Tasteless jokes are now a crime?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 08:46 PM by RFBurns
reply to post by GAOTU789


Yep, there has to be alot more to it. And perhaps this will expose the rats in the house in that city..something that obviously needs to be done since there appears to be something tied with the union work situation.

Let the dice fly!!! Time to clean house!!!


Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 08:47 PM by greeneyedleo
Unless the man threatened the life of the President, he has every right to say whatever he wants about him IMO. Sure, he may lack class, but so do all those people who say nasty things about Bush, Jews, Arabs, etc etc.

He got in trouble, because some dimwits copy and pasted what he posted and emailed it around and eventually it got to his employer.

According to this:


www.northjersey.com...

“That’s just a word that you don’t use,” Iacono said. “Whether he used it specifically in the workplace or not, it found its way here.”

The Bergen County Prosecutors’ Office and the Paramus Police Department are investigating whether the posting could be considered a bias crime, Iacono said. If not, the borough attorney will determine whether it violates local workplace discrimination and employee conduct regulations.

Borough code says employees can be fired for, “conduct unbecoming of a public employee” or for harassing or discriminating against other employees, Iacono said. Petronzio will be suspended until the investigation is finished.

.....

“This is obviously a gray area,” Iacono said. “This is his personal Web page, and it’s not really any of our business until it’s brought to our attention. Our concern is that it was brought to our attention.”



Also, a "bias crime" is another way of saying "hate crime". So, yes, now there is an issue of our words that we post online being used against us in a court of law - prosecution. Even if they are just expressing opinion.

Ridiculous. You better not slander ANYONE anymore.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by greeneyedleo]


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 08:56 PM by GENERAL EYES
reply to post by Tuning Spork


That's a Strawman arguement and I refuse to address that level of debate.





reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 08:57 PM by RFBurns
reply to post by GENERAL EYES


Paranoia and fear. Those traits tend to stomp out freedoms. Oh lets not go there with the Hitler issue. The Nazi movement was well in place LONG before Hitler ever came along. Study history.

And while your at it...study up on liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our country's founding documents.



Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 09:01 PM by Sonya610
Originally posted by Blaine91555That is not a joke. It is hate speech. You can't defend the indefensible. Hate speech is treated differently for good reason. Its practitioners are so far gone their actions lead to crimes like assassinations or the torching of churches.


Hate speech generally has to be seen as a real and realistic attempt to incite actual violence or riots. Just saying you hate someone, or making fun of someone does NOT constitute "hate speech".

In some jurisdictions, notably the United States, hate speech cannot be directly regulated because of a widespread consensus that suppressing viewpoints based on content alone is outright wrong or leads to a slippery slope (that is, who is to decide what content is a priori true or correct) which ultimately destroys the marketplace of ideas.

In particular, the United States government and the state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268, U.S. 652 (1925)(incorporating the free speech clause). Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits government from regulating the content of speech, subject to recognized exceptions such as defamation or incitement to riot[citation needed]. Even then, incitement in the U.S. is prohibited only if it raises the risk of imminent lawless action, which means that Americans are permitted to express a large amount of hate speech that does not meet that standard (as occurred in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)).
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 22-1-2009 by Sonya610]


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 09:13 PM by GENERAL EYES
reply to post by RFBurns




Impressive drinking skills there.

I haven't retreated, I've simply decided to exercise my discretion. No sense in me derailing this thread further - hence the U2U.

VIVA FREE SPEECH! (now to that, I can most heartily down a pint!)

Cheers!


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 09:14 PM by NightSkyeB4Dawn
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

If they have rules in place that address behavior and if his behavior is an embarrassment or a liability for the city then they have the right to terminate his employment. IMHO


So if your job says that at no time, on or off the clock, you cannot practice your rights as an American or you will be fired will settle with you and you would have no problem with that?

Its one thing to be an idiot while on the clock, but when your off the clock, that is YOUR time and the city, no matter what their law or rules might be, does not apply on your free time.


Cheers!!!!


This is not true for some jobs. A teacher can be terminated for behavior that is deemed inappropriate off the clock. A nurse can be terminated for behavior that is inappropriate off the clock, a government official can be terminated for behavior that is deemed inappropriate off the clock and if you add insult to injury by advertising that you are an employee of an institution that relies on its reputation in dealing with the community in which it functions you are just setting yourself up for termination.

I am not saying that this man did not a right to his views and opinions. I am not saying that he is not allowed to voice them. I am saying as a business owner I also have rights. I have the right to chose who I want to represent me and my business. I have the right to terminate any employee that advertises bigotry, racism and hatred and links it to my business.

Like I said we are talking about two different things; his right to voice his opinions and the right of the institution that he works for to terminate his employment for linking his inappropriate behavior with their business.

He exercised his right and they exercised theirs.


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 09:19 PM by RFBurns
reply to post by GENERAL EYES


@TING!@ GULP!!

I needed a bigger glass for this one.



Cheers!!!!
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 19 days ago with 277 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 15 days ago with 122 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 18 days ago with 86 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 17 days ago with 83 member flags
10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 3 days ago with 77 member flags