|
Author
|
Topic: ITT Mr. K argues that the First Amendment has wiggle room
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2003 10:21 PM
Just forget the First Amendment stuff.
He is bad at his job and should be fired. That's it.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-28-2003 02:06 PM
"We can't all just agree it's a stupid-ass amendment that was written before there were street lamps, much less public schools, and move on?"
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 01:12 AM
Wintermute:
These comments, which really got me going and which I still view as ignorant:
- he has done NOTHING wrong. Nothing at all.
I should have written something longer and more specific, like "actionable" or something. Because I do actually believe that he was wrong to make those statements. So yea, Not Smart.
- Are you unfit to be in charge of the military if you believe all religious beliefs except yours are wrong?
I stand by this one, because almost *everyone* believes that all other religious beliefs are wrong. Usually it's part of picking a religion.
- As long as he doesn't behave incorrectly as a result, we should be fine.
- since we don't live in a policestate, a man in a military uniform has no extra rights or powers
His position does lend him extra credibility, and a perception of officialdom, so I think these statements just came across wrong.
- the first amendment yo! Seriously, that's the only issue at stake.
Well, I think it's the big one, and the only thing that should save his ass from the fire.
- Whether he should be punished for sharing his religious beliefs?
I still think this is all he did. Granted, those beliefs are hostile and such.
Mr. K:
Jesus, I love it when cfalcon is this impenetrably stupid in public.
(shhhh.... this is K's way of saying he doesn't understand yet...)
Let me get all hypothetical. I'll start with the most farfetched, and work my way down.
1- In an alternate world, Allied forces expect the attack on France during WWII. American and English troops stand with the French and push into Germany. The German people, not yet disillusioned with the Nazi party (and not aware of any potential genocide) are still strongly pro-Nazi and anti-Jew. Back home, General Albert Alfred goes to church and gives a speech where he says that all people are equal in the eyes of God, and that the surest way to get to hell is to try to load up people in ovens because they are Jewish.
Do we fire him?
How about General Billy Bobart, who isn't religious, but does give a public speech where he says that Jews have as much of a right to live as any other person, and the rabid antisemitism sweeping the globe almost lead to a genocidal tragedy in Germany.
The Germans in occupied Germany hate him! Maybe they'll be more suicide bombers! He just called them genocidal! He patronizingly said that if the Allies hadn't rolled in when they did, their democratically elected government would have just killed millions of their own people, how ludicrous!
So do we fire him too?
I mean, they aren't doing their jobs. Speaking a religious opinion (A) and a political one (B) enrages our hypothetical occupied country. You might say it isn't the same, but isn't that just because you disagree with General Devil, and don't believe that the Muslims are Satanists or whatnot?
His opinion- that Muslims worship the dark counterpart to his God- is just as valid (though very stupid, hateful, and inciteful), as the opinion that they do not.
Perhaps you still say, yes, fire these guys. They were fucking up their jobs by offending the people that the weren't supposed to be offending, and Generals A,B, and Devil could have just been quiet and done their jobs.
Next hypothetical.
You are a police officer in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. You give a public speech where you say that you dislike the governor's policy of pissing all over federal policy (we'll assume you phrase it better than that) and refusing to allow black students in the white high school. A thousand angry white people gather out front, and police officers can't keep order. Do you get fired for this? You can argue that it was inevitable (and you'd be right, given that it happened, minus noble cop), but can you be fired? Held accountable? For making your political opinion (an extremely controversial and inflammable one at that) known?
Basically, what I'm asking is:
1- Is it just because what he said is stupid? Your arguements rely on him "not doing his job", based on the fact that we are trying to convince a region that hates us that it isn't a religious issue, and he's saying "Sure, it's no issue- your religion is the Dark one, and ours is the White, uh, I mean right one!". What if his statements were totally sane and normal, but still pissed off the people who weren't supposed to be pissed off?
Do we base his job on not offending the politics and religious beliefs of somebody else? Even if they are patently wrong?
If you say yes, it deosn't matter, if he pisses the people off, he's doing a bad job, even if all he's saying is "The sky is blue" while we occupy a place with a bunch of religious fanatics that believe that God made it speckled pink and black and only evil people who need to die see it as blue, then continue. Else GOTO 3
2- Where does the gag order you basically want to block religious and political speech in government employees start? What are the guidelines? Physical violence? Or if they end up getting the currently elected official voted out of office? Somewhere between there? Where?
3- Is it just because his opinion is monumentally stupid, or is it because it is hateful (I'm assuming it isn't just because it's inflammatory)? We can't bar stupid thought and speech, because we can't tell what is stupid in political and religious areas (and, given the fair shake creationism has been given, we can't always even do it in scientific areas). Hateful might have a point, and if he does get fired this would be a good reason. But even then we would need to define it with an actual sentence of two of unmistakeable stuff- and I'm not entirely sure it would even qualify! His statements weren't racist, he was "only" accusing them of believing in the wrong religion. I'm sure he'd be more than happy if they all converted to Christianity!
Basically, the opinion that this guy should be fired is akin to Mcarthyism- eliminating people whose political opinions are counter to the stated goals of the government (though Mcarthyism wasn't actually that, and was cancerous in scope, that's what it was in principal).
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 01:51 AM
you just gave hypotheticals where you could make a strong case as to why the person shouldn't be fired, there are plenty of hypotheticals that I could name where you could make a strong case for the person being fired
I didn't say this guy should be fired without a doubt, but I think he should at least be punished in some way because I don't think his superiors were happy with what he did, and that's all that matters in the end, isn't it?
this thread should've been over many posts ago
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 02:53 AM
- Are you unfit to be in charge of the military if you believe all religious beliefs except yours are wrong?
I stand by this one, because almost *everyone* believes that all other religious beliefs are wrong. Usually it's part of picking a religion.
You're being impenetrably stupid in public again. No one is questioning his fitness on the basis of his religious beliefs. We question his fitness because he disgorged them in public.
- since we don't live in a policestate, a man in a military uniform has no extra rights or powers
His position does lend him extra credibility, and a perception of officialdom, so I think these statements just came across wrong.
Yeah, actually I was saying that the focus on extra rights or powers ignores the blindingly obvious fact that more than anything, a military uniform comes with responsibilities.
- the first amendment yo! Seriously, that's the only issue at stake.
Well, I think it's the big one, and the only thing that should save his ass from the fire.
It's his only hope, maybe. Not quite the same as being the only issue, you'll allow.
- Whether he should be punished for sharing his religious beliefs?
I still think this is all he did. Granted, those beliefs are hostile and such.
Sigh. I guess I see the way you're thinking here, the way you talk about it just pisses me off. We are in perfect understanding about the basic facts. He was in a church, he uttered certain sentences, etc. We can characterize his actions in many ways, though. Yes, he was sharing his religious beliefs. He was also showing really bad professional judgement. When you say that "all he did" was share his religious beliefs, you're not denying (it is by now clear) that he was also showing bad judgement. I think what you're really saying is that the fact that he was sharing religious beliefs renders all other characterizations irrelevant or academic with respect to whether he should be punished.
And that's where you're wrong.
Regarding the other stuff you wrote, how about you make an effort to pick the most important idea and relate it in a nice, you know, paragraph.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 03:05 AM
Regarding the other stuff you wrote, how about you make an effort to pick the most important idea and relate it in a nice, you know, paragraph.
I thought you would be familiar with my penchant for repeating myself. Redundancy is something I tend to work into my writing frequently, and I usually mention the same thing in different ways with minor differences when making a point. After all, it's been noted that I can turn a single point into a paragraph of sentences that all say about the same thing.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 01:53 PM
cfalcon: - Are you unfit to be in charge of the military if you believe all religious beliefs except yours are wrong?
I stand by this one, because almost *everyone* believes that all other religious beliefs are wrong. Usually it's part of picking a religion.
Wintermute: You're being impenetrably stupid in public again. No one is questioning his fitness on the basis of his religious beliefs. We question his fitness because he disgorged them in public.
So it's okay to have inflammatory religious beliefs as long as you don't express them?
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free thought thereof (as long as you don't exercise it)...
Sigh. I guess I see the way you're thinking here, the way you talk about it just pisses me off. We are in perfect understanding about the basic facts. He was in a church, he uttered certain sentences, etc. We can characterize his actions in many ways, though. Yes, he was sharing his religious beliefs. He was also showing really bad professional judgement. When you say that "all he did" was share his religious beliefs, you're not denying (it is by now clear) that he was also showing bad judgement. I think what you're really saying is that the fact that he was sharing religious beliefs renders all other characterizations irrelevant or academic with respect to whether he should be punished.
And that's where you're wrong.
I disagree. This reminds me of something that was said in the Pledge thread:
quote:
Some Guy: The only case the anti-Pledge side has is that it's unconstitutional.
Mr. K: What else do you need?
Frankly, I was rather flabbergasted when K made his "Just forget the First Amendment" comment.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 03:51 PM
Me: And that's where you're wrong.
Cat: I disagree.
Ok, you're Boykin's lawyer. The brass have reassigned him to a position with less responsibility, public exposure, and pay. His superior tells him, "this is because you showed really bad judgement and probably endangered the lives of our guys & girls overseas." Argue on the basis of the FA that the brass cannot really do this and have to reverse the action.
I liked your bulleted points above (though I disagree totally with the last one), but they only framed the issues. I don't think I've heard yet how a Constitutional amendment that restricts the power of the legislative branch of the US Government also dictates when a military officer can and can't discipline his subordinate for unacceptable behavior.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 04:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dweedle:
this thread should've been over many posts ago
People just don't respect Goodwin's Law anymore.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 05:34 PM
What, is that the thing about the Nazis?
Yea, that doesn't really work when you have a political discussion... and it really only applies when you compare the other side to Nazis (recently people have started saying it's when they enter the conversation).
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 08:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gruco:
quote:
Originally posted by Dweedle:
this thread should've been over many posts ago
People just don't respect Goodwin's Law anymore.
Tom Goodwin used to be one of my favorite baseball players
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-29-2003 09:28 PM
Maybe he should lose simply of the fact that his name is Boykin?
BOI-KINNNNN
Boy-kinnnn
boykin
boykinnnnnn
Fun to say [and freaks out the roomate], but, yeah, how the hell did that kid grow up?
[Edit]
Wow... looking at this... almost-sort-of ressembles tl;dr
[ 10-29-2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: LanderZRPG ]
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-31-2003 09:05 AM
Yeah, I'm not reading that book cfalcon wrote. I got halfway into his first hypothetical, realized it had nothing to do with this case, and filed the rest of the post in MK territory.
cfalcon is one dense motherfucker.
White Cat: So it's okay to have inflammatory religious beliefs as long as you don't express them?
Of course!
Seriously, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. cfalcon has his Moron Filter on where he thinks the Constitution is the deciding factor on everything.
Some Guy: The only case the anti-Pledge side has is that it's unconstitutional.
Mr. K: What else do you need?
In that discussion, the case was whether or not something was legal, and in that context, it really is all about the Constitution. But, what cfalcon is too stupid to see here is that we've already agreed that what Boykin said was dicey for a variety of reasons, but most probably legal.
The issue here is "Should Boykin be reassigned and/or fired?", not for breaking the law, but for being hopelessly inept.
Not only did he make his organization look bad, he did the exact opposite of what he is being paid to do, which is effectively solve world problems through military force. He made the problem worse and potentially increased the likelihood that people will try to kill the soldiers who report to him (not to mention civilians).
The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to do a really shitty job at work.
cfalcon, however, has an extremely tiny mind and perhaps if I were to bash it open with a claw hammer, he might learn to think outside the little box he has constructed for himself so that he never has to think about problems in the real world that might conflict with his dream of a beautiful Aryan society where all non-wealthy white people are shielded from his delicate retinae.
Maybe I'll just bash it open anyway, for the good of humanity at large. He is clearly Too Stupid to Live. I imagine he must be sitting in his own filth right now, because I do not believe that he is intelligent enough to wipe.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-31-2003 03:11 PM
K: Yeah, I'm not reading that book cfalcon wrote. I got halfway into his first hypothetical, realized it had nothing to do with this case, and filed the rest of the post in MK territory.
I think his example of an occupation of Nazi Germany and pro-Jewish generals is quite relevant.
White Cat: So it's okay to have inflammatory religious beliefs as long as you don't express them?
K: Of course!
...
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless said exercise offends religious minorities and/or the people in power)...
K: The issue here is "Should Boykin be reassigned and/or fired?", not for breaking the law, but for being hopelessly inept.
Yes, we agreed that Boykin didn't violate the FA a long time ago.
Not only did he make his organization look bad, he did the exact opposite of what he is being paid to do, which is effectively solve world problems through military force. He made the problem worse and potentially increased the likelihood that people will try to kill the soldiers who report to him (not to mention civilians).
Are you sure about this? Have his comments actually caused any fuss in Iraq/Israel/whatever? Do the Muslims in the Middle East even know he made them?
The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to do a really shitty job at work.
But Boykin wasn't "at work".
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-31-2003 04:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to do a really shitty job at work.
But Boykin wasn't "at work".
Neither was Kobe Bryant, but all anyone cared about was how it affected the Lakers.
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-01-2003 04:06 AM
WC: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless said exercise offends religious minorities and/or the people in power)...
You've completely missed the point. Nixon was an anti-Semite, but he kept it to himself. He didn't go on national television and bitch about all the money-grubbing Jews ruining the country. Do you think he should have gotten a pass if he did so, simply because it's a religious belief?
You are allowed to have really stupid ideas, but if you choose to express them in public, then you deserve whatever you get.
And it's not just a matter of how stupid the belief is, it's about the appropriateness of expressing certain ideas in public when you have a related job. It's one thing to be a working stiff in a pew factory who just happens to enjoy gay, lubed, shaved, anthropomorphized, squirrel snuff hentai or whatever, but quite another to announce that fact at the company picnic in front of all the clients in their habits.
Are you sure about this?
Yes.
Have his comments actually caused any fuss in Iraq/Israel/whatever?
Yes.
Do the Muslims in the Middle East even know he made them?
Yes.
And even if all the answers weren't "yes", that doesn't excuse his actions, which are inherently stupid and could potentially be used to prevent the military from being as effective as they should be.
But Boykin wasn't "at work".
He's got the kind of job where he's always at work...or at least when he's in the public eye. Are you saying that if a president gave a speech in his spare time that showed a fundamental lack of understanding of some really important topic that it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't in the Oval Office?
Also if cfalcon comments again without the common decency of spending a few minutes editing his words for consumption by someone other than cfalcon, he's banned.
[ 11-01-2003, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-02-2003 05:28 AM
You've completely missed the point. Nixon was an anti-Semite, but he kept it to himself. He didn't go on national television and bitch about all the money-grubbing Jews ruining the country. Do you think he should have gotten a pass if he did so, simply because it's a religious belief?
Gotten a pass from whom? Saying something stupid/racist like that isn't illegal (there's that pesky First Amendment again), and I don't know who could "fire" the President, other than the voters.
You are allowed to have really stupid ideas, but if you choose to express them in public, then you deserve whatever you get.
O_o
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech/religion, you know.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I was hoping for some sources...
He's got the kind of job where he's always at work...or at least when he's in the public eye. Are you saying that if a president gave a speech in his spare time that showed a fundamental lack of understanding of some really important topic that it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't in the Oval Office?
It would likely matter to the voters, but unless you're arguing that he could get "fired" over it by some means other than the ballot box, it's not relevant to this issue.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tghost
Farting Nudist
Member # 1418
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-02-2003 06:00 AM
Why do Americans never get that their vaunted "Freedom Of Speech" is NOT "Freedom from any consequences of what you say".
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=odd%20characters%3A%20The%20Boy%20Who%20Cried%20Censorship
- It's time for a handy link to an e2 node. A fun story for the whole "THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEMANDS ME THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT TO SAY. I SAY, MADAME PRESIDENT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING VERY FAT AND UGLY THIS EVENING." crowd.
- - - - -
My brain went on vacation and left my pancreas in charge
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-02-2003 08:11 AM
White Cat: Gotten a pass from whom?
Well, let's see...
Saying something stupid/racist like that isn't illegal (there's that pesky First Amendment again), and I don't know who could "fire" the President, other than the voters.
Looks like you answered your own question.
Now, if you could just stop focussing on irrelevant details for one second...
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech/religion, you know.
The First Amendment concerns the legality of saying stupid things (which is certainly lucky for some people, otherwise I'd be forced to make some citizen's arrests here), but it doesn't mean there are no consequences for saying stupid things. Boykin can't be thrown in jail for being an idiot (although he might be sent to the brig for inappropriate behavior [and do not waste our time focussing on this point]), but he certainly shouldn't be rewarded for it.
Seriously, how hard is it to understand the difference between something being legal and something being appropriate?
I was hoping for some sources...
You have access to the same Google I do, but since there have already been examples of that in this thread, I didn't think it was necessary.
Also, as I said, it doesn't fucking matter.
It would likely matter to the voters, but unless you're arguing that he could get "fired" over it by some means other than the ballot box, it's not relevant to this issue.
I think cfalcon might be rubbing off on you.
[ 11-02-2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-04-2003 01:48 PM
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech/religion, you know.
The First Amendment concerns the legality of saying stupid things (which is certainly lucky for some people, otherwise I'd be forced to make some citizen's arrests here), but it doesn't mean there are no consequences for saying stupid things.
Right, there are plenty of consequences for saying stupid things. They just can't come from the government.
Boykin can't be thrown in jail for being an idiot ... but he certainly shouldn't be rewarded for it.
No one's arguing that he should be promoted, just that he shouldn't be fired.
Seriously, how hard is it to understand the difference between something being legal and something being appropriate?
Boykin says that Muslims are evil -> Legal
Boykin says that Muslims are evil -> Inappropriate
Boykin fired for saying the above -> Illegal
I was hoping for some sources...
You have access to the same Google I do, but since there have already been examples of that in this thread, I didn't think it was necessary.
No, the closest thing to that was the Yahoo article (which was now expired) which quoted a moderate American Muslim leader who was offended.
Moderate American Muslims aren't the ones who are blowing up car bombs next to US troops and crashing planes into skyscrapers.
Also, you're the one who made the claim that radical Middle Eastern Muslims are going to blow up more Americans because of this, so the burden of proof lies on you to back it up, not me.
I await your Googling.
Also, as I said, it doesn't fucking matter.
You're the one whose main argument seems to be that Boykin is unfit to do his job because his comments anger Muslims.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-04-2003 01:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
Right, there are plenty of consequences for saying stupid things. They just can't come from the government.
You're going to want to amend that statement.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-04-2003 02:21 PM
Regarding Tghost's article, the guy is an idiot because he doesn't understand that the government is the only thing that can truly censor you, and theirs is the only kind of censorship that's illegal.
Why do Americans never get that their vaunted "Freedom Of Speech" is NOT "Freedom from any consequences of what you say".
If you're talking about gov't consequences, that's exactly what it is.
Once again, the government cannot punish people for saying something.
- It's time for a handy link to an e2 node. A fun story for the whole "THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEMANDS ME THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT TO SAY
That is exactly what the First Amendment gives you the right to do.
[Edit]
gruco: You're going to want to amend that statement.
Why? Do you really believe that the gov't can put people in jail (or whatever) for "saying stupid things"?
Or were you just making a joke about how my wording kinda sounded like "stupid things can't from from the gov't"?
[ 11-04-2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: White Cat ]
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-04-2003 03:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
Why? Do you really believe that the gov't can put people in jail (or whatever) for "saying stupid things"?
Because "stupid things" is too ambiguous.
And yes, the government absolutely can punish (What made you decide to go from "consequences" to "put people in jail"?) people for saying stupid things.
It's pretty stupid for a Secret Service agent to go on national television and say, "I'm going to kill the president tomorrow night at 8:00 CST."
It's also stupid for an IRS auditor so say "I think Stealing Harvard should have won the Oscar for best picture last year."
So, if a statement is stupid but has forseeable consequences, contradicts policy, or indicates that the employee might suck at his job, the government damn well better punish (and can, quite legally) people's stupidity.
If not (IRS guy with bad taste in movies), then they can't.
So which category does the government employee who mouths off, gives his department bad press, makes statements that go directly against policy, and proves that his thinking capacity is genuinely notsogood fall into?
quote:
Once again, the government cannot punish people for saying something.
False.
[ 11-04-2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-04-2003 04:22 PM
So which category does the government employee who mouths off, gives his department bad press, makes statements that go directly against policy, and proves that his thinking capacity is genuinely notsogood fall into?
CRUNCH, MOTHERFUCKERS.
K K K R R A A A A A C C K A A -- C R U U UUNCH.
THAT IS THE SOUND OF YOUR HOLLOW SKULLS FRAGMENTING UNDER THE IMPACT OF GRUCO'S SENTENCE. THIS SENTENCE IS THE ARGUMENTATIVE EQUIVALENT OF THE UBERMENSCH LEAPING 40 DIMENSIONS UP INTO THE AIR AND DELIVERING AN AXE KICK TO YOUR HEAD WHILE ALLAH PLAYS SPEED METAL USING THE GALAXY AS A GUITAR PICK.
STOP TALKING NOW.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-06-2003 12:43 PM
Does White Cat yet understand that his premise is totally incorrect?
I know 'mute told you to stop talking and everything, but if you have learned this much, then you're allowed to say so.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-06-2003 12:58 PM
(Edit: I hit "reply" before K made his post. What exactly is the "premise" you're referring to?)
Look, the only time the government is allowed to punish someone for their speech is if they're making threats or say something that causes an "immediate and direct threat to public safety" (I'm not sure of the exact wording), like the old "yelling fire in a theatre". Another example would be if the speaker at a neo-Nazi rally got the crowd all worked up and then said "Now go out and kill all the Jews!" and the crowd ran out into the streets and starting wreaking havoc.
Boykin did neither of the above. And we've still got the whole other issue of him exercising his religion.
Basically, it comes down to this:
- No, Boykin's speech did not violate the First Amendment.
- Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to punish an employee who "mouths off, gives his department bad press, makes statements that go directly against policy, and proves that his thinking capacity is genuinely notsogood".
- However, in this case doing so would violate Boykin's First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion.
- Therefore, Boykin must not be punished for what he said.
[ 11-06-2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: White Cat ]
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-06-2003 01:23 PM
White Cat: What exactly is the "premise" you're referring to?
This one:
Look, the only time the government is allowed to punish someone for their speech is if they're making threats or say something that causes an "immediate and direct threat to public safety" (I'm not sure of the exact wording), like the old "yelling fire in a theatre".
C'mon, I know you're not as stupid as cfalcon, so you must be shitting me.
Seriously, spend 30 seconds thinking about this or something and call us back.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-06-2003 01:29 PM
2. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to punish an employee who "mouths off, gives his department bad press, makes statements that go directly against policy, and proves that his thinking capacity is genuinely notsogood".
3. However, in this case doing so would violate Boykin's First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion.
First of all, the right that the FA actually provides is exactly this: the right to (for example) freely exercise your religion without interference from laws made by Congress. You still haven't shown how an officer disciplining his subordinate is an example of Congress making a law (or a charge of illegal activity, as defined by an existing law, being brought against the subordinate).
Second and more devastatingly to your analysis, it doesn't matter whether he was talking about religion. Freedom of speech is mentioned side-by-side in the FA with free exercise of religion. Thus, according to you, it is not reasonable on ANY occasion described in Point 2 for the government to punish an employee, because it would violate the speakers FA right to freedom of speech.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-06-2003 11:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
CRUNCH, MOTHERFUCKERS.
K K K R R A A A A A C C K A A -- C R U U UUNCH.
THAT IS THE SOUND OF YOUR HOLLOW SKULLS FRAGMENTING UNDER THE IMPACT OF GRUCO'S SENTENCE. THIS SENTENCE IS THE ARGUMENTATIVE EQUIVALENT OF THE UBERMENSCH LEAPING 40 DIMENSIONS UP INTO THE AIR AND DELIVERING AN AXE KICK TO YOUR HEAD WHILE ALLAH PLAYS SPEED METAL USING THE GALAXY AS A GUITAR PICK.
STOP TALKING NOW.
oh god i'm crying ahahahahahahaha
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-07-2003 12:38 AM
Ok, I actually have a little more meat to add to the conversation, but I can't phrase it concise enough right now.
Not to knitpick, but this statement:
You still haven't shown how an officer disciplining his subordinate is an example of Congress making a law
doesn't apply to Wintermute's arguement.
Having the 10 commandments up at a courthouse isn't a law and has nothing to do with Congress.
Neither does saying the pledge of allegiance with an "under God" inserted- even though Congress did add that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a law.
Nor does a state goverment declaring a state religion go against the first amendment.
Seriously, some states used to have official religions!
But now the courts have basically taken the stance that the amendments prohibitting federal law from doing action X also prohibits state law from doing action X.
Additionally, Jefferson's "seperation of church and state" has basically been declared the law of the land- so even if a majority of the parents want it, you can't make the kids at public school pray to Jesus- because one kid's parent will go to court, and it will be found unconstitutional.
And it is.
But it isn't like Congress made a law. It was just the moms of the PTA being religious.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 11-07-2003 03:33 AM
There is a contradiction between the Military’s duties enforcing the law and what it excepts from its employees.
White Cat has something. I’m not sure where cfalcon is going. It does seem a little off that a government organization (from a government that preaches free speech) punish an employee for free speech. I’m sure if it wasn’t the military involved then White Cat wouldn’t be arguing this.
I’m still confused about cfalcon, but K pointed out that he is only talking in a way that makes sense to him, so that made me feel better.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-07-2003 04:37 AM
Well, K always says that.
Basically, all I was trying to do was probe the "It's person doing a job wrong" line of defense. I simply tried to come up with valid examples where a good person who believes things that no sane person would doubt or things that were once in doubt but now really aren't ("Jews shouldn't be killed", "Segregation is bad") is quoted as having these beliefs, infuriating the population in question (a hypothetical occupied Nazi Germany or a historic moment is civil rights).
My point was that just because your statement infuriates some group of people that you aren't *supposed* to infuriate does not make you wrong. In this case, Boykins statement is incorrect, but the government is not in a position to *call* him incorrect about whether Muslims serve the devil or whatever.
So I was trying to figure out how deep the "bad job, gets fired" arguement goes- because obviously, if you believe that you should be fired for saying that Jews shouldn't be executed in mass (assuming this upsets a lot of people: it is, however, a subjective position just like Boykin's poison), then, well, I can't make a case with you.
If this weren't the military, no, White Cat and I would probably not have a problem. If it were Microsoft or something, sure.
The implication of not firing a military man who makes shitty comments in the capacity that General Devil did is that he is a moron. I do not believe that it implies that the government itself has a stance.
The implication of firing / demoting the same guy implies that the government *does* take a stand, and it actively disagrees with his position. I understand that it does not necessarily *mean* that, but does it mean that the government is Christian if it allows some teacher to try to convert her students? No, but it does imply it.
That's the only reason I think this is important: because the government gets to chose between claiming neutrality and taking a side, and I don't think it should take a side.
But if they were to demote him, and he took a lawyer to them... no, I don't think he would win.
Anyway, I've been trying to find a way to say this in a succint manner, since everyone bitched about it.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-07-2003 11:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
In this case, Boykins statement is incorrect, but the government is not in a position to *call* him incorrect about whether Muslims serve the devil or whatever.
The government already has though. They've been quite adamant that this is not a holy war, not all Muslims are bad, we need to tolerate, etc. And their primary purpose for doing so is to prevent domestic ethnic attacks. Which is an admirable goal, and which Boykin is undermining.
quote:
So I was trying to figure out how deep the "bad job, gets fired" arguement goes- because obviously, if you believe that you should be fired for saying that Jews shouldn't be executed in mass (assuming this upsets a lot of people: it is, however, a subjective position just like Boykin's poison), then, well, I can't make a case with you.
Well, I don't see how that's a bad job to begin with.
When I saw your previous post, I thought it was a pretty good example of something that doesn't violate the first amendment under a strict interpretation, but is still something the government stops on constitutional grounds, which if anything, helps refute White Cat's point. So I'm not sure if you accomplished what you set out too...
quote:
The implication of firing / demoting the same guy implies that the government *does* take a stand, and it actively disagrees with his position. I understand that it does not necessarily *mean* that, but does it mean that the government is Christian if it allows some teacher to try to convert her students? No, but it does imply it.
Well, what if god wanted me to spraypaint "Bush is a pussy" on elementary school walls? I'd probably be fined/arrested for vandalism. But all I was doing is practicing my religion! So not only is the government limiting my free excercise, they're also taking sides, and saying that the government doesn't approve of my religious outlook.
quote:
But if they were to demote him, and he took a lawyer to them... no, I don't think he would win.
[ 11-07-2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 11-07-2003 12:38 PM
cfalcon: ...I've been trying to find a way to say this in a succint manner...
Try again, and put your back into it this time.
I just don't understand how you people can't get this. For the zillionth time, the First Amendment does not mean that you are allowed to say anything as long as it is Constitutionally-protected without repercussions, yes, including from the government. Since we're talking about the FA, as Wintermute pointed out, you can stop making it about religion, which is this isn't about.
Would you be up in arms if Bush fired a cabinet member for wearing t-shirt to work every day with a copy of Bush's DUI arrest report printed on it and constantly saying that the administration sucked and everyone in it (including himself) is doing a terrible job, we're going to lose the war in Iraq, he thinks Barbara Bush is an ugly old hag, and that he has a twelve-inch dildo in his rump right now?
You can't just say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not expect it to matter simply because you work for the government. Why is this so difficult to understand?
gruco: Well, what if god wanted me to spraypaint "Bush is a pussy" on elementary school walls? I'd probably be fined/arrested for vandalism. But all I was doing is practicing my religion!
Excellent point. I was going to say something similar to this earlier, but was distracted while recovering from the overpowering waves of stupid emanating from this thread...
As I said, religion isn't really the issue here anyway, but for those who are so dim that they think it is, just add "because God personally told me to say that" to everything in my example above...now it's about religion, and it doesn't make a difference...
[ 11-07-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 03-28-2004 07:09 PM
bumped for purposes of symmetry
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uiru
Sketch Molester
Member # 437
Member Rated:
|
posted 03-29-2004 12:03 AM
I didn't notice I had skipped Page 2 until after.
~Uiru
- - - - -
TIDUDSOFIEIHUGHEXXXC: "maybe he will let you touch his blow up do"
AFRO NOOOOOOO!!!
From: the floating castle of Newfoundland | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 03-29-2004 06:13 AM
White Cat: bumped for purposes of symmetry
Cute, but how about explaining why you think I've been in any way inconsistent?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-25-2004 01:48 AM
Well?
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-25-2004 02:58 AM
LOL
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-25-2004 12:42 PM
I am so happy cfalcon is banned.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-25-2004 06:04 PM
The issue here is not really one of free speech. If our embassador to Saudi Arabia said anything like this, he/she'd be canned before you can say "idiot". Well, maybe not in this administration, but in any sane and competent one. The problem is that generals and admirals are at a high enough level of visibility, that they are seen as representing the U.S. when they speak. Diplomacy is, willy-nilly, part of their job, and not a skill they have necessarilly had reason to develope before. The general has a right to say whatever he wants. The government has the right, and obligation, to give him an early retirement the moment his tactlessness outweighs his usefulness as a military leader.
Note that this would be different if he were publically criticizing our government, or former President Clinton, or President Bush. Everybody in this country has the right to complain about the government without fear of reprisal. Every voter deserves this right. And every voter in the military deserves it several times over.
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-25-2004 06:16 PM
And Mr K, if we lived up to our ideals, the cabinet guy with a t-shirt would be OK, as long as he was faithfully and loyally serving his country. That's not how it really works, of course, but how it should work. The tendency of presidents to surround themselves with people they find congenial is not a good one, even if it is inevitable. Now, if, for example, he went to each meeting wearing a t-shirt that said "2 towers down, 500 to go", and constantly talked about how anyone killing New Yorkers should be rewarded, not punished, well, he should find himself in the lucrative private sector immediately. The difference is between embarrassing the government through criticism, and through presenting a point of view that will legitimately offend people outside of the government, and cause them to view the government as inimicable.
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-26-2004 02:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bugcatcher Ed:
Everybody in this country has the right to complain about the government without fear of reprisal. Every voter deserves this right. And every voter in the military deserves it several times over.
Are you completely retarded? Try reading the first paragraph you wrote. Then hit your head with a brick and try again until you see reason.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-26-2004 06:26 PM
No, I'm not completely retarded. So, if you're hinting that you can supply a completely retarded interpretation of what I said, you come across as well qualified, go ahead.
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2004 04:28 AM
The issue here is not really one of free speech. If our embassador to Saudi Arabia said anything [attacking the leader of the free world], he/she'd be canned before you can say "idiot". Well, maybe not in this administration, but in any sane and competent one. The problem is that generals and admirals are at a high enough level of visibility, that they are seen as representing the U.S. when they speak. Diplomacy is, willy-nilly, part of their job, and not a skill they have necessarilly had reason to develope before. The general has a right to say whatever he wants. The government has the right, and obligation, to give him an early retirement the moment his tactlessness outweighs his usefulness as a military leader.
Note that this would be different if he were publically [practicing Christianity], or [Islam], or [Judaism]. Everybody in this country has the right to [preach] without fear of reprisal. Every voter deserves this right. And every voter in the military deserves it several times over.
[ 10-27-2004, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Rolken ]
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2004 02:48 PM
Well, Rolken, that was a good attempt. You achieved "completely lame" and "utterly irrelevent", but fell short of "completely retarded". The sad thing here is that I agree with most of your previous posts. Anyway, if that's your understanding of what I said, no wonder you're confused and irritated. I'll try to explain the basic idea again, using small words as much as possible.
Our rights in the U.S. have limits. My freedom of speech does not mean that I can force my way into your home and yell at you. I am not free to proselytize (try to convert people) at work. If I do, I won't be arrested, but they are allowed to reprimand or even fire me. A general has limits I do not. If a general becomes a Quaker and a total pacifist (somone who won't ever fight), he will be fired if he doesn't quit. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. He won't be arrested for being a Quaker. He won't even be fired for being a Quaker. He'll be fired for being a pacifist, even if his religion requires it. He can't do his job if he's a pacifist. The U.S. is under attack by Islamic extremists (weird Moslems who hate us). To fight our enemies, we need help from Moslem nations. We also need Moslem individuals around the world to like us better than they like our enemies. Boyken said, in public, bad things. He said that this was a fight between Christianity and the Devil. That sounds like he means Moslems, who are not Christians, are on the Devil's side. This makes Moslem people feel bad. It makes them angry. It makes them like us less. This helps our enemies. U.S. Generals are never supposed to help our enemies. That is why Boyken should have been publicly reprimanded (scolded in front of his friends) or fired (put on time out). Is that plain enough?
[ 10-27-2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Bugcatcher Ed ]
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2004 05:13 PM
You completely missed my point. I agree with everything you just said. But then earlier you went on to make an arbitrary exception and say that attacks against the boss should be preserved, with no real reason why, aside from that it is our Right and everyone Has It. And the point of my post was that that argument applies equally well (or badly) to why they should be allowed to openly remark on religion.
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2004 08:13 PM
Thank you, Rolken. No offense, I hope, but your response really needed explanation. First, I never said you someone in the government should face retribution simply for mentioning religion. Standing up in Church and saying "I believe that our only salvation lies in Christ" should not normally result in a problem for anyone working in the goverment. It's a simple proclamation of faith and, even though it implies everybody but Christians is damned, it won't raise many people's hackles. The problem lies with an official who makes a statement that undermines the legitimate purposes of government. Although people in authority often claim that there is some reason or other that nobody should criticize them (undermines authority, encourages our enemies, whatever), the same people are generally enthusiastic critics when they're out of power. In a democracy, the preservation of free speech is an important liberty, but the preservation of free speech critical of the government is a critical necessity. Anything which suppresses it creates a flaw in the democratic process. There's no realistic way to keep the president from surrounding himself with an uncritical cabinet and uncritical aides, but it is, nevertheless, a bad thing which always happens to one degree or another. To critisize the government is not merely the priviledge of people in a democracy, is the patriotic duty of every citizen in a democracy. That's why there should be an exception for "attacks against the boss".
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-27-2004 11:30 PM
Not only should there not be an exception, higher-ups such as cabinet members should be the least publically critical, because there's nothing to be gained. They can just pick up the phone and call him.
Colin Powell is a great example of this. I'm sure there's been no small amount of bickering between he and Dick Cheney's posse behind closed doors, but the minute they emerge into the public spotlight, the debate is over and it is their responsibility to present a unified face to the world.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-28-2004 02:42 PM
And why is that a good thing?
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic