patrick.net

Only if you are a government worker and so your boss is then acting as a agent of the government. The First Amendment only applies to the government restricting your speech.

Lower courts ruled against Heffernan, saying the government doesn't violate First Amendment rights unless a person is actually exercising those rights.

This is obviously a stupid ruling and the judges who made it should be disbarred for incompetence if not malevolence. If the government punishes a person to preemptively prevent him or anyone else from exercising free speech, then the government is intimidating everyone not to exercise free speech. If the government punishes someone that it wrongly thinks is exercising free speech, it still is punishing free speech and coercing people not to exercise their rights.

Any judge who ruled that the government doesn't violate First Amendment rights unless a person is actually exercising those rights should be disbarred permanently. Such indifference or outright contempt for liberty cannot be tolerated and judges who do not respect civil rights must be held accountable for their actions.

The police officer should win his lawsuit regardless of whether or not he had participated in the protest. Like all citizens, indeed all people including non-citizens, he has the right to protest and no employer, especially a government employer, should be allowed to retaliate for the lawful exercising of free speech. The person who demoted this officer should be fired for gross misconduct.

The justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine whether New Jersey officials might have been acting under a neutral policy that generally prohibits police officers from "overt involvement in any political campaign."

Such a policy violates the 14th Amendment and should provide no legal protection.

Was the officer on duty?

In a private business, the owner should absolutely have the right to fire you saying anything they don't like. It's their business, and if they only want automatons working for them, that should be their right.

NuttBoxer says

It's their business, and if they only want automatons working for them, that should be their right.

No. We, the people own the business of government including the police force. It's not what some sheriff wants. It's what we the people want.

Actually NuttBoxer even private employers cannot limit protected labor speech. I can call a scab a scab or worse. Of course the next step is to charge you with sexual harassment for creating a hostile work environment and limit your speech that way.

My employer made it clear that anyone who discusses salary will be immediately terminated. That violates federal law.

We all just laughed when they made that statement.

And thus, 0 fucks were given.

joshuatrio says

That violates federal law.

That appears to be mostly true with only some small exceptions. I've never had a company tell me I couldn't talk to other employees about pay but they did discourage it.

joshuatrio says

My employer made it clear that anyone who discusses salary will be immediately terminated. That violates federal law.

www.youtube.com/embed/7xH7eGFuSYI

Dan8267 says

Adam Ruins Everything

LOL, I should have embeded this in my reply, his show is pretty good though I usually already knew most of what he exposes in his shows (except for bottled orange juice).

Dan8267 says

No. We, the people own the business of government including the police force. It's not what some sheriff wants. It's what we the people want.

Supposedly... Privatized police would be much better if we really wanted control. You can't make demands if you don't sign the checks.

georgeliberte says

Actually NuttBoxer even private employers cannot limit protected labor speech.

See the wishful "should" in my post.

NuttBoxer says

Privatized police would be much better if we really wanted control.

And why would privatized police have any authority over civilians. If a private cop tells me to stop or flashes his sirens, why can't I flip him the bird and continue on my way? How is a private cop any different than a security guard?

Dan8267 says

And why would privatized police have any authority over civilians. If a private cop tells me to stop or flashes his sirens, why can't I flip him the bird and continue on my way? How is a private cop any different than a security guard?

They're hired by the neighborhood to do patrols, licensed to carry firearms, and more than qualified to make arrests. I'm sure you know of a few upper class neighborhoods that employ their own security. Or read about how effective they've been in Detroit.

For someone who rails against police, you sure haven't looked to far into alternatives.

NuttBoxer says

For someone who rails against police, you sure haven't looked to far into alternatives.

I've railed against criminal police and my solutions involve accountability in the form of civilian-run courts to prosecute criminal police that are separate from the courts that have a vested interest in the police.

NuttBoxer says

They're hired by the neighborhood to do patrols, licensed to carry firearms, and more than qualified to make arrests.

So they are given special legal powers simply by the act of being hired by someone? Can I or anyone else deputize a person? Can I hire Bob to be a private cop while Bob hires me to be a private cop and then we both can go through red lights while our car sirens are on?

Again, how is a private cop different from a security guard if he's not getting his authority from the state?

Dan8267 says

Again, how is a private cop different from a security guard if he's not getting his authority from the state?

The ones with arrest powers do get their authority from the state. Most states have provisions for private cops working for security services to be granted arrest powers. They have to apply for it and be approved. Critical Intervention Services in Florida has arrest powers.

Dan8267 says

Again, how is a private cop different from a security guard if he's not getting his authority from the state?

Your belief in the state as the only authority capable of vesting power is why you will never be free.

If law enforcement can only come from the state, how will a civilian court derive their power? You have an idea, but also a belief that makes it s paradox. Follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion. If all power is derived from the state, your civilian court is a sham, in the form of what you seek to replace. Either both are possible, independent of state permission, or neither is.

"True executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

NuttBoxer says

Your belief in the state as the only authority capable of vesting power is why you will never be free.

I believe the legal authority of the state comes from the people and can be revoked at any time. However, I do not believe that individuals should have the power to imprison any other individual or arbitrarily give that power to someone else. Authority comes from the consent of the many, not from the whims of a few individuals.

If there is anyone here seduced by despotism, it is you. A couple of executives of HOA tyrants can be just as fascist as any state can be. Remember that fascism is the marriage of the state and corporations.

Dan8267 says

I believe the legal authority of the state comes from the people and can be revoked at any time.

And I believe we should all have our own island with and endless supply of monkey butlers. But for now how about you answer the specific question about how your citizen courts will succeed where your state appointed, and therefore publicly appointed police have failed...

NuttBoxer says

And I believe we should all have our own island with and endless supply of monkey butlers.

That's not a statement of principle and offers no counterargument to my position. It's just cheap ass trolling.

NuttBoxer says

But for now how about you answer the specific question about how your citizen courts will succeed where your state appointed, and therefore publicly appointed police have failed...

When now that you've actually asked that question I will. I have a tendency not to answer questions before they are asked because my mind reading device is out of batteries.

The courts in our current system have a vested interest in keeping the police happy and safe from legal consequences because the police are professional witnesses and the courts largely want people to be successfully prosecuted, preferably without trial. It's simply the most profitable model for them. Also, the police protect judges and lawyers and are the muscle of courts. So the courts are in bed with the police.

A separate civilian court system would not have these conflicts of interests and resolving conflicts of interests is the key to preventing and eliminating corruption.

Of course no argument would convince you because you are determined not to be convinced. You simply want to discredit, rightfully or wrongfully, any position not aligned with your politics. However, in this you are doomed to fail. You see, I am not trying to convince you but rather everyone else, and they do not share your religion.