Tasteless jokes are now a crime?

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!!!!

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]

Originally posted by RFBurns
What was irresponsible about this fella putting up some picture and a quote about having a happy James Earl Ray day? Its only a picture, and a few words.

Yeah. Only a picture and a few words. I follow you.

Hitler used the same tactic. And I suppose you're going to tell me nothing came about because of those "only pictures and words" either?

Really. I'd love to spell it out for you all day...

If you're racially intolerant, I could care less. Really, I could care less.

But why not keep that stuff on Stormfront and away from social networking sites? The key word there being SOCIAL - not ANTI-SOCIAL.

Until TPTB decide to throw out the BOR, DI and constitution this guy is well within his rights to express his opinion any damn way he wants to so long as no physical harm is done. Like many others here have posted, unless he did all this on a city owned computer on a city owned server he will win the case in court or more likely get a geneorous out of court seltlement. You may not agree with his veiws but that dont mean you can just shut em' up.

[edit on 22/1/09 by Psyclon9]

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
No one SUPPRESSED this guys RIGHT to post what he did, they're simply REACTING to his "freedom of speech".

Aren't you arguing that someone has every "right" to commit homocide, it's just that imprisonment will merely be a "reaction"?

A right is not a right if to exercize it carries a punishment.

If this guy has other issues going on, fine. He should be fired and looked at legally for his crimes. I don't agree with what he posted, but he has the freedom to post what he wants. If it IS just his comments, then it's ridiculous.

Not everyone is politically correct. Many people out there are still racist and will post many, many derogatory things about Obama. It's to be expected. However, freedom of speech was not given any provisions. "oh hey, say what you want as long as it isn't about our leader or potential leader". It isn't written that way.

How many monkey jokes have you seen about George Bush? They are everywhere. It was just a matter of time before someone would use a racial stereotype and peg it to Obama. It's sad, it's sick, but unfortunately we live amongst hate and ignorance.

I agree the man has a right to say what he wants. Any idiot has the right to say what he wants. I'm just surprised that anyone would call this a joke. It's not funny. It's just... lame.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


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

Originally posted by Sonya610
"Chris would like to wish everyone a happy James Earl Ray day." Ray is the man who assassinated King.

That 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.

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!!!!

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]

Originally posted by sebarud
I agree the man has a right to say what he wants. Any idiot has the right to say what he wants. I'm just surprised that anyone would call this a joke. It's not funny. It's just... lame.

I agree with this point. Its not a joke, and its distasteful and disrespecting. But it is within this guy's right to believe what he wants and say what he wants on his own website.

No where in the founding documents does it say everyone cannot say something about a political figure or someone else unless it is in good taste.

It is clear that this city involved is using personal feelings in the matter, as well as some other issues pointed out earlier and is using this guy's posting on his own website as the basis to take care of him, avoiding the more legal issue of the union working overtime issue.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Paranoia and fear. Those traits tend to stomp out freedoms.

I concur completely.

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.

See you in U2U.

Cheers!!!!

Sorry. I can't raise my glass to you right now. Maybe some other time.


***We now return this thread to it's original insanity.***

Thats a nice gracious exit if I ever seen one. A toast!! (ting) To freedom of expression, to freedom of speech, to freedom of thought, to freedom of religion, to America!!.

GULP!!

...one more...


GULP!!


...one more...


GULP!!!


Ahhh!!! Its great to be in America!



Cheers!!!!

Thou shalt adhere to liberal political correctness or thou shalt be persecuted.

What next, dirty jokes? This is ridiculous, a bias crime? Where's the crime? n I have been offended by Bill Maher's crap several times but I don't think he's a criminal. Where does all this political correctness end?

So the guy made a bad joke - it should be covered under the first amendment -after all there is no line that says "Freedom of Non Offensive Speech". I hope this guy sues their hiney off.

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!

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 to post by GENERAL EYES


@TING!@ GULP!!

I needed a bigger glass for this one.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Blaine91555
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.

First of all, legally speaking, words are not "actions". But I'm sure you meant it as in: "the act of speaking".

Secondly, there is no legal causality between "hate speech" and criminal acts. No matter how much, oh, say, Sandra Bernhardt trashes, say, Britney Spears, Sandra can not be held responsible if someone hears her words and goes out and smacks Britney upside the head.

About 20 years ago Salmon Rushdie wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses". Ayatollah Khomeini put a price on his head for "insulting the prophet". A bunch of free speech advocates got together for a protest in New York and read chapters of the book. Susan Sarandon was one of them, I recall.

Nowadays, some guy in Denmark "insults the prophet" and the Danish government is looking at prosecuting him for speaking his mind.

Madness I tells ya.

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
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.

Ahh right there..where is the evidence that he directly linked this personal opinion on a personal website to the city or its employees?


Cheers!!!!