"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[phiwum]

We just had this discussion in another thread.

I'm not sure a police department policy about conduct fits the definition of a law. Nor is a police department the equivalent of Congress.

I am certainly not sure either. You're right that a police department is not Congress, but I don't know if the courts have interpreted the amendment more liberally.

I'm sure that if the First Amendment is relevant, we'll hear about a court case from this. If there is no such case, then I'd wager there's no clear legal issue at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snipped irrelevant parts]

Nothing left.

 

[johnny karate]

This is a comment on a private Facebook page and I tend to think it was hyperbole. It was grossly inappropriate. In the same circumstance, assuming that I believed that it was not a literal call to kill my loved one, my opinion ought to be the same.

Fallible human nature being what it is, I may well take greater offense than I do now. But that is simply a matter of emotions running higher when loved ones are involved.

The cop should be disciplined, presuming that there is no First Amendment issue involved. But at present, I doubt this was a serious threat. We should treat it seriously, but not exaggerate the offense. (Were this a public statement, I'd take it as considerably more threatening, since even if the cop didn't intend to provoke an attack, he would have been making one significantly more likely.)

If a threat of violence is made against you or a loved one by a police officer, what specific indicators would you look for to let you know it was literal and therefore serious?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're right to treat the Chief's comment with a grain of salt, of course.

I'm not too concerned about the cop's statement, I'm afraid. It was wildly inappropriate and I can certainly understand discipline, perhaps even loss of job, but I don't regard it as a threat unless other evidence proves that he was seriously advocating violence.

Again, it doesn't have to be him directly to lead to violence.

Trump does the same thing in his Tweets and at his rallies then denies culpability.

 

[Babbylonian]

Again, it doesn't have to be him directly to lead to violence.

Trump does the same thing in his Tweets and at his rallies then denies culpability.

White supremacists have a whole philosophy about deniably inciting "lone wolves" to do their dirty work.

 

[phiwum]

If a threat of violence is made against you or a loved one by a police officer, what specific indicators would you look for to let you know it was literal and therefore serious?

Look, you may disagree with me that it was unlikely meant seriously that someone should shoot her, but you cannot ask me how to interpret written communication as if hyperbole is unknown to you.

The statement was made with a (dumb) joke in the middle of it. It does not strike me as a literal call to violence.

"She should be killed! Seriously! And also, she was a loser bartender!"

I just don't read it as a literal call to violence.

 

[phiwum]

Again, it doesn't have to be him directly to lead to violence.

Trump does the same thing in his Tweets and at his rallies then denies culpability.

And again, this was a comment on a private Facebook page, one accessible only to Friends and Friends of Friends. A public statement would have been much more serious to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a comment on a private Facebook page and I tend to think it was hyperbole. ...

You might see it differently but I don't think the word, hyperbole applies to an action like a threat except passively describing the threat.

But that's neither here nor there.

More importantly, FaceBook, by its nature, is not private and anyone who thinks it is hasn't been paying attention since about 2005.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am certainly not sure either. You're right that a police department is not Congress, but I don't know if the courts have interpreted the amendment more liberally.

I'm sure that if the First Amendment is relevant, we'll hear about a court case from this. If there is no such case, then I'd wager there's no clear legal issue at all.

That was rhetorical. I am sure.

And you'd be laughed out of your lawyer's office if you were that cop fighting this on a First Amendment basis. No doubt he'd claim it violated his union contract if he gets fired. But given his supervisor appears to think it's a non-issue, I can't see him getting fired.

 

[Cavemonster]

We just had this discussion in another thread.

I'm not sure a police department policy about conduct fits the definition of a law. Nor is a police department the equivalent of Congress.

Courts have consistently ruled that the first amendment can apply to government institutions all the way down to local schools and their policy. Even thought the text literally refers to laws and congress, policies and other government entities are bound by it to some degree.

For instance:
Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District

Courts apply the first amendment to state laws and actions, towns, cities, school boards, libraries.

You're not wrong about the conclusion that this is not protected speech, but those aren't the reasons.

 

[phiwum]

You might see it differently but I don't think the word, hyperbole applies to an action like a threat except passively describing the threat.

But that's neither here nor there.

More importantly, FaceBook, by its nature, is not private and anyone who thinks it is hasn't been paying attention since about 2005.

This post was not easily accessible to the general public. I assume that a Friend or Friend of a Friend leaked the post.

That's private enough not to worry that he was likely to encourage violence, at least before this story.

Honestly, the proximate cause for his outburst isn't Trump's comments, by the way. It was a (literally) fake news story about AOC claiming soldiers are overpaid. This whole story has very little to do with the topic here.

 

[phiwum]

That was rhetorical, I am sure.

I don't know what you mean.

And you'd be laughed out of your lawyer's office if you were that cop fighting this on a First Amendment basis. No doubt he'd claim it violated his union contract if he gets fired. But given his supervisor appears to think it's a non-issue, I can't see him getting fired.

You seem confident. I don't know. You could be right, but I can't claim to have an informed opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Courts have consistently ruled that the first amendment can apply to government institutions all the way down to local schools and their policy. Even thought the text literally refers to laws and congress, policies and other government entities are bound by it to some degree.

For instance:
Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District

Courts apply the first amendment to state laws and actions, towns, cities, school boards, libraries.

You're not wrong about the conclusion that this is not protected speech, but those aren't the reasons.

Would it have killed you to post a link?

https://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/minarcini-v-strongsville-city-school-district

City School District refused to approve faculty recommendations for using Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 and Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater as textbooks. Further, they ordered that Catch 22, along with Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, be removed from the school library.

Banning a book from the school library isn't even close to employee conduct issues.


Look for a case where the employer is denying the speech of an employee and post a link or someone else is going to have to for you. I don't want to do your homework.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This post was not easily accessible to the general public. I assume that a Friend or Friend of a Friend leaked the post.

That's private enough not to worry that he was likely to encourage violence, at least before this story.

This is a no brainer, phi. No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy on Facebook, Judge Says

Honestly, the proximate cause for his outburst isn't Trump's comments, by the way. It was a (literally) fake news story about AOC claiming soldiers are overpaid. ...

Why does that matter?

It's inciting violence that is the issue.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is a comment on a private Facebook page and I tend to think it was hyperbole. It was grossly inappropriate. In the same circumstance, assuming that I believed that it was not a literal call to kill my loved one, my opinion ought to be the same.

Fallible human nature being what it is, I may well take greater offense than I do now. But that is simply a matter of emotions running higher when loved ones are involved.

The cop should be disciplined, presuming that there is no First Amendment issue involved. But at present, I doubt this was a serious threat. We should treat it seriously, but not exaggerate the offense. (Were this a public statement, I'd take it as considerably more threatening, since even if the cop didn't intend to provoke an attack, he would have been making one significantly more likely.)

No, this person does not belong in the force. Do these people go through psychological screening? These attitudes would be something you would want to prevent entering and to purge. The bar of standards everywhere in America seems to have been dropped in the muck. The American public deserves better from those who govern and police them.

 

[Cabbage]

Why do you think it's more dangerous? So far, we've had violence against CBP. We haven't had violence against the squad.
Its possible that Trump could inspire violence with what he said, and it's also possible that AOC could inspire further violence with hers. But we're dealing with the statistics of small numbers here. We can't get reliable statistics. And any analysis based on some principles of how speech affects actions is going to be subject to the biases of whoever is doing that analysis.

And at some point, we have to accept that crazy people are dangerous, and can be inspired to violence by just about anything. The Giffords shooter was motivated be the belief that grammar was a government mind control plot, although Palin was unfairly blamed for it. Absent actual calls for violence, we have to allow criticism, even when it's over the top of inflammatory. We can't clamp down of criticism because of hypothetical violence. It won't work, and it won't be applied fairly. There's room to criticize what Trump said without having to appeal to this hypothetical threat.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean the rest of us are ignorant, too.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-leads-to-arrest-of-new-york-man/3379387002/

'I’ll put a bullet in her': Trump supporter charged with threatening to kill Rep. Ilhan Omar

I would recommend fact checking before posting, bro. LMFAO!!

 

[Cavemonster]

Would it have killed you to post a link?

https://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/minarcini-v-strongsville-city-school-district
Banning a book from the school library isn't even close to employee conduct issues.


Look for a case where the employer is denying the speech of an employee and post a link or someone else is going to have to for you. I don't want to do your homework.

One of us must have misread the other.

I interpreted your post that I was responding to as a claim that the first amendment does not apply to entities other than congress (or the equivalent) and actions other than making laws.

Here's the quote from you again:

I'm not sure a police department policy about conduct fits the definition of a law. Nor is a police department the equivalent of Congress.

My example and many many others show the first amendment applies to many policies that are not laws and many entities that are not congress.

I'll say again, that I agree that this police conduct policy is not a first amendment issue. I am not arguing against your conclusion. I am pointing out what looks like a mistake in your reasoning to support it.

 

[theprestige]

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean the rest of us are ignorant, too.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-leads-to-arrest-of-new-york-man/3379387002/







I would recommend fact checking before posting, bro. LMFAO!!

No violence.

Try again.

Lmfso, rofk, etx, etx, etx durr

 

[Cabbage]

No violence.

Try again.

Lmfso, rofk, etx, etx, etx durr

Wrong.

Hell, it's already been established in this very thread that....Death Threats are Violence.

Duh!

LOL!

18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop*erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16


Fact Check is your friend, bro. LOL!

 

[Jerrymander]

Can anybody explain how conservatives can call people antisemites while having a much higher bar for calling someone a racist?