Sotomayor agrees with Stan
-
From Glenn Greenwald:
The facts of Pappas are simple. The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail. Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests. The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees. He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed. The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights. On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case. But not Sotomayor. She wrote a dissent emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was entitled to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. This is the crux of her ruling:
In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48. The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and
That's a complex case, but I find myself agreeing with Stan because freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to send "offensive racially bigoted materials" (http://openjurist.org/290/f3d/143/pappas-v-giuliani[^]) which Pappas did repeatedly. I do think Sotomayor's opinion on the case does show she isn't motivated against whites or even racists, but I wonder if she was over doing it in this particular case. Anyway, this whole thing wouldn't be such a big deal for Republicans if Sotomayor was an old white guy. Hipsters might think they're clever for their ironic fashions, but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands. :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
From Glenn Greenwald:
The facts of Pappas are simple. The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail. Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests. The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees. He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed. The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights. On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case. But not Sotomayor. She wrote a dissent emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was entitled to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. This is the crux of her ruling:
In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48. The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and
It seems to me that the fact he said something racially charged to someone he wanted to insult specifically, does not prove that he prejudges people based on race, merely that he has trouble thinking of anything creative when he wants to insult someone specifics,.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
That's a complex case, but I find myself agreeing with Stan because freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to send "offensive racially bigoted materials" (http://openjurist.org/290/f3d/143/pappas-v-giuliani[^]) which Pappas did repeatedly. I do think Sotomayor's opinion on the case does show she isn't motivated against whites or even racists, but I wonder if she was over doing it in this particular case. Anyway, this whole thing wouldn't be such a big deal for Republicans if Sotomayor was an old white guy. Hipsters might think they're clever for their ironic fashions, but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands. :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
From Glenn Greenwald:
The facts of Pappas are simple. The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail. Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests. The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees. He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed. The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights. On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case. But not Sotomayor. She wrote a dissent emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was entitled to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. This is the crux of her ruling:
In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48. The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and
-
What makes you think I agree with that? I believe just the opposite. Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend. A local coummnity should have every right to monitor and restrain speech considered inappropriate by the local community. Obviously, it is appropriate for any citizen to appeal such a decision, but I side with the justices who ruled for the community. This ruling clearly demonstrates her contempt for the actual intent of the constitution.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Same in the UK. Speech is one thing, but use one of two swear words, or incite people to violence or riot and you het nicked. Just a shame the UK cops dont do this with the fundamental muslims selling hate videos outside their mosques. Oh, and by the way, Carson is a jerk. He only ever repeats whcy other more intelligent peopel have written. Everytime he attempts original thought he makes a fool of himself. (Like his 'Australia is blameless in this credit crisis' post a few weks back)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
"I said the reason to do it was to tell the American people who Obama is. [Sotomayor] is a reflection of Barack Obama's own racial identity, his own bigotry. That's why she was chosen. America doesn't know who Obama is. Use the hearing to inform Ameri -- since she can't be stopped anyway, we don't have the votes nor the wherewithal." - Limbaugh "If we have any hope, ladies and gentlemen, of keeping this a united country and not a country divided by race and other factors that this administration and the left are committed to advancing -- I will say this again: The left from Barack Obama on down are committed to a divided country." - Limbaugh It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists. It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists. Then there's Limbaugh's rhetoric about gay marriage and the sanctity of marriage. It's ironic because he's been married and divorced three times, and yet he's worried about gays destroying marriage. When Michael Steele said, "So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly." Does Limbaugh stop and think about whether he's incendiary and ugly? Nope, he just fires back with an attack.
Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday, saying the Republican chairman appears to be supporting President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Steele appears "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds." "I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda," Limbaugh said. "I have to conclude that he does, because he attacks me for wanting it to fail."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/[^] Steele is worried that Limbaugh's vitriol is driving people away from the Republican party. This is ironic because Limbaugh responds with an incendiary
-
Same in the UK. Speech is one thing, but use one of two swear words, or incite people to violence or riot and you het nicked. Just a shame the UK cops dont do this with the fundamental muslims selling hate videos outside their mosques. Oh, and by the way, Carson is a jerk. He only ever repeats whcy other more intelligent peopel have written. Everytime he attempts original thought he makes a fool of himself. (Like his 'Australia is blameless in this credit crisis' post a few weks back)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
use one of two swear words ... and you get nicked.
Swearing at policemen, presumably, rather than the spew of expletives that are the essence of conversation.
fat_boy wrote:
incite people to violence or riot and you get nicked.
How unjust.
fat_boy wrote:
Just a shame the UK cops dont do this with the fundamental muslims selling hate videos outside their mosques.
Bloody muslims. Coming over here, taking our freedom of speech.
Bob Emmett
-
What makes you think I agree with that? I believe just the opposite. Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend. A local coummnity should have every right to monitor and restrain speech considered inappropriate by the local community. Obviously, it is appropriate for any citizen to appeal such a decision, but I side with the justices who ruled for the community. This ruling clearly demonstrates her contempt for the actual intent of the constitution.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What makes you think I agree with that?
The fact that you have defended racist speech in the past.
John Carson
-
It seems to me that the fact he said something racially charged to someone he wanted to insult specifically, does not prove that he prejudges people based on race, merely that he has trouble thinking of anything creative when he wants to insult someone specifics,.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
It seems to me that the fact he said something racially charged to someone he wanted to insult specifically, does not prove that he prejudges people based on race, merely that he has trouble thinking of anything creative when he wants to insult someone specifics,.
I don't know what insult you are referring to and I did not have any such insults in mind. I have in mind the fact that his anti-political-correctness ideology has caused him in the past to attack legislative attempts to restrict speech.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What makes you think I agree with that?
The fact that you have defended racist speech in the past.
John Carson
When?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
What makes you think I agree with that? I believe just the opposite. Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend. A local coummnity should have every right to monitor and restrain speech considered inappropriate by the local community. Obviously, it is appropriate for any citizen to appeal such a decision, but I side with the justices who ruled for the community. This ruling clearly demonstrates her contempt for the actual intent of the constitution.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend.
ROFL. Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
When?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When?
Many times. This quote sums up a general attitude: Frankly, I think people have a basic right to be as intolerant as they wish to be of anything they wish to be intoerlant of. To me, that would seem to be a fairly basic definition of freedom. Therefore, to attack someone's intolerance is just a back door way of imposing your values on their expression of indiviudal freedom. I am intolerant of racism, but would defend the racist's freedom to exercise his own intolerance as he freely pleases just as I exercise my own as I freely please. [^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When?
Many times. This quote sums up a general attitude: Frankly, I think people have a basic right to be as intolerant as they wish to be of anything they wish to be intoerlant of. To me, that would seem to be a fairly basic definition of freedom. Therefore, to attack someone's intolerance is just a back door way of imposing your values on their expression of indiviudal freedom. I am intolerant of racism, but would defend the racist's freedom to exercise his own intolerance as he freely pleases just as I exercise my own as I freely please. [^]
John Carson
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said. You seem to be trying to control the debate and restrict the opinions of others by labeling anything you disagree with as 'racist'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free speech means political speech, not the freedom to insult, ridicule, or offend.
ROFL. Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Sorry to smudge your libertarian tinted glasses, but this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior. From the very beginning, in fact. Hell, for most of our history, offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet in broad day light. And all perfectly Jeffersonian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said. You seem to be trying to control the debate and restrict the opinions of others by labeling anything you disagree with as 'racist'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said.
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Love is hate. Peace is War. Free Speech is Censorship. Big brother Stan is watching you
Sorry to smudge your libertarian tinted glasses, but this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior. From the very beginning, in fact. Hell, for most of our history, offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet in broad day light. And all perfectly Jeffersonian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior.
"and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
Stan Shannon wrote:
offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet
Jeffersonian? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, thats not even close to anything Sotomayor said.
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You're right. She has never defended racism. You have. John just proved it. As you asked him to. Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner. The problem is, most of us aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Damn, that is one stupid comment, Jon. This entire thread is about her defending actual racism. John links to a post where I said I was intolerant of racism, and that proves I'm a racist? But, you as a libertarian, don't believe people have the right to be racists? I believe that everyone has the right to be intolerant of whatever the hell they wish to be intolerant of. I'm pretty damned sure I am far more intellectual consistent than you are.
Oakman wrote:
Once again you try to change the subject totally when you realise you've back yourself into a corner.
How the hell did I change the subject? Carson is the one that linked to a post completely unrelated to his original accusation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
this country has always had laws against offensive speech and behavior.
"and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
Stan Shannon wrote:
offensive speech could get you gunned down on the mainstreet
Jeffersonian? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
and behavior?" Who was talking about behavior? Is you ADD acting up again? - As for laws restricting speech - I suggest you read what your hero Jefferson had to say when Adams tried to impose some.
I don't have to read anything, the history of this nation and how it was governed speaks for itself. Nothing Jefferson wrote changes that.
Oakman wrote:
There is nothing more libertarian than the code duello. It makes people responsible for their own words and actions like nothing else ever will. But then again, Jefferson was pretty libertarian, himself.
I never said Jefferson did not express sentiments currently promoted by modern self styled 'libertarians'. But, by your own definition, there is absolutely nothing libertarian about killing someone you disagree with. And the fact that you could say that shows how utterly confused you are on the subject.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but they're never going to get the Irony Trophy out of Rush's sweaty little hands.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Could you back up your allegations with actual citations?
"I said the reason to do it was to tell the American people who Obama is. [Sotomayor] is a reflection of Barack Obama's own racial identity, his own bigotry. That's why she was chosen. America doesn't know who Obama is. Use the hearing to inform Ameri -- since she can't be stopped anyway, we don't have the votes nor the wherewithal." - Limbaugh "If we have any hope, ladies and gentlemen, of keeping this a united country and not a country divided by race and other factors that this administration and the left are committed to advancing -- I will say this again: The left from Barack Obama on down are committed to a divided country." - Limbaugh It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists. It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists. Then there's Limbaugh's rhetoric about gay marriage and the sanctity of marriage. It's ironic because he's been married and divorced three times, and yet he's worried about gays destroying marriage. When Michael Steele said, "So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly." Does Limbaugh stop and think about whether he's incendiary and ugly? Nope, he just fires back with an attack.
Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday, saying the Republican chairman appears to be supporting President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Steele appears "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds." "I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda," Limbaugh said. "I have to conclude that he does, because he attacks me for wanting it to fail."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/[^] Steele is worried that Limbaugh's vitriol is driving people away from the Republican party. This is ironic because Limbaugh responds with an incendiary
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to look at a Black man and a Hispanic woman and see racists.
SO there is to be no criticism of people who are black or latino, even when they make comments that would destroy a white politicians career? No white person has the right to point that out? No freedom of speech if you are white unless a black person or a hispanic first gives permission?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
It's ironic because his own racism is what drives him to attack them and call them racists.
What racism? YOu use that term for no other reason than to destroy freedom of speech for those who oppose your political agenda. There is nothing racist about Limbaugh.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
His shtick is to take his own flaws and stridently accuse others of them and that's why he has the Irony Tropy.
No, the situation is precisely and demonstrably the opposite of that. Sotomayor is a racist, as is Obama. They have an irrifutable hisotry of actual, real world hatred of white people. Limbaugh has a history of defending traditional American society as a trully wonderful and remarkable accomplishment which should be celebrated by everyone of all races, creeds and colors.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.