Kentucky Deputy Suspended Over ‘Muslim Holler Monkey’ Facebook Post

[cuban smokes]

"A Kentucky sheriff’s deputy has been suspended for 24 days without pay after a racist and Islamophobic Facebook comment in late January.

The Boyd County Sheriff’s Department in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, told local news station WSAZ on Tuesday that one of its deputies had left the following comment on a personal Facebook account.

“THAT MUSLIM HOLLER MONKEY HAS BEEN EVICTED....NOW HIM AND HIS SHEMALE NEED TO GET GONE.”

The comment was deleted soon after posting, but witnesses had taken a screen shot and shared it with local media and the sheriff’s department."


Kentucky Deputy Suspended Over 'Muslim Holler Monkey' Facebook Post | The Huffington Post

If they don't fire him, and he shoots an unarmed muslim, or any other brown person for that matter, there will be hell to pay. Why does law enforcement attract these kinds of people? I think it is because it lets them get their jollies off with impunity. Well at least it did before cameras and social media...

That's too bad; he SHOULD have been fired .........

 

[JasperL]

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.

I earlier cited the 1982 Connick decision:

Held: Respondent's discharge did not offend the First Amendment. Pp. 461 U. S. 142-154.

(a) In determining a public employee's rights of free speech, the problem is to arrive

"at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 391 U. S. 568. P. 461 U. S. 142.

(b) When a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not

Page 461 U. S. 139

the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.

So, again, hurdle 1 is does the speech touch on matters of public concern. In this case - no. After that, it's a balancing test, which would favor the police department. A racist/bigoted officer is clearly detrimental to the efficient and effective operations of the department.

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?

Let's stick to an actual case, the OP.

And if you want to reference those law review articles, do you have a cite? The rest of us can't tell what they say.

 

[matchlight]

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

Not interested. Courts have sometimes upheld the constitutional right of public employees to make statements the employers tried to punish them for, and sometimes not, for reasons which are not evident. The decisions are so inconsistent that no clear legal rule has been established. That was the very problem both law review articles on this I read were addressing--both authors proposed new ways for courts to determine how far government employers could restrict various speech by their employees without violating the First Amendment.

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.

You are ignoring the difference between private and public employers where employee speech is concerned. The freedom of speech does not apply to private employers, while it certainly does apply to public ones. For almost a century, the First Amendment has applied to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

By your standard, municipal police departments throughout the U.S. should discipline or fire any officer who has publicly made a derogatory statement about President Trump. If the mere fact this man publicly called Obama a Muslim and a monkey proves he cannot do his job, because he must be biased against any citizen he thinks share those characteristics, then the mere fact any officer had publicly called Trump a "rich, idiotic white boy" should prove he is unacceptably biased against all the citizens the department serves who happen to be white, rich, or stupid. But the First Amendment freedom of speech is still alive, despite the efforts of pseudo-liberals to destroy it, and Mr. Holmes' pithy dictum in McAuliffe 125 years ago is not the law.

 

[trouble13]

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.

For me the distinction is the gov is the employer. A private employer should be entitled to fire him if they want but not the gov. The gov os not allowed to discriminate. While what the cop said was in poor taste it was not illegal and therefor the gov should be obligated to tolerate it. I think the cop should sue the police drpt for unlawful termination

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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.

Who is the deputies employer?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JANFU]

Who is the deputies employer?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I am. Questions are?

 

[Gina]

Who is the deputies employer?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The Sheriff's department.

 

[trouble13]

The Sheriff's department.

So that makes him a gov employee

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Gina]

So that makes him a gov employee

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Yes and...

 

[trouble13]

Yes and...

As i said earlier the distinction here is between a private sector employer and a gov employee. Private sector employerbis entitled to fire someone based on their opinion, the gov no so much

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Gina]

As i said earlier the distinction here is between a private sector employer and a gov employee. Private sector employerbis entitled to fire someone based on their opinion, the gov no so much

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You didn't say that to me. You just asked me who is his employer.

He'll go before a civilian review board. Without knowing the details of his employment contract, we both don't know what he can or cannot be fired for.

 

[matchlight]

For me the distinction is the gov is the employer. A private employer should be entitled to fire him if they want but not the gov. The gov os not allowed to discriminate. While what the cop said was in poor taste it was not illegal and therefor the gov should be obligated to tolerate it. I think the cop should sue the police drpt for unlawful termination

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

In general, I agree. But the constitutional issue is difficult, because obviously government employers may sometimes strongly restrict what their employees may say, even away from work, or even make them swear never to disclose certain information to anyone. Think of people who have access to military secrets, for example. I think a police department should be able to fire an employee for speech, especially when made while on the job, which causes much of the community to doubt the department's integrity or otherwise significantly harms its functioning. I don't think what this guy said about a fairly unpopular President qualifies. If there is any public figure Americans have always been free to criticize or mock, it is a President. We don't have kings here, nor have we ever believed in lese majeste.

If the assistant police chief in a community that was 20% black publicly stated that he thought blacks were not the equal of whites, the fact that statement came from such a senior official could easily cause blacks--and others in that community--to doubt the police respected the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Such serious damage to the public trust in the department would argue for disciplining or even firing him. But it's something else altogether for a regular cop, while having a beer with a few of his buddies in his back yard, all off duty, to tell a joke the neighbor and his family members happen to overhear and consider racially offensive. Should the department be able to discipline the officer for that? Why should government have any more power to punish police officers for what they say, when off duty and away from the station, than it has to punish public school students for what they say, after school hours and away from the campus?

 

[JasperL]

Not interested. Courts have sometimes upheld the constitutional right of public employees to make statements the employers tried to punish them for, and sometimes not, for reasons which are not evident. The decisions are so inconsistent that no clear legal rule has been established. That was the very problem both law review articles on this I read were addressing--both authors proposed new ways for courts to determine how far government employers could restrict various speech by their employees without violating the First Amendment.

That's interesting - seems like a lawyer debating on a point of law should be eager to cite his sources.

Also, seems to me like the Connick case establishes a fairly clean rule. 1) Does the speech address a matter of public concern? If No, not protected, end of inquiry. If yes, 2) does the interest of the employer in maintaining an orderly and effective workplace outweigh the individual's right to free speech?

I get that there can be cases in the gray area for both tests, but with the OP, the speech clearly fails test #1, and even if it passed that test (cannot see how), I can't see any way that a police department would be unable to discipline a moron spouting that kind of racist/bigoted garbage on Facebook. Furthermore, any Google search (I did one and cited it) will show MANY such cases - officers getting fired or disciplined for similar language...on Facebook. So departments in fact do that routinely - for good reasons. The police department simply cannot be seen as a safe harbor for bigots and/or racists who have the power of arrest and detention over citizens.

You are ignoring the difference between private and public employers where employee speech is concerned. The freedom of speech does not apply to private employers, while it certainly does apply to public ones. For almost a century, the First Amendment has applied to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

I cited a case dealing directly with a public employer so I'm addressing it head on. Not sure why you have ignored that case twice now.

By your standard, municipal police departments throughout the U.S. should discipline or fire any officer who has publicly made a derogatory statement about President Trump. If the mere fact this man publicly called Obama a Muslim and a monkey proves he cannot do his job, because he must be biased against any citizen he thinks share those characteristics, then the mere fact any officer had publicly called Trump a "rich, idiotic white boy" should prove he is unacceptably biased against all the citizens the department serves who happen to be white, rich, or stupid. But the First Amendment freedom of speech is still alive, despite the efforts of pseudo-liberals to destroy it, and Mr. Holmes' pithy dictum in McAuliffe 125 years ago is not the law.

First of all, you're moving the goal posts from an actual case to a hypothetical, for some reason. Second, no, that isn't my standard or argument. Obviously many people are quite able to criticize Obama without using obviously racist/bigoted language. "Rich, idiotic, white boy" is also not racist or bigoted. And I don't know why you're insisting on bringing up old cases when one from 1982 is directly on point.

 

[JasperL]

For me the distinction is the gov is the employer. A private employer should be entitled to fire him if they want but not the gov. The gov os not allowed to discriminate. While what the cop said was in poor taste it was not illegal and therefor the gov should be obligated to tolerate it. I think the cop should sue the police drpt for unlawful termination

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

A police department is clearly not obligated to hire or employ racists or bigots, although it's also clearly legal to be both, and to use racist and/or bigoted language. Public employers like private ones have the right and obligation to maintain an orderly and effective workplace, especially those that directly serve the public, like the police, and who are given tremendous discretionary power over the public - arrest, detain, use violence against them, even deadly violence. And courts clearly recognize this.

 

[JasperL]

As i said earlier the distinction here is between a private sector employer and a gov employee. Private sector employerbis entitled to fire someone based on their opinion, the gov no so much

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Police departments fire officers for being morons on social media all the time. Here's a Google search just for those fired for being stupid on Facebook.

 

[trouble13]

Police departments fire officers for being morons on social media all the time. Here's a Google search just for those fired for being stupid on Facebook.

And you dont have a problem with this?

Would you feel the same if we started firing other gov employees for having unpopular opinions?


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

And you dont have a problem with this?

Would you feel the same if we started firing other gov employees for having unpopular opinions?

In general, no. I doubt you'd have a problem if you were Jewish and the officer said something like, "the devil Jew was evicted now him and his kike wife can get gone." Etc.....

Point is they're not just "unpopular" opinions, but opinions that demonstrate at least a potentially poisonous bias against minorities. "Unpopular" in my area is someone who supports Hillary. That's obviously fine and protected. But what the OP did was something different. Bottom line is someone with arrest and detention power, and the state granted right to use deadly force, just cannot show his bigoted/racist colors in public.

 

[Fletch]

A police department is clearly not obligated to hire or employ racists or bigots, although it's also clearly legal to be both, and to use racist and/or bigoted language. Public employers like private ones have the right and obligation to maintain an orderly and effective workplace, especially those that directly serve the public, like the police, and who are given tremendous discretionary power over the public - arrest, detain, use violence against them, even deadly violence. And courts clearly recognize this.

Is the term 'holler monkey' racist? If so, how?

 

[matchlight]

Is the term 'holler monkey' racist? If so, how?

Any term is racist, if the more evolved souls who are the moral guardians of us all deem it to be. And government must always silence and punish racists. The Guardians' own speech, of course, is always correct and privileged.

 

[JasperL]

Is the term 'holler monkey' racist? If so, how?

It's like asking how "ni****r" is racist, so I have no interest in demonstrating something like that. And it doesn't matter if by some objective measure, if that was possible, referring to a black person as a monkey IS "racist." It walks and quacks like it's racist/bigoted, so a big chunk of the public, including the vast majority of blacks I'm guessing, consider it as racist and if you want to keep your job as a cop, don't use it on your social media account or refer to your boss or coworkers or those you're arresting in those terms.

I guess the defense attorneys defending anyone arrested by a moron who regularly referred to various blacks as howler monkeys would be VERY happy, so there's that....

 

[JasperL]

Any term is racist, if the more evolved souls who are the moral guardians of us all deem it to be. And government must always silence and punish racists. The Guardians' own speech, of course, is always correct and privileged.

There's a long, long, long history of racists comparing blacks to monkeys, etc. It doesn't take "more involved souls" to acknowledge that history, just a mind open enough to admit the glaringly obvious.

 

[trouble13]

In general, no. I doubt you'd have a problem if you were Jewish and the officer said something like, "the devil Jew was evicted now him and his kike wife can get gone." Etc.....

Point is they're not just "unpopular" opinions, but opinions that demonstrate at least a potentially poisonous bias against minorities. "Unpopular" in my area is someone who supports Hillary. That's obviously fine and protected. But what the OP did was something different. Bottom line is someone with arrest and detention power, and the state granted right to use deadly force, just cannot show his bigoted/racist colors in public.

I respect what your saying but i do disagree with you about the threshold your using.

If there is evidence of anyone in a position of authority abusing it, they should ne disciplined if not terminated. Calling someone an ethnic slur (which is debatable here) can be evidence of a person being a bigot but it by itself is not proof of that. People who are not bigots sometimes use those slurs as a means to attack a person. While its not polite to say those things its not illegal to say it. I think its an over reaction to fire a civil servant for saying something that is admittedly offensive to the majority of us. I dont defend him saying that but i do defend his right to say it. I think forcing people to hide their feelings has dangerous consequences associated with it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[matchlight]

There's a long, long, long history of racists comparing blacks to monkeys, etc. It doesn't take "more involved souls" to acknowledge that history, just a mind open enough to admit the glaringly obvious.

I already recounted that George McClellan once wrote a letter to a member of President Lincoln's cabinet, in which he cracked that a sweat stain he had noticed on the back of Lincoln's shirt one hot day was shaped like the continent of Africa, as if the missing link were wearing a sign to identify its origin. I suppose his calling that President an apelike creature was a racist remark. And I suppose the people who regularly delighted in calling President George W. Bush a monkey or ape and depicting him as such were also racists.

I think what really outrages most of the people attacking this deputy is that he dared to insult someone they admire and think deserves special protection. They miss their beloved Man Who Would Be King, and for them, any criticism of him is lese majeste.

 

[MACS-24]

Goes along way towards explaining why Kentucky voted for Trump

I'm not sure if related with thread but most people in eastern coal states, who usually lean left, voted for Trump due to economic reasons.

 

[yankintx]

I'm not sure if related with thread but most people in eastern coal states, who usually lean left, voted for Trump due to economic reasons.

That and lack of a formal education.