Social Virginia police officer fired for donating to Rittenhouse defense fund

[Hadron90]

Me too. I just acknowledge we still have that. Short of a threat, conspiring, or incitement, you can say whatever you want to whomever you want about whatever you want.



Free speech is the the first and foremost of our rights. The freedom of association is of nearly equal importance. Someone not wanting to associate with you does not take away your freedom of speech. I know you want that to be the case, but it's not.

It does take away your free speech. We value free speech because of benefits it brings to the table; people have to be able to communicate, debate, and dissent to have a functional democracy. If people are afraid to voice their opinions because corporations will unperson them, we reap none of those benefits. It makes no difference whether its the government jailing political dissidents, or corporations unpersoning political dissidents, the outcome is the same: a country where "facts" are simply dictated to the populace by the powerful and never have to compete against alternative ideas in the field of open debate.

 

[Rocco Siffredi]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783



So much for the presumption of innocence in America. Now donating to someone's legal defense is grounds from losing your government job. Like everything else now though, these standards are only selectively enforced. Last summer, Kamala Harris tweeted support of a bail fund for violent criminals. This bail fund even bailed out a man who opened fire on a police with an AK47.





EDIT: For people missing the point. It does not matter if Kyle will be found guilty eventually or not. That is for due process to decide. The point is that this is clearly a free speech issue, and no one should ever be fired for presuming innocence or helping someone receive a competent legal defense. And its hypocritical of the left to call for this firing, while themselves running bail funds all across the country.

Where is the police union? Maybe after their dinner at Dorsia they could get on this.

 

[panamaican]

It does take away your free speech. We value free speech because of benefits it brings to the table; people have to be able to communicate, debate, and dissent to have a functional democracy. If people are afraid to voice their opinions because corporations will unperson them, we reap none of those benefits. It makes no difference whether its the government jailing political dissidents, or corporations unpersoning political dissidents, the outcome is the same: a country where "facts" as simply dictated to the populace by the powerful and never have to compete against alternative ideas in the field of open debate.

In the field of open debate, people can have those discussions. But not everyone is obligated to engage in the debate. And the freedom to have that debate does not mean that it comes with zero consequences. We have more rights than just freedom of speech. We also have freedom of assembly.

And freedom of assembly includes the right to not associate with people we don't want to associate with. If someone is exercising their freedom of speech and someone else wants to exercise their freedom of assembly then we don't have a problem. We have a problem when people start acting as if only some rights matter.

 

[MRT]

Imagine if this was a 17 yr old black male defending a city being destroyed by the Klan.

Its the media narrative that has you and many up in arms

And as of now this kid has not been convicted of anything. So saying he did nothing wrong means nothing.

I could imagine that...and I would be saying the same thing.

What "media narrative"? Are any of the points I brought up in dispute? Did he or did he not travel to another state, acquire a gun from someone he could not have legally purchased his

Ooofff. The old she should not have been drunk in the dark alley defense.

Get the fuck out with that bullshit

What an illogical (if not dishonest) anology to make.

 

[Hadron90]

In the field of open debate, people can have those discussions. But not everyone is obligated to engage in the debate. And the freedom to have that debate does not mean that it comes with zero consequences. We have more rights than just freedom of speech. We also have freedom of assembly.

And freedom of assembly includes the right to not associate with people we don't want to associate with. If someone is exercising their freedom of speech and someone else wants to exercise their freedom of assembly then we don't have a problem. We have a problem when people start acting as if only some rights matter.

And the balance is out of whack. Which is what I've said. People are willing to throw freedom of speech out the window to protect at-will employment for corporations, or to protect the rights of businesses to deny service for wrongthink. It will have catastrophic consequences. Our society will suffer greatly as people feel terrified to speak their mind and engage in debate for fear they will be unpersoned. You'll see.

 

[jx820]

It does take away your free speech. We value free speech because of benefits it brings to the table; people have to be able to communicate, debate, and dissent to have a functional democracy. If people are afraid to voice their opinions because corporations will unperson them, we reap none of those benefits. It makes no difference whether its the government jailing political dissidents, or corporations unpersoning political dissidents, the outcome is the same: a country where "facts" as simply dictated to the populace by the powerful and never have to compete against alternative ideas in the field of open debate.

So what is your solution, we end or curtail free association? How far does that go?

Can we make people join organizations, or prohibit them from leaving, or do we just prohibit organizations asking people to leave? What speech is protected from free association? If one of my employees calls me a racial slur to my face do I have any recourse? Can a company have a dress code, or is that protected free speech?

If we are going to rewrite the constitution, and upend 250 years of case law, what are the rules?

 

[Hadron90]

So what is your solution, we end or curtail free association? How far does that go?

Can we make people join organizations, or prohibit them from leaving, or do we just prohibit organizations asking people to leave? What speech is protected from free association? If one of my employees calls me a racial slur to my face do I have any recourse? Can a company have a dress code, or is that protected free speech?

If we are going to rewrite the constitution, and upend 250 years of case law, what are the rules?

We could start be extending the existing protected class laws to include political affiliation. I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean I haven't identified a problem.

 

[MRT]

When chaos reigns in the streets that's exactly what they should do. People have a right to prevent looting, arson, and violence against themselves. Kenosha police seemed to agree, as they handed him water and said how they appreciated his group.

If this were a case of him legally acquiring and possessing a gun, and he was defending his own family's property (or at least his own community's property), then I would feel differently. This kid chose to travel, flout gun laws to acquire a gun, and inject himself into a community and situation in which he had no business or personal stake.

But yes, he 'has done nothing wrong'.

And I don't care what some moral relativist cops in Kenosha think. I presume they did not know he was 17, travelled, flouted the law to arm himself, etc. when they gave him water and thanked him...and if they did, perhaps they should be investigated too.

 

[panamaican]

And the balance is out of whack. Which is what I've said. People are willing to throw freedom of speech out the window to protect at-will employment for corporations, or to protect the rights of businesses to deny service for wrongthink. It will have catastrophic consequences. Our society will suffer greatly as people feel terrified to speak their mind and engage in debate for fear they will be unpersoned. You'll see.

What is out of whack with the exercise of these rights? No one has thrown freedom of speech out the window. Some people exercise freedom of speech, others exercise freedom of assembly.

You guys keep making the same fallacious argument. You did it with Twitter, now we have Gab, Parlor, Frank, etc. No one's speech ever suffered. Instead people assembled in the manner they preferred. There are thousands of corporations out there, people can work for different ones.

I suspect we'll have catastrophic consequences but it's going to come from the people who think that they're so special that everyone has to listen to them and associate with them, even when no one wants to. If they were children, they'd be the kids who insist that everyone has to play tag, even if everyone else wants to play kickball. They'd run to the teacher and cry "Teacher, it's not fair. I want to play tag and no one wants to play with me. Make them play tag instead of kickball." Those people need to get over it. If no one wants to play tag, recess hasn't been ruined. Either play kickball with everyone else or go find someone who actually wants to play tag.

Whinging about how they can't force everyone to play with them is what's really going to harm our country.

And that's what's happening now. The kids who say "I want to play kickball" are finding that lots of other people will play kickball with them. And kids who want to play tag are whining that people are now playing kickball. And they want to find a way to force everyone back into the game of tag. Meanwhile they're lying to themselves. They say "I know that everyone is playing kickball but, secretly, they still want to play tag with me." No, they don't. If wanted to then they would. The tag kids need to get over it.

 

[Hadron90]

What is out of whack with the exercise of these rights? No one has thrown freedom of speech out the window. Some people exercise freedom of speech, others exercise freedom of assembly.

You guys keep making the same fallacious argument. You did it with Twitter, now we have Gab, Parlor, Frank, etc. No one's speech ever suffered. Instead people assembled in the manner they preferred. There are thousands of corporations out there, people can work for different ones.

I suspect we'll have catastrophic consequences but it's going to come from the people who think that they're so special that everyone has to listen to them and associate with them, even when no one wants to. If they were children, they'd be the kids who insist that everyone has to play tag, even if everyone else wants to play kickball. They'd run to the teacher and cry "Teacher, it's not fair. I want to play tag and no one wants to play with me. Make them play tag instead of kickball." Those people need to get over it. If no one wants to play tag, recess hasn't been ruined. Either play kickball with everyone else or go find someone who actually wants to play tag.

Whinging about how they can't force everyone to play with them is what's really going to harm our country.

And that's what's happening now. The kids who say "I want to play kickball" are finding that lots of other people will play kickball with them. And kids who want to play tag are whining that people are now playing kickball. And they want to find a way to force everyone back into the game of tag. Meanwhile they're lying to themselves. They say "I know that everyone is playing kickball but, secretly, they still want to play tag."

More like a kid raised his hand, argued that tag was better than kickball, and then was expelled because the school doesn't want to associate with kids who prefer tag.

 

[MRT]

I think it sends a good message. To me, the guy was a hero. And quit calling him kid. 17 year olds kill terrorists all the time in the military.

If you think a message to 17yr old of 'go ahead and travel to another community, flout gun laws to arm yourself, and engage with violent rioters' is a good message, then I *really* hope you don't have or teach kids.

Yes, 17yr olds do join the military...where they are trained, legally armed, and given an explicit mandate to do what they do.

 

[Hadron90]

Yes, 17yr olds do join the military...where they are trained, legally armed, and given an explicit mandate to do what they do.

And that makes it right?

 

[jx820]

We could start be extending the existing protected class laws to include political affiliation.

That probably wouldn't fix this cop's problem as he didn't voice a political affiliation or formally affiliate with any political movement. I bet I could guess his party affiliation, but I don't know it. He hasn't joined a group that he was let go over, he said something dumb.

It would mean that I could have an employee wear a swastika t-shirt to work and screw up the whole corporate morale until I start losing employees, (and depending on how the free association laws are structured customers, and suppliers) or having major conflicts of protected speech interrupting the work day and there's nothing I could do to protect my company.

One asshole in the wrong shirt or making the wrong posts to the wrong people could potentially bankrupt any small business.

I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean I haven't identified a problem.

Agreed, it does not.

I don't think this instance reflects the problem you think it does, but I do think we are cuturally shifting toward undermining discourse in a potentially hazardous way. I think the quality of public discourse is deteriorating on a number of fronts. It's just not happening in a way that undremine's our freedoms. It just makes it an unpleasant and possibly more unstable society.

 

[MRT]

And that makes it right?

Expand on that, please. Do you mean 'right' as in morally right, legally right...? Are you asking my feelings on 17yr olds in the military?

I have no problem providing a clear answer to whatever you are really asking me.

 

[panamaican]

More like a kid raised his hand, argued that tag was better than kickball, and then was expelled because the school doesn't want to associate with kids who prefer tag.

Not close to accurate but I'll allow it. He can now go to a school that likes tag as much as he does instead of standing on the sidewalk demanding that they let him back it so he can play tag.

 

[Hadron90]

Not close to accurate but I'll allow it. He can now go to a school that likes tag as much as he does instead of standing on the sidewalk demanding that they let him back it so he can play tag.

Now do a whites-only school.

 

[Seano]

What an illogical (if not dishonest) anology to make.

You did kind of suggest that. Rittenhouse didn't force people to try to kill him.

 

[Protectandserve]

I'm gonna be in the minority here but if the fact is that he used his official department email to make the donation and the comments about cops supporting him, he is screwed and his firing is justified.

Yes it was initially anonymous but the dept can define say that since he used his official email and made the statement it could be construed as an official dept position or supported by the city/dept.

Had he made it with a private email I would say they don't have a case but I think using youe official dept email sinks you big time.

 

[Hadron90]

That probably wouldn't fix this cop's problem as he didn't voice a political affiliation or formally affiliate with any political movement. I bet I could guess his party affiliation, but I don't know it. He hasn't joined a group that he was let go over, he said something dumb.

But it does mean that he could look to establish a pattern of partisanship in the department's enforcement decisions. Similar to how it might be very hard for a black candidate to prove that he was terminated because of racial biasing, but over time a pattern may emerge that would allow someone to take action.

It would mean that I could have an employee wear a swastika t-shirt to work and screw up the whole corporate morale until I start losing employees, (and depending on how the free association laws are structured customers, and suppliers) or having major conflicts of protected speech interrupting the work day and there's nothing I could do to protect my company.

One asshole in the wrong shirt or making the wrong posts to the wrong people could potentially bankrupt any small business.

No, it would just mean that any rules you make would have to be enforced for everyone, not biased on political affiliation. So you company couldn't allow people to wear Trump hats, but ban BLM gear.

 

[SMillard]

Most expensive $25 he ever spent. Stupid to donate defense money as a cop, but he was crucified and unless he was using his department email, donations are a freedom of speech-mark my words on that

You sir hit the proverbial nail on the head, he did use the police email. IT isn't that hard people, don't mix your professional life into your personal one. That's like driving to the whorehouse in the company car with your company name plastered all over it and wondering why your boss is pissed that "you're paying for strange".