It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Why would you feel bad for someone who did nothing wrong?




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The only comparable situation I can think of with this is someone strutting around naked in front of an open window, outside of which they know is a busy street. Then crying about it when someone stops and looks.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: benrl
A person with a private opinion, who holds an elected public office, making statements in a Public establishment,

He was speaking to a friend in a private conversation .. not 'making public statement's' ...

Free speech, does not mean freedom from consequences from said speech,

Ya'll keep going back to that. He didn't make a public statement. He said one word about one politician in private and a busy-body listened in and reported what was said to the press. So you are grabbing the torches and pitchforks over that? really? Seems like that's not really free speech at all.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
SCOTUS


Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[2]

Murphy wrote:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
He was speaking to a friend in a private conversation .. not 'making public statement's' ...


You don't have to be making a public statement for your words to be considered by others.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: benrl
A person with a private opinion, who holds an elected public office, making statements in a Public establishment,

He was speaking to a friend in a private conversation .. not 'making public statement's' ...

Free speech, does not mean freedom from consequences from said speech,

Ya'll keep going back to that. He didn't make a public statement. He said one word about one politician in private and a busy-body listened in and reported what was said to the press. So you are grabbing the torches and pitchforks over that? really? Seems like that's not really free speech at all.
So, just to be clear, you feel it is your right to sit in a starbucks, or any busy public place, say ANYTHING you want loud enough for others to hear, and to be free of any response to it?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
A)Theres nothing private about a conversation in a public place

There is an assumption of privacy from busy-bodies listening in when they have no business doing so.

B)You are an idiot if you are a public figure of ANY sort and think that people arent going to notice what you say.

It's a town of like 6,000 people and he's just an elected police commissioner.

On top of that, the situation raises the very pertinent question of whether or not this person is qualified to do with job without prejudice.

There have never been any complaints raised against him.
Obviously he's doing his job just fine.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33

originally posted by: minusinfinity

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
Oh goodie! Another thread defending bigots. Ignorance runs deep around here.


I don't think anyone is defending bigotry but we are defending free speech.



You are defending hate speech....by playing the "victim card"


And you are doing the same exact thing...

Playing the victim card.

Not a single person defended what he said.




If you have read this thread and believe that, I can't do anything to help you. You obviously view reality through special glasses. Good luck.
edit on 5/16/2014 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
Oh goodie! Another thread defending bigots. Ignorance runs deep around here.


I'd encourage you to watch the movie 'Mississippi Burning." You may gain some perspective which has clearly been lost by society ever since the LA Riots and OJ Simpson fiasco occured and left America with a skewed sense of what racism/bigotry actually is. One extremely poignant excerpt from the movie (actually from news file footage taken during the actual case 50 years+ ago) involves an old southern white man who says:

If you ask me, the N***s around here have been treated awful bad for a long time.


Here's where the bastardization of context and perspective play such a huge role (and why I believe they have been intentionally jacked by agenda driven people who profit from maintaining the illusion or racial divides running rampant in America at all times.) If that clip was played today, the ideology behind what the man was saying would be thrown away by the media and by most of the race baiters. Instead of hearing what the man was actually saying: "Yes, the blacks are being treated like crap and that's wrong." they would focus on the OMG! he used a slur!!! shock value of a word. So much artifical power has been bestowed upon slurs by the media and those with divisive agendas lately. It's all been intended to ensure that individual words maintain more power and control than actual concepts behind all the words that abut them in someone's statement. Here you had a man who used common vernacular while issuing a statement of support for a minority group that was experiencing REAL racism and REAL hatred... yet by today's ridiculous metric he would be labeled a racist. (Which I'm willing to bet would have recieved hearty laughter and mocking by the minorities of the day, ridiculing the inanity of modern America not being able to recognize what actual racism is, and falling into Chicken Little territory with the claim.)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
He HAS free speech ....

He hasn't got free speech if a mob mentality grabs torches and pitchforks because he dared call a politician a name in a private conversation that they weren't even supposed to be listening in on.

That's not freedom ... that's mob mentality ...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




There is an assumption of privacy from busy-bodies listening in when they have no business doing so.
If you are saying it within earshot of other people, you cannot expect them to shut off their hearing and/or comprehension skills to save your right to (public) privacy.




It's a town of like 6,000 people and he's just an elected police commissioner.
Which means that....HE'S A PUBLIC FIGURE. Heck, you said it yourself: he's an elected official. Its the town's right to decide if they still want him.




There have never been any complaints raised against him.
Until now.




Obviously he's doing his job just fine.
Thats for the town to decide.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

You don't have the Freedom to stop a busybody waitress from repeating you.

He made a bad descsion. He is paying a price.

He was not in a "Cone of Silence".

If you locked everyone up who ever uttered a slur.

There would be only liars left.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

- The woman listened in when it wasn't any of her business on a private conversation.
- The man said ONE WORD about ONE POLITICIAN.
- This is faux outrage.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Seen the movie and get your point. However, it has nothing to do with this situation.

He used a well-known slur in today's world and it has consequences. Period.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




- The woman listened in when it wasn't any of her business on a private conversation.
So you're claiming that she snuck up in a way so that they didnt know she was there and spied on their conversation? Or did she plant a listening device?




- The man said ONE WORD about ONE POLITICIAN.
Sometimes thats enough.




- This is faux outrage.
Im not seeing the outrage. If the town wants him gone, its their right. In fact, the only 'outrage' here is outrage over his being (perfectly legally) called out.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

And the one complaint was from a waitress who listened in on a private conversation and then blabbed around what she heard. And what she heard was the man saying one word against one politician in DC. So freak'n what??

Like I said, he didn't disparage an entire group of people.
He said one thing about one politician in DC. That's it.

This mans work record is just fine.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Many, MANY people would argue that use of that one word ABSOLUTELY DOES disparage and entire race.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
There is an assumption of privacy from busy-bodies listening in when they have no business doing so.


"Assumption", "expectation". Same thing. It doesn't matter. When this goes to court and they're trying to prosecute this man for something, then we can talk about the assumption of privacy. That's the only place it would matter. If someone overhears you saying something stupid, they have every right to repeat it.

I notice you seem to want to blame the waitress for this... I noticed you wanted to blame V. Stiviano for the Sterling situation as well. When these racists speak their minds and someone overhears, it's always someone else's fault. You come to the defense of the racist.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
So you're claiming that she snuck up in a way so that they didnt know she was there and spied on their conversation? Or did she plant a listening device?

I'm saying she listened in when it was none of her business to do so. And then she blabbed. That's not part of her job description. Customers expect privacy when eating out.


Im not seeing the outrage.

That word is from BH earlier ... that's a different line of discussion ...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




I'm saying she listened in when it was none of her business to do so. And then she blabbed. That's not part of her job description. Customers expect privacy when eating out.
So you are freely admitting that he said it in public, within earshot of other people, correct?




top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join