

Even if they were not on duty, they were in front of everyone that they are civil servants for...

So Im not so sure its 'that off'. </font>[/QUOTE]So, becoming a civil servant means you give up your civil liberties? </font>[/QUOTE]AGain,

Im really open to this cause I need to think about it more but how is being fired a violation of your 1st amend rights?

[ June 25, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[rob gregory]

Peace.


"They testified that they had no racist intent and that their actions were protected by the First Amendment because the float, titled ``Black to the Future: 2098,'' was a parody and should be protected by the First Amendment. They also argued they were poking fun at racist views in the predominantly white Queens neighborhood."

A parody of what?

I didn't know the parade went through Queens :rolleyes:

[rob gregory]

Peace.

Any idea who sponsored the float?

[D J 1 3 8]

As disgusting as those bastards are, I tend to agree that they were exercising their right to free speech while off duty.

I have a hard time with civil servants, who presumably serve the entire public, being such dispicable racists. But, if they were technically off-duty, then they may have a case. And like Buddy Love said, cops and firemen being racists is nothing new.

Perhaps the city can prove that, because they were in uniform representing their fire company, and acted innapropriately to the public which they serve, then they can be fired, but I doubt it.

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
Peace.


"They testified that they had no racist intent and that their actions were protected by the First Amendment because the float, titled ``Black to the Future: 2098,'' was a parody and should be protected by the First Amendment. They also argued they were poking fun at racist views in the predominantly white Queens neighborhood."

A parody of what?

I didn't know the parade went through Queens :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure this parade was only on their little island. Broad channel is literally an island in the middle of that swampy area by JFK.

[Wild i]

Reading Jamie's thought kind of cleared some things up for me on this issue. Thanks Jamikins.

It's true that the officers were off duty and certainly constitutionally entitled to their opinions. However, any agency, business or entity has a right to expect its employees to represent it in a certain manner. This is not at all unusual. News reporters, spokes persons, even teachers get canned all the time for their off-duty activities. Plus, I believe there's a clause in the police and firefighter employment agreement that speaks to codes of conduct (I know there was one in the papers I've signed for city jobs). Remember the woman who go fired for posing for Penthouse. The line was she got fired for posing in uniform, but it wasn't her uniform. It was a generic or mock-up uniform. It was a prop. Also most of the consultants on cop shows are retired or quit. Once could argue that's because the money is so much better in Hollywood, but I'm not so sure that conflict of interest doesn't play into it.

Speaking of conflict of interest, cops are fired for maintaining social contacts with known criminals all the time. There are certain restaurants, bars and such which cops are not allowed to frequent because it's a conflict of interest. Would the same prinicple apply? How can you protect and serve a community you mock in that manner? How can they feel safe around you?

Yes, being a civil servant means you give up certain civil liberties, such as the right to petition the government. Can't do it if you work for the government.

No one is telling them they have to live or socialize with minorities, but their behavior was out of line and the city, as their employer has the right to impose sanctions. Personally, I think one should be strung up and another dragged behind a truck while the third gets to live with that image for the rest of his miserable life. Bet he would think it so funny then.

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by Wild i:
Reading Jamie's thought kind of cleared some things up for me on this issue. Thanks Jamikins.

It's true that the officers were off duty and certainly constitutionally entitled to their opinions. However, any agency, business or entity has a right to expect its employees to represent it in a certain manner. This is not at all unusual. News reporters, spokes persons, even teachers get canned all the time for their off-duty activities. Plus, I believe there's a clause in the police and firefighter employment agreement that speaks to codes of conduct (I know there was one in the papers I've signed for city jobs). Remember the woman who go fired for posing for Penthouse. The line was she got fired for posing in uniform, but it wasn't her uniform. It was a generic or mock-up uniform. It was a prop. Also most of the consultants on cop shows are retired or quit. Once could argue that's because the money is so much better in Hollywood, but I'm not so sure that conflict of interest doesn't play into it.

Speaking of conflict of interest, cops are fired for maintaining social contacts with known criminals all the time. There are certain restaurants, bars and such which cops are not allowed to frequent because it's a conflict of interest. Would the same prinicple apply? How can you protect and serve a community you mock in that manner? How can they feel safe around you?

Yes, being a civil servant means you give up certain civil liberties, such as the right to petition the government. Can't do it if you work for the government.

No one is telling them they have to live or socialize with minorities, but their behavior was out of line and the city, as their employer has the right to impose sanctions. Personally, I think one should be strung up and another dragged behind a truck while the third gets to live with that image for the rest of his miserable life. Bet he would think it so funny then. this reasoning leads us down slippery slope...there is an excellent article in this months dollars and sense regarding corporations and censorship....if people don't upholsd corporate ideas should they be fired..some of these ideas that people have that can get you dismissed is union activism, being gay, sex outside of marriage....hell why NOT extend it to ones views on race, ethnicity, religion and politics

the request to rescind ones rights are always couched ias opposition to extreme actions but we need to extrapolate down the road (mixed metaphor) in order to see where this leads

[Wild i]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
this reasoning leads us down slippery slope...there is an excellent article in this months dollars and sense regarding corporations and censorship....if people don't upholsd corporate ideas should they be fired..some of these ideas that people have that can get you dismissed is union activism, being gay, sex outside of marriage....hell why NOT extend it to ones views on race, ethnicity, religion and politics

the request to rescind ones rights are always couched ias opposition to extreme actions but we need to extrapolate down the road (mixed metaphor) in order to see where this leads </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not quite sure on which side you are landing here, Mark. Could you clarify? Are you saying that it was a violation or that it was acceptable organizational censorship? I say it was acceptable.

[Bill Blake]

I think there are two issues here…..

Does someone have a ‘right to a job’?

Does the fact that it was a government job effect the governments role in firing?

They are still free to say and express what ever they want….just not as a hired police officer or fireman.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
Reading Jamie's thought kind of cleared some things up for me on this issue. Thanks Jamikins.

It's true that the officers were off duty and certainly constitutionally entitled to their opinions. However, any agency, business or entity has a right to expect its employees to represent it in a certain manner. This is not at all unusual. News reporters, spokes persons, even teachers get canned all the time for their off-duty activities. Plus, I believe there's a clause in the police and firefighter employment agreement that speaks to codes of conduct (I know there was one in the papers I've signed for city jobs). Remember the woman who go fired for posing for Penthouse. The line was she got fired for posing in uniform, but it wasn't her uniform. It was a generic or mock-up uniform. It was a prop. Also most of the consultants on cop shows are retired or quit. Once could argue that's because the money is so much better in Hollywood, but I'm not so sure that conflict of interest doesn't play into it.

Speaking of conflict of interest, cops are fired for maintaining social contacts with known criminals all the time. There are certain restaurants, bars and such which cops are not allowed to frequent because it's a conflict of interest. Would the same prinicple apply? How can you protect and serve a community you mock in that manner? How can they feel safe around you?

Yes, being a civil servant means you give up certain civil liberties, such as the right to petition the government. Can't do it if you work for the government.

No one is telling them they have to live or socialize with minorities, but their behavior was out of line and the city, as their employer has the right to impose sanctions. Personally, I think one should be strung up and another dragged behind a truck while the third gets to live with that image for the rest of his miserable life. Bet he would think it so funny then. this reasoning leads us down slippery slope...there is an excellent article in this months dollars and sense regarding corporations and censorship....if people don't upholsd corporate ideas should they be fired..some of these ideas that people have that can get you dismissed is union activism, being gay, sex outside of marriage....hell why NOT extend it to ones views on race, ethnicity, religion and politics

the request to rescind ones rights are always couched ias opposition to extreme actions but we need to extrapolate down the road (mixed metaphor) in order to see where this leads </font>[/QUOTE]Is it possible for one to have contempt for a community and serve it well?

Obviously, there is no distiction in these cops attitudes when they are off-duty or in uniform.

I thought police were psychologically profiled graemlins/rofl.gif

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
I think there are two issues here…..

Does someone have a ‘right to a job’?

Does the fact that it was a government job effect the governments role in firing?

They are still free to say and express what ever they want….just not as a hired police officer or fireman. I think I'd agree with Buddy's sippery slope argument here.

There has been some precedent, such as that previously mentioned cop who got fired for posing nude, to support your position. And perhaps such cases will be used to keep them off the force.

I do think, unfortunatley, that if they can prove that they were on their own time and not in any offical capacity, then they are free to display even the most heinous opinions.

[D J 1 3 8]

double post...

[ June 25, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: DJ 138 ]

[D J 1 3 8]

I don't follow your "right" to have a job argument, Jamie.

It is everyone's right to express their personal opinion when not in the workplace.

The workplace does put limits on speech, such as sexual harrassment, but this is for the good of the working environment and to respect the rights of every employee to be free of discrimination.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
I don't follow your "right" to have a job argument, Jamie.

It is everyone's right to express their personal opinion when not in the workplace.

The workplace does put limits on speech, such as sexual harrassment, but this is for the good of the working environment and to respect the rights of every employee to be free of discrimination. Hypothetical: One co-worker sexually harrasses another off the job. The victim still has to work with the perpetrator. Can the place of employment step in?

[Bill Blake]

Its simple

The first amendment is designed to protect us from government cohesion regarding issues of speech, religion and petitioning the government.

Meaning that the government cannot use force or coercion (whether it be through imprisonment or fines) because of something you say or what religion you practice and deny you access to petition.

How is firing someone for any reason really, a violation of the first amendment? These men are essentially free. They can roam about freely amongst us with fine or detainment hindering them from doing so.

The first amendment does not grantee you freedom of speech at your job or even your employers hearing something they don’t like you saying outside your job, it guarantees that you cannot be prosecuted by law for saying something someone else does not like.

The only issue is that it’s a government job and so that must be taken into consideration but still the gov has not done anything that the first amendment prohibits outright.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I don't follow your "right" to have a job argument, Jamie.

It is everyone's right to express their personal opinion when not in the workplace.

The workplace does put limits on speech, such as sexual harrassment, but this is for the good of the working environment and to respect the rights of every employee to be free of discrimination. Hypothetical: One co-worker sexually harrasses another off the job. The victim still has to work with the perpetrator. Can the place of employment step in? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word, yes. But I'll check that with 2 very reliable sources.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Its simple

The first amendment is designed to protect us from government cohesion regarding issues of speech, religion and petitioning the government.

Meaning that the government cannot use force or coercion (whether it be through imprisonment or fines) because of something you say or what religion you practice and deny you access to petition.

How is firing someone for any reason really, a violation of the first amendment? These men are essentially free. They can roam about freely amongst us with fine or detainment hindering them from doing so.

The first amendment does not grantee you freedom of speech at your job or even your employers hearing something they don’t like you saying outside your job, it guarantees that you cannot be prosecuted by law for saying something someone else does not like.

The only issue is that it’s a government job and so that must be taken into consideration but still the gov has not done anything that the first amendment prohibits outright. Is there a distinction between the federal government vs. local and state?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Its simple

The first amendment is designed to protect us from government cohesion regarding issues of speech, religion and petitioning the government.

Meaning that the government cannot use force or coercion (whether it be through imprisonment or fines) because of something you say or what religion you practice and deny you access to petition.

How is firing someone for any reason really, a violation of the first amendment? These men are essentially free. They can roam about freely amongst us with fine or detainment hindering them from doing so.

The first amendment does not grantee you freedom of speech at your job or even your employers hearing something they don’t like you saying outside your job, it guarantees that you cannot be prosecuted by law for saying something someone else does not like.

The only issue is that it’s a government job and so that must be taken into consideration but still the gov has not done anything that the first amendment prohibits outright. Is there a distinction between the federal government vs. local and state? </font>[/QUOTE]No the 14th amendment eliminates that distinction, which is a good thing IMO

[Moksha]

In defense of Jamie's argument: confidentiality clauses.

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Orion:
In defense of Jamie's argument: confidentiality clauses. confidentiality clause are meant to protect companies from their employees/vendors damaging them in some way even while not on the premises (leaking info on their new prodcut, etc.). I don't think you could apply that to what these firemen did.

[Bold Soul]

Most larger firms and major companies will impose upon their employees a standard of conduct that, if violated, can result in dismissal. I've never worked at a company where I wasn't obligated to acknowledge and adhere to a standard of conduct at all times.

[mdpm99]

"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."

- WC Fields

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Most larger firms and major companies will impose upon their employees a standard of conduct that, if violated, can result in dismissal. I've never worked at a company where I wasn't obligated to acknowledge and adhere to a standard of conduct at all times. Did that standard of conduct apply to your own free expression of humor and/or opinions outside of the workplace?

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Most larger firms and major companies will impose upon their employees a standard of conduct that, if violated, can result in dismissal. I've never worked at a company where I wasn't obligated to acknowledge and adhere to a standard of conduct at all times. Did that standard of conduct apply to your own free expression of humor and/or opinions outside of the workplace? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. It was made clear under no uncertain terms that if I engaged in conduct that conflicted with the ethical standards of the firm by which I was employed, I could be terminated without notice. Period.

Granted, there would have to be documented proof and enough of a spectacle to make a stink for there to be some real heat, but they reserved that right and in order to enjoy the comfort of a regular paycheck and benefits, I had to agree to it.

Anyone with a day job would do well to check their employee handbook and check with their HR rep about policies such as this.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
In defense of Jamie's argument: confidentiality clauses. confidentiality clause are meant to protect companies from their employees/vendors damaging them in some way even while not on the premises (leaking info on their new prodcut, etc.). I don't think you could apply that to what these firemen did. </font>[/QUOTE]This still is evading the issue. There is no amendment and no reasonable way to argue that that anyone has a right to a job.

They got fired and the first amendment does not protect your employment it protects your speech. Which is still essentially protected in that they are not in jail and not fined.

Think of what claiming a ‘right’ to a job implies….if you have a right to a job then someone else is obligated to give you one which essentially means they are enslaved in that it is obligatory that they give you a job meaning their rights are superceded by yours which contradicts the very essence of what a right is….something equal amongst all humans.

Again does the fact that it was a government agency instead of a private one that makes the difference.

Rember the court didnt rule because of confidentiality clause or standards of conduct...IT RULED THAT THIS VIOLATED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.....Did it?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Most larger firms and major companies will impose upon their employees a standard of conduct that, if violated, can result in dismissal. I've never worked at a company where I wasn't obligated to acknowledge and adhere to a standard of conduct at all times. Did that standard of conduct apply to your own free expression of humor and/or opinions outside of the workplace? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. It was made clear under no uncertain terms that if I engaged in conduct that conflicted with the ethical standards of the firm by which I was employed, I could be terminated without notice. Period.

Granted, there would have to be documented proof and enough of a spectacle to make a stink for there to be some real heat, but they reserved that right and in order to enjoy the comfort of a regular paycheck and benefits, I had to agree to it.

Anyone with a day job would do well to check their employee handbook and check with their HR rep about policies such as this. </font>[/QUOTE]All true and not only that firing you for any reason as a private corp is in no way a violation of your first amendment right to freedom of speech.

[Moksha]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
In defense of Jamie's argument: confidentiality clauses. confidentiality clause are meant to protect companies from their employees/vendors damaging them in some way even while not on the premises (leaking info on their new prodcut, etc.). I don't think you could apply that to what these firemen did. </font>[/QUOTE]This still is evading the issue. There is no amendment and no reasonable way to argue that that anyone has a right to a job.

They got fired and the first amendment does not protect your employment it protects your speech. Which is still essentially protected in that they are not in jail and not fined.

Think of what claiming a ‘right’ to a job implies….if you have a right to a job then someone else is obligated to give you one which essentially means they are enslaved in that it is obligatory that they give you a job meaning their rights are superceded by yours which contradicts the very essence of what a right is….something equal amongst all humans.

Again does the fact that it was a government agency instead of a private one that makes the difference.

Rember the court didnt rule because of confidentiality clause or standards of conduct...IT RULED THAT THIS VIOLATED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.....Did it? </font>[/QUOTE]But there are laws that protect your right to employment. There are laws pertaining to wronful firings that might take first amendment issues into consideration. Anybody know anything about these employment laws?

[Wild i]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I don't follow your "right" to have a job argument, Jamie.

It is everyone's right to express their personal opinion when not in the workplace.

The workplace does put limits on speech, such as sexual harrassment, but this is for the good of the working environment and to respect the rights of every employee to be free of discrimination. Hypothetical: One co-worker sexually harrasses another off the job. The victim still has to work with the perpetrator. Can the place of employment step in? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word, yes. But I'll check that with 2 very reliable sources. </font>[/QUOTE]According to my sister, former Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge and current federal employment attorney, if off-duty actions affect job performance in any way, the employer has a right to apply sanctions. She did mention issues of due process, but as long as due process was conducted, sanctions are allowed. She then launched into a whole bunch of legalese and I stopped listening.

[Moksha]

Hypothetically, would it have been okay if they had been fired for comments/views made in a less public way? (i.e. they are overheard making racially charged jokes at a private gathering).

I don't like the "parody" excuse. However, is it possible that they honestly believed that they were using parody to criticize racism? Is it possible for the courts to figure out their intent without additional evidence?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Orion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
In defense of Jamie's argument: confidentiality clauses. confidentiality clause are meant to protect companies from their employees/vendors damaging them in some way even while not on the premises (leaking info on their new prodcut, etc.). I don't think you could apply that to what these firemen did. </font>[/QUOTE]This still is evading the issue. There is no amendment and no reasonable way to argue that that anyone has a right to a job.

They got fired and the first amendment does not protect your employment it protects your speech. Which is still essentially protected in that they are not in jail and not fined.

Think of what claiming a ‘right’ to a job implies….if you have a right to a job then someone else is obligated to give you one which essentially means they are enslaved in that it is obligatory that they give you a job meaning their rights are superceded by yours which contradicts the very essence of what a right is….something equal amongst all humans.

Again does the fact that it was a government agency instead of a private one that makes the difference.

Rember the court didnt rule because of confidentiality clause or standards of conduct...IT RULED THAT THIS VIOLATED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.....Did it? </font>[/QUOTE]But there are laws that protect your right to employment. There are laws pertaining to wronful firings that might take first amendment issues into consideration. Anybody know anything about these employment laws? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes there are laws but it aint the first amendment.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by Orion:
Hypothetically, would it have been okay if they had been fired for comments/views made in a less public way? (i.e. they are overheard making racially charged jokes at a private gathering).

I don't like the "parody" excuse. However, is it possible that they honestly believed that they were using parody to criticize racism? Is it possible for the courts to figure out their intent without additional evidence? If they had said at a backyard barbeque "My daughter ain't marrying no nigra," that's quite different than hiring a float. Just as watching porn is quite different from posing in the nude. There is no single brush with which to paint these issues, but I believe the firing was just.

For me it goes back to the issue of the core business of the police: To Protect and Serve... the entire community not chosen segments. How can you do that if you openly and blatantly show despision for a certain segment of you client base? You cannot. If your job is selling shoe, you cannot do that effective while you run the "cast off your shoes" campaign. Ask the RJ Reynolds heir who is a staunch smoking opponent if he works at the family tobacco farm. Conflict of interest and behavior unbecoming are the real issues here. Freedom of speech is octupus ink.

[The Buddy Love Show]

Jamie, while their is no constitutional right of employment, most companies can only fire you for cause...it is my assertion that expressing ones personal beliefs while outside of the workplace is not a reason to fire someone (i hope)....by your reasoning my republican employer could fire be for publicly advocating membership in the democratic party on my time..or having a bumper sticker that does the same or for having freinds in the communist party " sir have you no decnency"

we can't just be for freedom of speech when the speech is something "we" agree with

on the other hand asserting racist beliefs on the job in the workplace during your hours of employment is a totally different matter...during those hours an individual is representative of the organization and certain codes of coduct apply

Wild I - i completely support these individuals rights of expression during their own private times...and thankfully we live in a country where they have to support mine

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by Wild i:
[QUOTE]Freedom of speech is octupus ink. i respectfully state:

BULLSHIT

if that is so then the constitution is toilet paper

while their are limits to free speech such as yelling fire in a movie theater or so called fighting words this incident does not fall into that arena....

by your logic anyone involved in unionism or civil rights or reproductive rights can be dismissed from their workplace if they make their view public and those views are contrary that of their employers...the constitution isn't written for shit that one group likes and sometimess the rights given may seem odious but the sword cuts both ways ...today i deny a racist the right to speak- tomorrow i'm denied the right to ( ).

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:

Freedom of speech is octupus ink. i respectfully state:

BULLSHIT

if that is so then the constitution is toilet paper

while their are limits to free speech such as yelling fire in a movie theater or so called fighting words this incident does not fall into that arena....

by your logic anyone involved in unionism or civil rights or reproductive rights can be dismissed from their workplace if they make their view public and those views are contrary that of their employers...the constitution isn't written for shit that one group likes and sometimess the rights given may seem odious but the sword cuts both ways ...today i deny a racist the right to speak- tomorrow i'm denied the right to ( ). </font>sorry for the grammar and typos...that sentence almost made me have a fit

[rob gregory]

Peace.

When I think of the Constitution and the word Government, the Federal Government comes to mind.

Was this what the framers meant?

With regards to this case, is the term Government being used loosely?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
Jamie, while their is no constitutional right of employment, most companies can only fire you for cause...it is my assertion that expressing ones personal beliefs while outside of the workplace is not a reason to fire someone (i hope)....by your reasoning my republican employer could fire be for publicly advocating membership in the democratic party on my time..or having a bumper sticker that does the same or for having freinds in the communist party " sir have you no decnency"

we can't just be for freedom of speech when the speech is something "we" agree with

on the other hand asserting racist beliefs on the job in the workplace during your hours of employment is a totally different matter...during those hours an individual is representative of the organization and certain codes of coduct apply

Wild I - i completely support these individuals rights of expression during their own private times...and thankfully we live in a country where they have to support mine Yes but is not being able to be fired protected by the First Amendment as a law or others?

[D J 1 3 8]

I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion:
Hypothetically, would it have been okay if they had been fired for comments/views made in a less public way? (i.e. they are overheard making racially charged jokes at a private gathering).

I don't like the "parody" excuse. However, is it possible that they honestly believed that they were using parody to criticize racism? Is it possible for the courts to figure out their intent without additional evidence? If they had said at a backyard barbeque "My daughter ain't marrying no nigra," that's quite different than hiring a float. Just as watching porn is quite different from posing in the nude. There is no single brush with which to paint these issues, but I believe the firing was just.

For me it goes back to the issue of the core business of the police: To Protect and Serve... the entire community not chosen segments. How can you do that if you openly and blatantly show despision for a certain segment of you client base? You cannot. If your job is selling shoe, you cannot do that effective while you run the "cast off your shoes" campaign. Ask the RJ Reynolds heir who is a staunch smoking opponent if he works at the family tobacco farm. Conflict of interest and behavior unbecoming are the real issues here. Freedom of speech is octupus ink. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I have agree with Markbe in that just cause Im a vergitarian doesnt imply that I cant serve Big Macs with a smile and do my job well.

I may personally detest black folks but that does not directly imply that I would not uphold the law and protect them. Unlikely, but possible.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:

Freedom of speech is octupus ink. i respectfully state:

BULLSHIT

if that is so then the constitution is toilet paper

while their are limits to free speech such as yelling fire in a movie theater or so called fighting words this incident does not fall into that arena....

by your logic anyone involved in unionism or civil rights or reproductive rights can be dismissed from their workplace if they make their view public and those views are contrary that of their employers...the constitution isn't written for shit that one group likes and sometimess the rights given may seem odious but the sword cuts both ways ...today i deny a racist the right to speak- tomorrow i'm denied the right to ( ). </font>That is absolutely correct.

Let's not mix apples with oranges. The 1st amendment is protection from GOVERNMENT SANCTIONS or limits on free speech. That has little enough to do with employers. An employer may still fire you for unpopular views. Remember Howard Cosell's comment "Look at that monkey go."? It was essentially a career ender for him and ABC was well within its rights. Now, if cops had come and arrested him for saying that, he could have appealed to the first amendment. You see what I'm saying. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly refer to your right to say and do as you please without being arrested. But you can still be fired. Ask the air traffic controllers of 1982 about that.

[Wild i]

OH, and just to be clear...

When I say freedom of speech is octopus ink, what I mean is that it is often thrown into the mix in order to get protections that don't exist and which the laws were not written to address. We Americans love our freedom or the real or implied enpingment of those freedoms is a hot button item. Muddy the waters by crying "freedom of speech" to take attention away from the clear employer/employee contract violation.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job. But THE END LOGIC is that Judge is not claiming their behavior is protected under the 1st Amendment....their jobs are.

[Moksha]

Does anybody know more about why the judge ruled as he did?

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Wild i:
Remember Howard Cosell's comment "Look at that monkey go."? It was essentially a career ender for him Howard Cosell said that?

Link?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Wild i:


Let's not mix apples with oranges. The 1st amendment is protection from GOVERNMENT SANCTIONS or limits on free speech. That has little enough to do with employers. An employer may still fire you for unpopular views. Remember Howard Cosell's comment "Look at that monkey go."? It was essentially a career ender for him and ABC was well within its rights. Now, if cops had come and arrested him for saying that, he could have appealed to the first amendment. You see what I'm saying. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly refer to your right to say and do as you please without being arrested. But you can still be fired. Ask the air traffic controllers of 1982 about that. Thats it,

Wild do you think that because the jobs are government jobs that it makes a difference?

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job. But THE END LOGIC is that Judge is not claiming their behavior is protected under the 1st Amendment....their jobs are. </font>[/QUOTE]The judge is claiming that they were unlawfully fired for an act that is protected by free speech. So yes, in this case, their jobs were protected. If they had been evicted from their apartments, the ruling would be the same. I think their job just happens to be the issue because the city overstepped it's bounds and took out their wrath on them the only way they could, which was (apparently) not in their power to do.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job. But THE END LOGIC is that Judge is not claiming their behavior is protected under the 1st Amendment....their jobs are. </font>[/QUOTE]The judge is claiming that they were unlawfully fired for an act that is protected by free speech. So yes, in this case, their jobs were protected. If they had been evicted from their apartments, the ruling would be the same. I think their job just happens to be the issue because the city overstepped it's bounds and took out their wrath on them the only way they could, which was (apparently) not in their power to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Although not a formal position remember Trent Lott was removed as senate majority leader for those Strong Thurman remarks.

Do you think his 1st amendment rights were violated by being removed from that position….for what he said?


Their free speech was protected. They are not in jail they were not fined they were not intimidated harrassed.

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job. But THE END LOGIC is that Judge is not claiming their behavior is protected under the 1st Amendment....their jobs are. </font>[/QUOTE]The judge is claiming that they were unlawfully fired for an act that is protected by free speech. So yes, in this case, their jobs were protected. If they had been evicted from their apartments, the ruling would be the same. I think their job just happens to be the issue because the city overstepped it's bounds and took out their wrath on them the only way they could, which was (apparently) not in their power to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Although not a formal position remember Trent Lott was removed as senate majority leader for those Strong Thurman remarks.

Do you think his 1st amendment rights were violated by being removed from that position….for what he said?


Their free speech was protected. They are not in jail they were not fined they were not intimidated harrassed. </font>[/QUOTE]Lott was not fired for his Strom Thurmond comments. He was asked to resign to avoid the public backlash. A very diffrent thing.

[Bill Blake]

And if he had been removed?

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
And if he had been removed? Nothing he said was illegal or in violation of his job description. he was giving an opinion about an election campaign in 1948. If he had been fired for this it would have been wrong. Thankfully, public opinion was strong enough to force his racist ass from office. He only resigned to do some damage control for the Republican party.

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by Wild i:
OH, and just to be clear...

When I say freedom of speech is octopus ink, what I mean is that it is often thrown into the mix in order to get protections that don't exist and which the laws were not written to address. We Americans love our freedom or the real or implied enpingment of those freedoms is a hot button item. Muddy the waters by crying "freedom of speech" to take attention away from the clear employer/employee contract violation. oh...i understand the analogy now

[Bill Blake]

138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment?

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
OH, and just to be clear...

When I say freedom of speech is octopus ink, what I mean is that it is often thrown into the mix in order to get protections that don't exist and which the laws were not written to address. We Americans love our freedom or the real or implied enpingment of those freedoms is a hot button item. Muddy the waters by crying "freedom of speech" to take attention away from the clear employer/employee contract violation. oh...i understand the analogy now </font>[/QUOTE]however i disagree....employers should not have the right to abridge free speech outside of the workplace.....sholud members of SNCC, GLAAD, NAACP, Muslims, Hare Krishnas be terminated from employment for expressing THEIR views on their own time...you would holler long and hard if they were...as i said before the constitution isn't only applicable when you find it personally beneficial

[The Buddy Love Show]

http://fact.trib.com/

why not try to learn more

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment?

Good question.

[ June 25, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: PhoreAyem ]

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment? I guess I'm sayng that free speech is protected, at least when you're a free man walking the street. These firemen were fired for speech and expressing themselves when they weren't at work. I think your getting hung up on the job thing. Like Buddy said, one must have cause to fire someone, in this case the city used their speech as that cause, but their cause was flawed because that speech is protected by the 1st amendment. A judge would have also overturned anything unjust that happened to them as a result of that speech: job, apartment, 8-ball jacket, whatever....

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment? I guess I'm sayng that free speech is protected, at least when you're a free man walking the street. These firemen were fired for speech and expressing themselves when they weren't at work. I think your getting hung up on the job thing. Like Buddy said, one must have cause to fire someone, in this case the city used their speech as that cause, but their cause was flawed because that speech is protected by the 1st amendment. A judge would have also overturned anything unjust that happened to them as a result of that speech: job, apartment, 8-ball jacket, whatever.... </font>[/QUOTE]Is it explicit or implied in the first amendmant that 'one must have a cause to fire someone'?

[D J 1 3 8]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment? I guess I'm sayng that free speech is protected, at least when you're a free man walking the street. These firemen were fired for speech and expressing themselves when they weren't at work. I think your getting hung up on the job thing. Like Buddy said, one must have cause to fire someone, in this case the city used their speech as that cause, but their cause was flawed because that speech is protected by the 1st amendment. A judge would have also overturned anything unjust that happened to them as a result of that speech: job, apartment, 8-ball jacket, whatever.... </font>[/QUOTE]Is it explicit or implied in the first amendmant that 'one must have a cause to fire someone'? </font>[/QUOTE]Dude...I realize that the fisrt amendment has nothing directly (or indirectly) to do with your job. I get it. Nevertheless, A judge is using the issue of free speech to establish that these racist fvcks were unjustly fired for an act that is, in fact, protected.

[The Buddy Love Show]

what amazes me about so called left wingers is that we are consumate navel gazers....

how far do you think this situation would have gotten if the defendants were expressing their second amendment rights in public...Heston and Wayne LaPierre would have a field day

[Moksha]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
138 why do you have the assumption that being fired for saying something that is not illegal is in some way a violation of the 1st amendment? Do you think it is (legally) okay to fire a policeman for his religious beliefs?

[mhd]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
http://fact.trib.com/

why not try to learn more Great link

[mhd]

Originally posted by Orion:
Does anybody know more about why the judge ruled as he did? my first thought was that currently, firemen are a protected class, especially in NYC, in light of 911

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
http://fact.trib.com/

why not try to learn more Great link </font>[/QUOTE]so much information on this site it'll make peeps heads swim

too bad most will never dig deeper

[The Buddy Love Show]

from Ellis Henican...NY Newsday 6-25-03

"The popular thought isn't the one that needs protecting. The beloved idea never ends up in court. Tome and again, the battle lines are drawn around the offensive, the crude or the obscene - people as bad as {the officers in question} setting the precedents that protect the rest of us.

Its Al Goldstein and Larry Flynt making case law for Henry Miller and Simone de Beauvoir. It's Nazis, Communists and Klansmen establishing protest rights for college kids opposed to the war in Iraq. Its miscreants of a thosand ugly stripes, usually without even meaning to, shoring up the U.S. Constitution for people they loathe......Its not a pretty business."

I read this article this evening and it was right in line with the rest of my thoughts so i decided to share....

later

[Wild i]

Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:
I think the judge that overturned their firing felt that they were fired from their jobs for an act of free expression that had nothing whatsoever do do with their job. But THE END LOGIC is that Judge is not claiming their behavior is protected under the 1st Amendment....their jobs are. </font>[/QUOTE]The judge is claiming that they were unlawfully fired for an act that is protected by free speech. So yes, in this case, their jobs were protected. If they had been evicted from their apartments, the ruling would be the same. I think their job just happens to be the issue because the city overstepped it's bounds and took out their wrath on them the only way they could, which was (apparently) not in their power to do. </font>[/QUOTE]If that's what the judge said s/he is wrong.

[Wild i]

Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

The individuals involved were only involved because they were cops and firefighters. Therefore they were representatives of the city (their employer), therefore their firing was justified as a violation of the employer's code of conduct.

Since they were not arrested or detained by the GOVERNMENT, their GOVERNMENTALLY GUARANTEED right to free speech was not violated. As private citizens they have a right to think, say or do anything they want within the confines of law, but we make concessions to our employer every day to keep our jobs. If you work on Wall street, for example, you may wear a suit and tie when you feel more expressive in jeans and sneakers. The company say suit and tie is appropriate attire in the work place, so that's what you wear because you want the job. If you are off site, off duty, but representing the company, trading on the company name for whatever reason and you look or act the ass (say at a PC expo where you go on your own time, but you're handing out your business card to everyone you meet) the company has a right to sanction you for the damage you've done to the image it wants to project.

Constitutional law applies exclusively to the relationship between government and its people. Constitutional law does not apply to your neighbor's dog peeing in your yard. There are other laws that apply. So saying that the cops/firefighters first amendment rights were violated is incorrect because the government did not sanction them, their employer did. And there is not loop hole in that the employer was the government. In that capacity it was acting as their employer, not as a law enforcement or legislative or judicial body.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Wild i:
Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

The individuals involved were only involved because they were cops and firefighters. Therefore they were representatives of the city (their employer), therefore their firing was justified as a violation of the employer's code of conduct.

Since they were not arrested or detained by the GOVERNMENT, their GOVERNMENTALLY GUARANTEED right to free speech was not violated. As private citizens they have a right to think, say or do anything they want within the confines of law, but we make concessions to our employer every day to keep our jobs. If you work on Wall street, for example, you may wear a suit and tie when you feel more expressive in jeans and sneakers. The company say suit and tie is appropriate attire in the work place, so that's what you wear because you want the job. If you are off site, off duty, but representing the company, trading on the company name for whatever reason and you look or act the ass (say at a PC expo where you go on your own time, but you're handing out your business card to everyone you meet) the company has a right to sanction you for the damage you've done to the image it wants to project.

Constitutional law applies exclusively to the relationship between government and its people. Constitutional law does not apply to your neighbor's dog peeing in your yard. There are other laws that apply. So saying that the cops/firefighters first amendment rights were violated is incorrect because the government did not sanction them, their employer did. And there is not loop hole in that the employer was the government. In that capacity it was acting as their employer, not as a law enforcement or legislative or judicial body.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else. Are you getting this from your sister or are you making this up?

[ June 26, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: mhd ]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

The individuals involved were only involved because they were cops and firefighters. Therefore they were representatives of the city (their employer), therefore their firing was justified as a violation of the employer's code of conduct.

Since they were not arrested or detained by the GOVERNMENT, their GOVERNMENTALLY GUARANTEED right to free speech was not violated. As private citizens they have a right to think, say or do anything they want within the confines of law, but we make concessions to our employer every day to keep our jobs. If you work on Wall street, for example, you may wear a suit and tie when you feel more expressive in jeans and sneakers. The company say suit and tie is appropriate attire in the work place, so that's what you wear because you want the job. If you are off site, off duty, but representing the company, trading on the company name for whatever reason and you look or act the ass (say at a PC expo where you go on your own time, but you're handing out your business card to everyone you meet) the company has a right to sanction you for the damage you've done to the image it wants to project.

Constitutional law applies exclusively to the relationship between government and its people. Constitutional law does not apply to your neighbor's dog peeing in your yard. There are other laws that apply. So saying that the cops/firefighters first amendment rights were violated is incorrect because the government did not sanction them, their employer did. And there is not loop hole in that the employer was the government. In that capacity it was acting as their employer, not as a law enforcement or legislative or judicial body.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else. Are you getting this from your sister or are you making this up? </font>[/QUOTE]What is it that you consider 'making up'?

[Moksha]

Wild, there are some faults in your analogies.

Also, do we know what their employee conduct things actually say?

[Moksha]

Outside of all the legal questions, I really hope these racist ****ers never work ANYWHERE again.

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-06/8330431.jpg

[kev]

Originally posted by Orion:
Outside of all the legal questions, I really hope these racist ****ers never work ANYWHERE again.

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-06/8330431.jpg I really don't see the humor in what they did. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

The individuals involved were only involved because they were cops and firefighters. Therefore they were representatives of the city (their employer), therefore their firing was justified as a violation of the employer's code of conduct.

Since they were not arrested or detained by the GOVERNMENT, their GOVERNMENTALLY GUARANTEED right to free speech was not violated. As private citizens they have a right to think, say or do anything they want within the confines of law, but we make concessions to our employer every day to keep our jobs. If you work on Wall street, for example, you may wear a suit and tie when you feel more expressive in jeans and sneakers. The company say suit and tie is appropriate attire in the work place, so that's what you wear because you want the job. If you are off site, off duty, but representing the company, trading on the company name for whatever reason and you look or act the ass (say at a PC expo where you go on your own time, but you're handing out your business card to everyone you meet) the company has a right to sanction you for the damage you've done to the image it wants to project.

Constitutional law applies exclusively to the relationship between government and its people. Constitutional law does not apply to your neighbor's dog peeing in your yard. There are other laws that apply. So saying that the cops/firefighters first amendment rights were violated is incorrect because the government did not sanction them, their employer did. And there is not loop hole in that the employer was the government. In that capacity it was acting as their employer, not as a law enforcement or legislative or judicial body.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else. Are you getting this from your sister or are you making this up? </font>[/QUOTE]What is it that you consider 'making up'? </font>[/QUOTE]there is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on in this thread, the law is what the law was, concepts like stare decisis, precedent, common law, citations, etc. help to guide us. i must admit, it is great to see folks have not only an interest in these issues but also have some facility to discuss them.

[Bill Blake]

Ruling in '98 Blackface Case Finds Favor in the Community
By COREY KILGANNON


esidents of the enclave of Broad Channel in Jamaica Bay expressed approval yesterday of a judge's decision that three residents' First Amendment rights were violated when they were fired for racial depictions in the 1998 Labor Day parade.

The three men — a former police officer, Joseph Locurto, and two former firefighters, Jonathan Walters and Robert Steiner — dressed in blackface and ate fried chicken and watermelon as they rode on a float called "Black to the Future: Broad Channel 2098."

There was outrage elsewhere over the decision. One tabloid headline called the ruling a "Bigots' Victory" and another announced "Free to Hate." Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who supported the firings in 1998, also denounced the ruling.
Little of that anger could be found in Broad Channel yesterday. "The incident sent a wrong message, but as Americans, they have the right to say what they want," said Joe Cutrone, 27, a tugboat mate and lifelong resident who said he knew the men on the float.

The chief outrage to be found in Broad Channel was residents' feeling that the community was back in the news, unfairly characterized as the place where white people howled at the float. Many complained that the ruling hardly exonerated their community, but rather reminded people of the float fiasco.
"That's all people know about us, something that happened five years ago," said Gail Walheim, who tends bar at Duffy's and said she grew up in Broad Channel. "We're trying to start anew. We've paid our dues, and now it's time to forgive and forget and get past it."

She added that the three men did go "a little over the edge" and "did something stupid." One participant re-enacted the killing of James Byrd Jr., a black man dragged to death behind a pickup truck in Texas in 1997.


"I don't see anything wrong with the blackface, but you can only do so much poking fun, and then you go over the line," she said.

Broad Channel remained largely unknown to many New Yorkers for decades, and the Channelites, as they call themselves, liked it that way. Now, they say, it has become notorious for a racially tinged rolling minstrel show. The parade, a tradition that townspeople say has been going on for a hundred years, has been toned down since 1998. Now sponsors insist on inspecting all floats beforehand.

The broad implications of Tuesday's ruling are not yet clear. The judge, John E. Sprizzo of Federal District Court, has not ruled on whether to assess damages against the city and whether to reinstate the workers. City officials said they planned to appeal the ruling.

Civil liberties lawyers said yesterday that the decision would discourage politicians from intervening in disciplinary actions against police officers, and would force the department to adhere more strictly to disciplinary guidelines, regardless of politics and public opinion. A police union lawyer said it would help off-duty officers feel more comfortable about engaging in political activities or potentially controversial speech.

At Duffy's yesterday, the owner, Maryanne Rauert, seeking to show that Broad Channel respects all ethnicities, pulled out snapshots of her granddaughter, a teenage girl with a coffee-colored complexion.

"She's half black," she said. "They love her here" when she comes for a visit. "We always made fun of everyone around here," she said, adding that it was always in good fun.

Broad Channel, population 2,700, started as a summer bungalow community built on marshland in Jamaica Bay and is now connected to the Rockaways and southern Queens by Cross Bay Boulevard and the A train.

It has remained an overwhelmingly white community in the ethnically diverse borough of Queens, and many families go back generations. Residents tend to work blue-collar jobs, in posts like police officer, firefighter, city worker and general contractor.

"It has remained a white community because houses stay in the same family, generation after generation," said Dorothy Rohr, 53, who works at the local bagel store, Bay-Gull. "But if a black family moved in here, people aren't going to run away. The float thing was just stupid, and doesn't represent the views here in the Channel."

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

The individuals involved were only involved because they were cops and firefighters. Therefore they were representatives of the city (their employer), therefore their firing was justified as a violation of the employer's code of conduct.

Since they were not arrested or detained by the GOVERNMENT, their GOVERNMENTALLY GUARANTEED right to free speech was not violated. As private citizens they have a right to think, say or do anything they want within the confines of law, but we make concessions to our employer every day to keep our jobs. If you work on Wall street, for example, you may wear a suit and tie when you feel more expressive in jeans and sneakers. The company say suit and tie is appropriate attire in the work place, so that's what you wear because you want the job. If you are off site, off duty, but representing the company, trading on the company name for whatever reason and you look or act the ass (say at a PC expo where you go on your own time, but you're handing out your business card to everyone you meet) the company has a right to sanction you for the damage you've done to the image it wants to project.

Constitutional law applies exclusively to the relationship between government and its people. Constitutional law does not apply to your neighbor's dog peeing in your yard. There are other laws that apply. So saying that the cops/firefighters first amendment rights were violated is incorrect because the government did not sanction them, their employer did. And there is not loop hole in that the employer was the government. In that capacity it was acting as their employer, not as a law enforcement or legislative or judicial body.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else. Are you getting this from your sister or are you making this up? </font>[/QUOTE]What is it that you consider 'making up'? </font>[/QUOTE]there is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on in this thread, the law is what the law was, concepts like stare decisis, precedent, common law, citations, etc. help to guide us. i must admit, it is great to see folks have not only an interest in these issues but also have some facility to discuss them. </font>[/QUOTE]yeah...but i wish i had went to law school - its never to late though

[mhd]

word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it

[Wild i]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
Okay the discussion is getting circular so this is probably the last I have to say on the subject.

I'm done.

P.S. Judges interpret the law as incorrectly as anyone else. Are you getting this from your sister or are you making this up? </font>[/QUOTE]What is it that you consider 'making up'? </font>[/QUOTE]there is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on in this thread, the law is what the law was, concepts like stare decisis, precedent, common law, citations, etc. help to guide us. i must admit, it is great to see folks have not only an interest in these issues but also have some facility to discuss them. </font>[/QUOTE]Ya'll just trying to drag me back into this.

I have a few sources, including my brain, which I sometimes put to good use. :rolleyes:

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by mhd:
word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it thanks...from the heart

[Wild i]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it thanks...from the heart </font>[/QUOTE]Must be a Mark love-fest.

Listen son, I am 46 years old and preparing to embark on a new educational adventure, going for a second Masters and PhD at the same time.

I was greatly inspired by a woman I met to received her PhD at 60. She was 80 when I met her and still going strong. She said what kept her going was keeping her mind active.

Also, a man once wrote to Ann Landers that he had always wanted to go to law school, but his plans had been interrupted by the draft. Now that he'd completed his military obligation, he was clerking at a law firm and his old desire to be a lawyer had resurfaced. He didn't know, given is age, if he wanted to go through it. I think he said he'd be about 47 by the time he finished law school seven years later. Ann Landers' response: "Well, how old will you be in seven years if you don't got to law school?"

By all means, go to law school.

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it thanks...from the heart </font>[/QUOTE]Must be a Mark love-fest.

Listen son, I am 46 years old and preparing to embark on a new educational adventure, going for a second Masters and PhD at the same time.

I was greatly inspired by a woman I met to received her PhD at 60. She was 80 when I met her and still going strong. She said what kept her going was keeping her mind active.

Also, a man once wrote to Ann Landers that he had always wanted to go to law school, but his plans had been interrupted by the draft. Now that he'd completed his military obligation, he was clerking at a law firm and his old desire to be a lawyer had resurfaced. He didn't know, given is age, if he wanted to go through it. I think he said he'd be about 47 by the time he finished law school seven years later. Ann Landers' response: "Well, how old will you be in seven years if you don't got to law school?"

By all means, go to law school. </font>[/QUOTE]damn...i am glad to hear that...keep movin up with that education as our people can never be too qualified...also one can never stop learning - it keeps you young (studies prove this)

thanks for the good words

[Wild i]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it thanks...from the heart </font>[/QUOTE]Must be a Mark love-fest.

Listen son, I am 46 years old and preparing to embark on a new educational adventure, going for a second Masters and PhD at the same time.

I was greatly inspired by a woman I met to received her PhD at 60. She was 80 when I met her and still going strong. She said what kept her going was keeping her mind active.

Also, a man once wrote to Ann Landers that he had always wanted to go to law school, but his plans had been interrupted by the draft. Now that he'd completed his military obligation, he was clerking at a law firm and his old desire to be a lawyer had resurfaced. He didn't know, given is age, if he wanted to go through it. I think he said he'd be about 47 by the time he finished law school seven years later. Ann Landers' response: "Well, how old will you be in seven years if you don't got to law school?"

By all means, go to law school. </font>[/QUOTE]damn...i am glad to hear that...keep movin up with that education as our people can never be too qualified...also one can never stop learning - it keeps you young (studies prove this)

thanks for the good words </font>[/QUOTE]And I don't wanna hear no crap about money, either...

http://www.fastweb.com

[mhd]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
word, its never too late, in fact, older students do very well in law school. if you ever want to talk about let me know, there are a lot of ways, many unconventional, to approach it thanks...from the heart </font>[/QUOTE]Must be a Mark love-fest.

Listen son, I am 46 years old and preparing to embark on a new educational adventure, going for a second Masters and PhD at the same time.

I was greatly inspired by a woman I met to received her PhD at 60. She was 80 when I met her and still going strong. She said what kept her going was keeping her mind active.

Also, a man once wrote to Ann Landers that he had always wanted to go to law school, but his plans had been interrupted by the draft. Now that he'd completed his military obligation, he was clerking at a law firm and his old desire to be a lawyer had resurfaced. He didn't know, given is age, if he wanted to go through it. I think he said he'd be about 47 by the time he finished law school seven years later. Ann Landers' response: "Well, how old will you be in seven years if you don't got to law school?"

By all means, go to law school. </font>[/QUOTE]damn...i am glad to hear that...keep movin up with that education as our people can never be too qualified...also one can never stop learning - it keeps you young (studies prove this)

thanks for the good words </font>[/QUOTE]And I don't wanna hear no crap about money, either...

http://www.fastweb.com </font>[/QUOTE]word, money should be the least of the barriers to progress or reaching our goals.

speaking of educational inspiration, my cousin was so inspired by witnessing my graduation from law school that she went back to school, went from a GED to a Ph.D. and just published her first book:

Women, Violence, and Testimony in the Works of Zora Neale Hurston (African-American Literature and Culture, Vol. 3) by Diana Miles

so, its never too late

[Ron la Rock]

Great read guys graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[Wild i]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
thanks...from the heart </font>[/QUOTE]Must </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]word, money should be the least of the barriers to progress or reaching our goals.

speaking of educational inspiration, my cousin was so inspired by witnessing my graduation from law school that she went back to school, went from a GED to a Ph.D. and just published her first book:

Women, Violence, and Testimony in the Works of Zora Neale Hurston (African-American Literature and Culture, Vol. 3) by Diana Miles

so, its never too late </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, well, I've been trying to get publish for 9 years and trying to get my PhD for about 20 so I hate your cousin! graemlins/tongueout.gif