Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: How the First Amendment does and does not protect racist city workers

  1. #1
    None
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, April 3rd, 2006 @ 09:17 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post How the First Amendment does and does not protect racist city workers

    By Sherry F. Colb
    FindLaw Columnist
    Special to CNN.com
    Wednesday, July 16, 2003 Posted: 1:47 PM EDT (1747 GMT)


    (FindLaw) -- On June 24, federal Judge John Sprizzo of the Southern District of New York issued an extremely controversial opinion in the case of Locurto v. Giuliani. The judge ruled in favor of three men -- two firefighters and a police officer, all employed by the City of New York -- who rode on a racially offensive float in the Broad Channel, Queens Labor Day Parade. The three men were off duty at the time.

    After the incident came to light, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that "any police officer, firefighter, or other city employee" involved in the Labor Day Parade would be terminated.

    Full text at
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/16/fi...ent/index.html

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gladstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 25th, 2008 @ 08:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandi
    Subrace
    Other
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    The Taft Hotel
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    work
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    seeking
    Posts
    854
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    It is a bit amusing at times how the rad libs (ie Marxists ) had for the past several decades promoted a "creative" interpretation of the law (law as in US Constition ) rather than a "strict constructionist" one. The writer of the article is clearly displeased that the judge held true to what normally she would applaud...that is a "creative" interpretation. The judge is to be commended for sticking to his ideals unlike the authoress. It is just that in her eyes the judge made the "wrong" decision.

    The article is another example of how the ideas of "pushing the envelope" and "free thought" so promoted at one time (ie 60's-70's) were simply vehicles used to get their foot in the door and subvert the culture. Now that they, the rad-libs are in (and they are in), the concepts of "free thought" and "pushing the envelope" that this judge has exercized are not tolerated. Can it be that those noble sounding ideas believed by so many of the "Flower Children" of the 60's was simply talk? Talk to be used on a one time basis, as a weapon, to break a society, not as a permanent addition to the society's culture? That in a broad sense...that that is all it ever was....just talk?

    Only one conclusion can be drawn.

    America and the West was duped!! :angry

    Gladstone

  3. #3
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    The woman is obviously some goofy hippie who thinks, as most of them do, that her emotions should preempt due process of law.
    The judge did in fact rule incorrectly in the abortion case, as the picketers were breaking the law, but that is irrelevant to this case.
    The employer cannot fire them for something done or said off-duty. Furthermore, this woman leaps to the ridiculous conclusion that these guys want to watch blacks be incinerated simply because they made a humorous float that some found tasteless or offensive. One cannot deduce anything about their ability to perform their jobs because one cannot get inside their heads. This woman seems to think she knows what is best for everyone.
    She also invokes the omnipresent 'hate crime' emotional appeal, crying over the poor innocent African-American who was killed by three EVIL WHITE RACISTS. Never mind the disparity in racially-motivated crimes between blacks and whites.
    This article is just what I would expect to find on a major news website. I'm not surprised one bit. I've been seeing articles like this for years. One can only wonder how many mindless people are going to read it and robotically nod their assent.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 08:30 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, February 18th, 2012, 03:15 AM
  3. [Video] What the 2nd Amendment Is For
    By Verðandi in forum Self-Defense & the Art of War
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  4. Skadi Mission Statement Amendment
    By Thorburn in forum Rules & Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 09:54 PM
  5. Hull is a racist city
    By Loki in forum England
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 10:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •