Kentucky Deputy Suspended Over ‘Muslim Holler Monkey’ Facebook Post

[trouble13]

He called Obama a monkey. That's racist.

Certainly comes across as being racist but its not illegal. Im having a hard time with this idea of a gov employee being suspended for saying something while off duty.

I mean if thats the standard i know plenty of teachers who should be suspended and a few judges as well.

When did people lose their right to have an unpopular opinion?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Excon]

Says who? The racist origins of this stuff can't be washed away because racists click their heels and wish it so. Trying to white wash it and cover it up with excuses like it's someone's sincere belief these images are not racist so it isn't, is just crap. Associating blacks with apes was popularized by racists and it will always carry the stench of racism. Deservedly so.

The origins? Hilarity.

Wtf do you mean; "Says who?" The intent of the person using it, that is who. You do not get to assume or determine that, they do. It's past use by different people is irrelevant to that. That is reality, not white washing.

It is not automatically racist.

The intent behind it's use determines if it was racist or not.

Again.

If it was not racist when done to Bush it wasn't racist now just because the Presidents skin color is different.
The shin color of the President's does not automatically change the intent behind it's use.

Could it be racist?
Of course it could be, but that depends on the speakers intent, which you have no knowledge of.​

 

[Kal'Stang]

Just to be clear...

Whites have not been called "monkeys" pretty much until Bush. It had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with mocking his expressions. So yes calling the Obama's "monkeys" is indeed racist. It's like calling a white person "nigger" and they laugh. Say it to most blacks.

Actually Presidents have been referred to as monkey's far longer than Bush. For instance in 1972 Tom T. Hall wrote a song entitled The Monkey that Became President. Metro Lyrics ~ The Monkey That Became President Lyrics

 

[Black Dog]

Actually Presidents have been referred to as monkey's far longer than Bush. For instance in 1972 Tom T. Hall wrote a song entitled The Monkey that Became President. Metro Lyrics ~ The Monkey That Became President Lyrics

This has nothing to do with my point. It is also not a song about the actual sitting president. It is about a literal monkey becoming president. Not even remotely connected to my point or anything I said.

 

[Black Dog]

I don't see how the fact a person calls another person a monkey proves the speaker was motivated by racial animosity. Did the pseudo-liberals who used to delight in mocking President George W. Bush as a chimpanzee, sometimes hopping up and down while making chimp-like noises and scratching under their arms, mean to derogate Caucasians?

What about George McClellan, who commanded the Army of the Potomac and later ran against Abraham Lincoln, whom he detested, in the 1864 presidential election? McClellan, while a general, once wrote a letter to a member of Lincoln's cabinet who was a personal friend. In it, he remarked that a sweat stain he had noticed on the back of Lincoln's shirt one hot day had had very much the shape of the continent of Africa. This meant there was no need to go all the way to Africa in search of the missing link, McClellan joked; here it was right in Washington, wearing a mark as if to identify its origin. Of course McClellan could not just have been mocking the hirsute, long-armed Lincoln as a subhuman, simian creature, but must have meant to make a racial slur against Caucasians.

I already explained this, which is funny because your argument is hilariously partisan and deluded.

 

[matchlight]

Says who? The racist origins of this stuff can't be washed away because racists click their heels and wish it so. Trying to white wash it and cover it up with excuses like it's someone's sincere belief these images are not racist so it isn't, is just crap. Associating blacks with apes was popularized by racists and it will always carry the stench of racism. Deservedly so.

Assume that calling Obama a "holler monkey" was]/I] a racial slur. So what? Even the most extreme racists enjoy the same protections of the Bill of Rights as other Americans. Since when does the First Amendment not protect the right of a police officer to say crude and insulting things about the Obamas? His comments did not concern his workplace or anyone there, and he made them while off duty and away from that workplace.

I don't know Kentucky law, but civil service laws may apply to this officer. If so, that would complicate the question of how far his public employer could restrict his freedom of speech.

 

[JANFU]

Assume that calling Obama a "holler monkey" was]/I] a racial slur. So what? Even the most extreme racists enjoy the same protections of the Bill of Rights as other Americans. Since when does the First Amendment not protect the right of a police officer to say crude and insulting things about the Obamas? His comments did not concern his workplace or anyone there, and he made them while off duty and away from that workplace.

I don't know Kentucky law, but civil service laws may apply to this officer. If so, that would complicate the question of how far his public employer could restrict his freedom of speech.

Depends upon who they are employed by. This case may depend upon the ethics and code of conduct he signs off on.

 

[JANFU]

Assume that calling Obama a "holler monkey" was]/I] a racial slur.

Your position is it is not a racial slur?

 

[matchlight]

Your position is it is not a racial slur?

I don't know if it was, nor do I care. Speech does not lose the protection of the First Amendment simply because it conveys racial animosity.

 

[notquiteright]

So the leftist crowd can have an excuse for firebombing another university. 1 Facebook post = 1 firebomb in today's world.

Oh silly guy, all have an excuse, but it doesn't stop consequences. Ahhh what firebombing are you talking about?

fact is the deputy is not going to jail, is getting an administrative punishment by his own department and LEOs do have a code of conduct they have to obey or face punishment. The deputy isn't going to jail or picking up trash along the road... really can't compare the two but I know some on the rabid right sure love to try... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Assume that calling Obama a "holler monkey" was a racial slur. So what? Even the most extreme racists enjoy the same protections of the Bill of Rights as other Americans. Since when does the First Amendment not protect the right of a police officer to say crude and insulting things about the Obamas? His comments did not concern his workplace or anyone there, and he made them while off duty and away from that workplace. I don't know Kentucky law, but civil service laws may apply to this officer. If so, that would complicate the question of how far his public employer could restrict his freedom of speech.

You don't seem to know the conditions LEO are employed under. You also don't seem to know there are conduct clauses in pretty much all employment contracts- public or private. Have you ever worked for anyplace that had you sign an employment contract?

The deputy is toast, but it appears he didn't have to resign his commission so he can work someplace else and of course there always is the mall... eace

 

[Gina]

The origins? Hilarity.

Wtf do you mean; "Says who?" The intent of the person using it, that is who. You do not get to assume or determine that, they do. It's past use by different people is irrelevant to that. That is reality, not white washing.

It is not automatically racist.

The intent behind it's use determines if it was racist or not.

Again.

If it was not racist when done to Bush it wasn't racist now just because the Presidents skin color is different.
The shin color of the President's does not automatically change the intent behind it's use.

Could it be racist?
Of course it could be, but that depends on the speakers intent, which you have no knowledge of.​

Yes, origins. As I linked in my first post to you. The origins of the image of and calling blacks apes, are based in racism. The intent then was to dehumanize them. Pretending those terms and images can be made clean by the "unknowable intentions" of people using them today is garbage. Unless you are speaking of using them to educate, which is not the case we are discussing in this thread.

There is no reason to use such a description as "Muslim holler monkey" except to demean that person based on their religion and race. The intent of the sheriff was obvious. As was the slur he used indicating a transgender person.

 

[Henrin]

Saying I can't say something because of the origins of it seems kind of dumb to me.

 

[Bodi]

Why do imbeciles like this deputy keep posting racist **** on Facebook?

Do they think nobody's gonna read it?

Why do people post on facebook at all?

 

[Bodi]

So Muslims are "brown" people? Hundreds of millions of them are Semitic, like Jews. Are Jews also "brown" people?

Are white Muslims facing backlash? Nope.

 

[Gina]

Assume that calling Obama a "holler monkey" was]/I] a racial slur. So what? Even the most extreme racists enjoy the same protections of the Bill of Rights as other Americans. Since when does the First Amendment not protect the right of a police officer to say crude and insulting things about the Obamas? His comments did not concern his workplace or anyone there, and he made them while off duty and away from that workplace.

I don't know Kentucky law, but civil service laws may apply to this officer. If so, that would complicate the question of how far his public employer could restrict his freedom of speech.

Free speech has consequences. His department heads took exception to it:

"Any bias against a person for their religion, race or sexual identity must not be tolerated in our legal system. The post referenced in our local media disparages individuals in an offensive and repugnant manner that betrays a deep and troubling bias. This type of personal bias is disqualifying and should not be held by anyone charged with upholding the values of fairness and equality in the discharge of their official duties. The person who made these statements clearly possesses an inability to fairly interact with all citizens of Boyd County.

UPDATE: Deputy Sheriff given 'maximum disciplinary action' after offensive Facebook post

Once again, a ding-a-ling learned that Facebook is public and people can see what is written, including one's employer. It's not the first time it happened. Won't be the last.

 

[Bodi]

iLOL
No. What matters is the evidence.

Like his racist remarks?

 

[matchlight]

You don't seem to know the conditions LEO are employed under. You also don't seem to know there are conduct clauses in pretty much all employment contracts- public or private. Have you ever worked for anyplace that had you sign an employment contract?

The deputy is toast, but it appears he didn't have to resign his commission so he can work someplace else and of course there always is the mall... eace

You don't seem to know the long-established Supreme Court doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. It means that a condition attached to the grant of a government right is unconstitutional if it requires a constitutional right to be relinquished. The doctrine applies both to employment by a municipal police department and to rights guaranteed by the First Amendment--particularly the freedom of speech.

 

[JasperL]

That is pretty much true of private employers. Whether it is true of government employers is a much more complex question. A person does not completely lose his freedom of speech by becoming a public employee, any more than a student completely loses his freedom of speech by attending a public school.

It is revealing that so many people who claim to be liberals are so determined to silence anyone who says things they don't like. True liberals--most of whom these days call themselves constitutional conservatives--defend the right of persons they personally find repulsive to say despicable things. And the more despicable the speech, the more strongly we defend the right to engage in it.

But a police department cannot celebrate or even tolerate "despicable" speech by officers who serve the public, have arrest and detention powers, and who are authorized to use deadly force. So the question is just not whether this guy has a "right" to engage in just about any speech he wants (yes), but whether he can do that AND remain an officer of the law (no).

The fake liberals who are so prevalent today loathe the First Amendment almost as much as they loathe the Second and the Tenth. They worship at the shrine of political correctness, an un-American and thoroughly illiberal doctrine, originally concocted by European Communists, which is by its nature hostile to the freedom of speech. These intolerant fakes are put to shame by the truly liberal Jewish lawyers who, forty years ago, led the fight all the way to the Supreme Court for the right of a group of Nazi goofballs to parade, in full regalia, through a town they had purposely chosen because it was largely inhabited by survivors of Nazi concentration camps.

Again, you're addressing an issue totally off point to this discussion. If the question is whether this moron can march in a Nazi/KKK parade, of course he can. If it's whether a city police department is obligated by any right (1A or any other) or even any principle to keep a guy spewing KKK Nazi sympathizer nonsense on his Facebook page on the POLICE FORCE, the answer is obviously HELL NO. Such a person would or could be toxic in every way to a well functioning police department and the effective enforcement of the law, and the courts have recognized that.

 

[JasperL]

You don't seem to know the long-established Supreme Court doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. It means that a condition attached to the grant of a government right is unconstitutional if it requires a constitutional right to be relinquished. The doctrine applies both to employment by a municipal police department and to rights guaranteed by the First Amendment--particularly the freedom of speech.

But reasonable restrictions on speech for a police officer are not unconstitutional. If the code of conduct effectively said, "Employees are prohibited from spewing racist/bigoted bilge on social media", that's obviously allowed, such speech by a police officer is clearly not protected.

LMGTFY

 

[yankintx]

Actually, a lot of people of all occupations feel that way still in Eastern KY.

Goes along way towards explaining why Kentucky voted for Trump

 

[matchlight]

Free speech has consequences.

To the extent government may impose negative consequences on speech, that speech is not free. This employer's opinion, which you quote, is not necessarily what a court would conclude, if this deputy were to challenge his suspension as unconstitutional. It is also simple-minded pap.

Of course our legal system not only tolerates but protects bias by private persons against other persons because of their race, religion, or sexual identity. Bigots do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights any less because they are bigots. Any person is free to hate any other person or group of persons on those or other grounds, and, in his private relations, at least, to discriminate against them. He may call the members of this or that group all sorts of vile things, as long as what he says does not violate defamation laws or create a clear and present danger of violence, and he may refuse to associate with any of them. Despite the efforts of people who loathe the Constitution and want to enforce political correctness, this is still a free country.

What if a cop, on his own time, wrote a letter to a newspaper calling President Trump a "deplorable knuckle-dragger," a "fake-Christian stormtrooper," and "a Beverly Hillbilly--white trash with money"? Surely disparaging an individual in such an "offensive and repugnant manner" would betray "a deep and troubling bias." Considering that police officers are "charged with upholding the values of fairness and equality in the discharge of their official duties," and that at least some of the people in the community served by the officer must have supported Mr. Trump, wouldn't the officer's statements in the letter show that he clearly possessed "an inability to fairly interact with all citizens" in the area the police department served?

We have come to a pretty pass in this country, when harsh invective against a President by one of his detractors now seems to constitute lese-majeste.

 

[JasperL]

To the extent government may impose negative consequences on speech, that speech is not free. This employer's opinion, which you quote, is not necessarily what a court would conclude, if this deputy were to challenge his suspension as unconstitutional. It is also simple-minded pap.

So, cite your sources that indicate some court might protect the speech in question.

Of course our legal system not only tolerates but protects bias by private persons against other persons because of their race, religion, or sexual identity. Bigots do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights any less because they are bigots. Any person is free to hate any other person or group of persons on those or other grounds, and, in his private relations, at least, to discriminate against them. He may call the members of this or that group all sorts of vile things, as long as what he says does not violate defamation laws or create a clear and present danger of violence, and he may refuse to associate with any of them. Despite the efforts of people who loathe the Constitution and want to enforce political correctness, this is still a free country.

All true, but no employer is obligated to hire or keep such a person on its workforce. Employers have a right to maintain an orderly and effective workplace that would be poisoned by employees with abhorrent views. For a police force, they risk losing the confidence and respect of the people they serve. An obviously racist cop would be welcomed by any defense attorney arrested by that cop if a member of a minority that officer has shown a bias against. Etc.

 

[matchlight]

But a police department cannot celebrate or even tolerate "despicable" speech by officers who serve the public, have arrest and detention powers, and who are authorized to use deadly force. So the question is just not whether this guy has a "right" to engage in just about any speech he wants (yes), but whether he can do that AND remain an officer of the law (no).



Again, you're addressing an issue totally off point to this discussion. If the question is whether this moron can march in a Nazi/KKK parade, of course he can. If it's whether a city police department is obligated by any right (1A or any other) or even any principle to keep a guy spewing KKK Nazi sympathizer nonsense on his Facebook page on the POLICE FORCE, the answer is obviously HELL NO. Such a person would or could be toxic in every way to a well functioning police department and the effective enforcement of the law, and the courts have recognized that.

I don't agree with your analysis. Mr. Holmes' 1892 aphorism from McAuliffe about the right to be a policeman has long since ceased to be an accurate statement of the applicable law. You seem to be ignoring the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which applies to a public employer's restriction of an employee's freedom of speech. And what a cop says or does when off-duty and away from the police station does not necessarily harm the functioning of the police department. Courts have failed to establish any clear legal rule on this issue and have instead further confused it, as the two law review articles I read on the subject point out.

Do you think police officers should be punished by their departments for publishing offensive and derogatory statements about President Trump, even when they do it off duty and away from the station? After all, they serve the public, and they have power to arrest people and to use deadly force. Why should the department not conclude that any officer who said such things must harbor a deep, disturbing bias toward Trump's supporters that would prevent him from treating all people served by the department fairly and so disqualify him for the job?

 

[Gina]

To the extent government may impose negative consequences on speech, that speech is not free. This employer's opinion, which you quote, is not necessarily what a court would conclude, if this deputy were to challenge his suspension as unconstitutional. It is also simple-minded pap.

Of course our legal system not only tolerates but protects bias by private persons against other persons because of their race, religion, or sexual identity. Bigots do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights any less because they are bigots. Any person is free to hate any other person or group of persons on those or other grounds, and, in his private relations, at least, to discriminate against them. He may call the members of this or that group all sorts of vile things, as long as what he says does not violate defamation laws or create a clear and present danger of violence, and he may refuse to associate with any of them. Despite the efforts of people who loathe the Constitution and want to enforce political correctness, this is still a free country.

What if a cop, on his own time, wrote a letter to a newspaper calling President Trump a "deplorable knuckle-dragger," a "fake-Christian stormtrooper," and "a Beverly Hillbilly--white trash with money"? Surely disparaging an individual in such an "offensive and repugnant manner" would betray "a deep and troubling bias." Considering that police officers are "charged with upholding the values of fairness and equality in the discharge of their official duties," and that at least some of the people in the community served by the officer must have supported Mr. Trump, wouldn't the officer's statements in the letter show that he clearly possessed "an inability to fairly interact with all citizens" in the area the police department served?

We have come to a pretty pass in this country, when harsh invective against a President by one of his detractors now seems to constitute lese-majeste.

The government didn't impose negative consequences. The sheriff's employer did. That's what we are talking about. If a person violates the terms of their employment or the employer finds their speech abhorrent and in conflict with their "mission", they can be terminated.

Their free speech would be violated if they were locked up for criticizing the president.