Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:19 pm If you're going to read problematic material, for whatever reason, perhaps don't do it at work and visible in a manner in which the people whom you serve might see it and find it objectionable, regardless of context. Especially when you are a public employee who has the power of life and death hanging from their belt and working in the nation's capitol.

^ This. Some A-holes enjoy reading Mein Kampf. Books should not be banned, but behavior of public employees falls under scrutiny.

So now reading can be defined as objectionable behavior? Is that reading any book or just the books which someone deems objectionable and who gets to make that determination. What if the book was Lolita or a book that graphically depicts homosexuality or The Anarchist Cookbook? Books espouse certain ideas and even ideas that are not popular or some may find offensive but reading about ideas does not constitute behavior, it doesn't even indicate how the reader feels about those ideas, whether they are opposed to them or endorses them. The officer was not even actively reading the book, it was simply in view. I am a federal employee and have been for many years, I readily accept there are many things I cannot do even in my personal and private life that others can, reading a particular book should not be in that category in my opinion.

Tao wrote:So now reading can be defined as objectionable behavior?

No one here has said that. Having an infamously racist book on your desk and visible to the public does not equate to “reading as objectionable behavior.”

Tao wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:18 pm So now reading can be defined as objectionable behavior? Is that reading any book or just the books which someone deems objectionable and who gets to make that determination. What if the book was Lolita or a book that graphically depicts homosexuality or The Anarchist Cookbook? Books espouse certain ideas and even ideas that are not popular or some may find offensive but reading about ideas does not constitute behavior, it doesn't even indicate how the reader feels about those ideas, whether they are opposed to them or endorses them. The officer was not even actively reading the book, it was simply in view. I am a federal employee and have been for many years, I readily accept there are many things I cannot do even in my personal and private life that others can, reading a particular book should not be in that category in my opinion.

The 'reading' is not the issue. First off, the officer was suspended pending an investigation so the facts are out. But if it was indeed his book and he was even merely possessing it to read later or give to a friend or whatever, it shouldn't have been there. It calls his fitness as a public servant into question. There is little reason to believe that a public safety officer should have a well-known racist book used to justify atrocities against Jews at work much less at a public safety checkpoint.

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:24 pm

Tao wrote:So now reading can be defined as objectionable behavior?

No one here has said that. Having an infamously racist book on your desk and visible to the public does not equate to “reading as objectionable behavior.”

If you're going to read problematic material, for whatever reason, perhaps don't do it at work and visible in a manner in which the people whom you serve might see it and find it objectionable, regardless of context.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:30 pm

Tao wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:18 pm So now reading can be defined as objectionable behavior? Is that reading any book or just the books which someone deems objectionable and who gets to make that determination. What if the book was Lolita or a book that graphically depicts homosexuality or The Anarchist Cookbook? Books espouse certain ideas and even ideas that are not popular or some may find offensive but reading about ideas does not constitute behavior, it doesn't even indicate how the reader feels about those ideas, whether they are opposed to them or endorses them. The officer was not even actively reading the book, it was simply in view. I am a federal employee and have been for many years, I readily accept there are many things I cannot do even in my personal and private life that others can, reading a particular book should not be in that category in my opinion.

The 'reading' is not the issue. First off, the officer was suspended pending an investigation so the facts are out. But if it was indeed his book and he was even merely possessing it to read later or give to a friend or whatever, it shouldn't have been there. It calls his fitness as a public servant into question. There is little reason to believe that a public safety officer should have a well-known racist book used to justify atrocities against Jews at work much less at a public safety checkpoint.

I was not familiar with this book before Malchior posted the article, I don't have any first hand knowledge of how ugly and racist it may be and I am not supporting the ideas in the book, however I also don't support the notion that someone should be suspended and even worse investigated for owning a book. In my opinion, the officer should have been told to remove the book from view and not leave it out in the workspace again, maybe a suspension for leaving the book in a work area, although I still have trouble with even that. However to open an investigation based on an individuals reading habits? What are they investigating? Again, what if the book had been Lolita, should he be investigated as a possible pedophile or predator? What if the book had been a book of famous artworks and the cover depicted a nude women and offended someone? Should he also have been suspended and more so, should an investigation have been opened? I get that this particular book may be really ugly and the officer may have used poor judgement in leaving it visible but I am really shocked that folks here are advocating against an individuals First Amendment rights and the idea that owning a particular book is grounds for adverse action by an employer. In the past ten minutes I have thought of a number of books and different what if scenarios but no sense in beating a dead horse.

First Amendment rights means the government cannot deny you owning it, or even talking about it. Does not apply to employer - employee relationships.

So as not to put words in your mouth I will ask the question; is your position, Jaymann, that an individuals inalienable First Amendment rights and the governments ability to protect said rights is limited by or only goes so far as up to an employer employee relationship?

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/f ... -overview/

First of all, government employees are only protected by the First Amendment when they are speaking as private citizens. If their speech is part of their official job duties, then they can be fired or disciplined for it.

Tao wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:26 am So as not to put words in your mouth I will ask the question; is your position, Jaymann, that an individuals inalienable First Amendment rights and the governments ability to protect said rights is limited by or only goes so far as up to an employer employee relationship?

That's overstating it as the First Amendment doesn't apply to private interactions at all. If this guy was a mall rent-a-cop, he could be fired on the spot. The First Amendment only protects people from the government suppressing their speech (or religion, etc.). This case is touchy because the guy is a part of the government, so it depends on several factors. Professors at state colleges run into these issues as well.

Cue the Benny Hill music when we discover the text had been handed to him earlier in the day by someone like Marjorie Greene.

Possible easy out to the Protocols of Zion guy. It says it was a printed copy in a binder. If he printed it at work on a work printer, easy termination.

If not, this is tough. I've read it, I've read the Turner Diaries and who knows how many godawful internet sites and posts. Just reading something doesn't make you an adherent. And ascribing mythical power to a book certainly doesn't make it go away.

That said, we can probably make guesses on this guy and they're probably correct. Doesn't mean we get to circumvent the law or our principles.

The last thing I want to see is censorship. I fear we're heading down that path though. I understand the need to denounce racism and hate, but don't do so to the extent that we end up creating an Orwellian state. Because at that point, it's easy to start censoring things that simply go against what you don't agree with.

Tao wrote:So as not to put words in your mouth I will ask the question; is your position, Jaymann, that an individuals inalienable First Amendment rights and the governments ability to protect said rights is limited by or only goes so far as up to an employer employee relationship?

Stessier says it nicely above. But kind of.... Yes.

As a teacher, my private/public face has to be constantly curated and run through a filter. It doesnt even take illegal or taboo speech. Just a parent who doesnt like you and a charasmatic spin. When you work for the public, the public has the power. Right or wrong. They may have gone to far but that's why teachers unions have made it hard to fire teachers. Because just the perception of impropriety can be damning. For the CHILDREN!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:51 am As a teacher, my private/public face has to be constantly curated and run through a filter. It doesnt even take illegal or taboo speech. Just a parent who doesnt like you and a charasmatic spin. When you work for the public, the public has the power. Right or wrong.

Yes. It's why I use an alias on all websites (including FB) and my Twitter account is used mainly for reading things or re-sharing without commentary. I'm confident any and all public positions I hold could be in jeopardy over comments I make in my private life and I just saw it happen a few months ago locally.

The town where I live just forced a volunteer committee member to resign after he posted "objectionable content" on his personal social media page, attacking Trump and all Republicans. A few residents complained to the town council that they didn't feel this person would be able to review their applications or hear their business without bias so he should be removed.

Let's not discuss the actual township elected official that's still in office after commenting on his social media page that the town administrator was acting like a Nazi by closing township parks back in the spring of 2020.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:20 am Possible easy out to the Protocols of Zion guy. It says it was a printed copy in a binder. If he printed it at work on a work printer, easy termination.

If not, this is tough. I've read it, I've read the Turner Diaries and who knows how many godawful internet sites and posts. Just reading something doesn't make you an adherent. And ascribing mythical power to a book certainly doesn't make it go away.

That said, we can probably make guesses on this guy and they're probably correct. Doesn't mean we get to circumvent the law or our principles.

It's not that tough, IMO. If this guy worked for a private employer, 100% he gets fired, whether he printed it at work or not. It's a PR disaster for any employer, plus if you don't fire him you'll have massive massive issues with any Jewish (or progressive minded) employees, plus this guy is at least somewhat public facing...not a hard call.

So the first amendment issues aren't that hard as a result. Basically the government has the same rights as an employer as any private company. So if the government is acting in its capacity as an employer, it can fire people for first amendment-type activity that interferes with the workplace (for example, the government as an employer could fire someone for trying to persuade fellow employees to come to a Klan rally, though it couldn't do that to the same person in its capacity as the government). Here, this seems clear cut that the government would be acting in its capacity as an employer. There would be an elevated risk of a lawsuit, but one that the government would almost certainly win.

And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That's anti-semitism 101. That's Mein Kampf level antisemitism. Really it's the foundational text for Mein Kampf (and really, for anti-semitism in general for many centuries). Is it possible that this guy was just reading it for some night school course he's taking? Yeah, it's possible, but odds are very very heavy that this wasn't academic research.

Comparisons to Lolita and the like seem really off-base here, too. Maybe it's Tao's unfamiliarity with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion leading him to make that comparison, but Lolita isn't the basis for a worldwide movement of pedophilia. When people talk about the fallacy of "slippery slope", this could be a classic example. The works and the contexts in which they are read are so vastly different that meaningful comparison is hard to come by.

The reality is that there is an acknowledged problem with white supremacy having a foothold in law enforcement in this country. Obviously not with all law enforcement, but it's there. It seems reasonable, then, that when an officer has a Rosetta Stone of white supremacy visible in the workplace that an investigation would be done. This isn't about censorship or undue restrictions on what a person can read at work. This is about trying to root out white supremacy from law enforcement, and when there's a blinking light saying "Possible White Supremacist" at someone's work station, it needs to be investigated.

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:43 am
The reality is that there is an acknowledged problem with white supremacy having a foothold in law enforcement in this country. Obviously not with all law enforcement, but it's there. It seems reasonable, then, that when an officer has a Rosetta Stone of white supremacy visible in the workplace that an investigation would be done. This isn't about censorship or undue restrictions on what a person can read at work. This is about trying to root out white supremacy from law enforcement, and when there's a blinking light saying "Possible White Supremacist" at someone's work station, it needs to be investigated.

Also, separate and aside from the reality of this guy's beliefs, a law enforcement agency also has an interest in not looking like it's employing white supremacists. And can you imagine what would happen if this guy later has an excessive force issue with a person from a minority group, particularly a Jewish one? Their lawyers would ream their way through the agency's budget.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:34 am And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I've never heard of it, but I've lived a pretty sheltered life.

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:51 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:34 am And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I've never heard of it, but I've lived a pretty sheltered life.

The short answer is that it purports to be a transcript of a global worldwide Jewish conspiracy meeting to control the world. It's the proof for every insane "Jews Secretly Control the World" conspiracy you've ever heard.

So...don't leave it lying around at work.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:53 am

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:51 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:34 am And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I've never heard of it, but I've lived a pretty sheltered life.

The short answer is that it purports to be a transcript of a global worldwide Jewish conspiracy meeting to control the world. It's the proof for every insane "Jews Secretly Control the World" conspiracy you've ever heard.

So...don't leave it lying around at work.

I would expect a cabal like that to have better OpSec. How old is this thing? Is it really part of the basis for Mein Kampf (I haven't read that either)?

I think it's also useful to note that while Mein Kampf has significant historical significance, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is more like a Q publication.

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:59 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:53 am

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:51 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:34 am And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I've never heard of it, but I've lived a pretty sheltered life.

The short answer is that it purports to be a transcript of a global worldwide Jewish conspiracy meeting to control the world. It's the proof for every insane "Jews Secretly Control the World" conspiracy you've ever heard.

So...don't leave it lying around at work.

I would expect a cabal like that to have better OpSec. How old is this thing? Is it really part of the basis for Mein Kampf (I haven't read that either)?

First published in Russia in 1903.

Which is actually less old than I thought (so only the foundational text for antisemitism for a century, not centuries). But yeah, the Nazis treated it as authentic and as justification for the Holocaust.

Fascinating - thanks for the history lesson!

Would this debate be different if, instead of Hitler and the Protocols, the guy had hardcore porn mags scattered around the office?

They're legal to purchase and consume, but any employer would be within their rights to demand their removal and possibly fire you.

I think the Nazi stuff is more egregious than this example, not less.

Tao wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:26 am So as not to put words in your mouth I will ask the question; is your position, Jaymann, that an individuals inalienable First Amendment rights and the governments ability to protect said rights is limited by or only goes so far as up to an employer employee relationship?

Since this was directed at me, I will respond. Short answer is: Yes.

This chowderhead could take his racist pamphlet to the town square, hold it aloft and preach it, and no one could legally stop him. Does not mean he is protected from losing his job. If someone took a video of him preaching and showed to his employer (even if it is a branch of government), his employer would be within its rights to consider this action in determining his future employment. It's a harsh world, and I wouldn't recommend he try this in Tel Aviv. But freedom of speech is a complex issue. Sometimes the ACLU has to hold its nose and defend objectionable speech.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:06 am

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:59 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:53 am

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:51 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:34 am And are people here really not familiar with Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I've never heard of it, but I've lived a pretty sheltered life.

The short answer is that it purports to be a transcript of a global worldwide Jewish conspiracy meeting to control the world. It's the proof for every insane "Jews Secretly Control the World" conspiracy you've ever heard.

So...don't leave it lying around at work.

I would expect a cabal like that to have better OpSec. How old is this thing? Is it really part of the basis for Mein Kampf (I haven't read that either)?

First published in Russia in 1903.

Which is actually less old than I thought (so only the foundational text for antisemitism for a century, not centuries). But yeah, the Nazis treated it as authentic and as justification for the Holocaust.

Also, in Russia it was tied to anti-Bolshevism and used to blame Jews for the Russian revolution. It justified pogroms against Jewish people in Russia and eventually the Soviet Union. A lot of Jewish emigres from Russia to Israel were chased out because of this text. Is has no business at a public official's place of work. I'd be completely unsurprised to hear this is a violation of the force's code of conduct as well.

stessier wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:07 am Fascinating - thanks for the history lesson!

Look up General Order 11/1862.

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:43 am
The reality is that there is an acknowledged problem with white supremacy having a foothold in law enforcement in this country. Obviously not with all law enforcement, but it's there. It seems reasonable, then, that when an officer has a Rosetta Stone of white supremacy visible in the workplace that an investigation would be done. This isn't about censorship or undue restrictions on what a person can read at work. This is about trying to root out white supremacy from law enforcement, and when there's a blinking light saying "Possible White Supremacist" at someone's work station, it needs to be investigated.

I'd agree if it wasn't the US Federal government. Appearance of impropriety is no longer an issue.

Of course investigating a cop for the content of a book he brought to work while refusing to investigate [insider trading/insurrection/pay for play/white supremacy/etc] at the highest levels of government would be typical.



Aside, what do we do with the cops who have III% or confederate flag tattoos? Blue Line flag tattoos? Can we even check tattoos? What about Oathkeepers?

FWIW, the Protocols were published in 1903 but they didn't come out of nowhere. They're a distillation of centuries of European antisemitic myths presented as the stuff of secret conspiracy.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:56 amAside, what do we do with the cops who have III% or confederate flag tattoos? Blue Line flag tattoos? Can we even check tattoos? What about Oathkeepers?

Do what police forces do when they have this problem. They write up a uniform policy that doesn't allow unapproved alterations to the uniform. We have to be realistic and realize we can't have a shortcut to root out white supremacy in the police. We need to professionalize the forces, have legitimate oversight, and have mechanisms to address biased conduct when it is detected/provable.

Dallas PD:

Tattoo Policy. Applicants must not have tattoos, brands, or body art that may be considered offensive or obscene. Tattoos must be covered by a long sleeve uniform shirt. Applicants must not have tattoos on their head, scalp, face, neck, hands, or fingers.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:20 am
That said, we can probably make guesses on this guy and they're probably correct.

just wanted to add, if someone's flaunting this pamphlet around, they know - and they know you know they know - very well what they're 'saying without saying'.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:10 pm Dallas PD:

Tattoo Policy. Applicants must not have tattoos, brands, or body art that may be considered offensive or obscene. Tattoos must be covered by a long sleeve uniform shirt. Applicants must not have tattoos on their head, scalp, face, neck, hands, or fingers.

Is a III%er tattoo offensive or obscene?

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:23 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:10 pm Dallas PD:

Tattoo Policy. Applicants must not have tattoos, brands, or body art that may be considered offensive or obscene. Tattoos must be covered by a long sleeve uniform shirt. Applicants must not have tattoos on their head, scalp, face, neck, hands, or fingers.

Is a III%er tattoo offensive or obscene?

Everything is offensive or obscene to someone.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:26 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:23 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:10 pm Dallas PD:

Tattoo Policy. Applicants must not have tattoos, brands, or body art that may be considered offensive or obscene. Tattoos must be covered by a long sleeve uniform shirt. Applicants must not have tattoos on their head, scalp, face, neck, hands, or fingers.

Is a III%er tattoo offensive or obscene?

Everything is offensive or obscene to someone.

So...no tattoos at all?

There's always going to be grey in the policy application. Which is the reason for the long sleeves. Have fun sweating your ass off in August in Texas .

It seems like it would be easy to make the case that it creates a hostile workplace environment.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:30 pm There's always going to be grey in the policy application. Which is the reason for the long sleeves. Have fun sweating your ass off in August in Texas .

But you can't have offensive/obscene tattoos. Sleeves are just to cover up the inoffensive ones.

Charlotte

A Chapel Hill police officer has been put on paid leave following questions about a tattoo on his forearm of the Roman numeral three encircled with stars.

“The pervasiveness of the concerns raised by many regarding his display of a tattoo that is associated with the ‘3 Percenters’ has caused the Department to question his ability to function effectively as a police officer within this community,” Police Chief Chris Blue said in a statement.

That's actually one of the cases I was thinking of. But what happens when someone complains about an American Flag tattoo or "In God We Trust?" It's impossible to purge ideology from the ranks.

The solution isn't to depend on tattoos and/or books someone brings to the office.

And so far, no one has been fired without an investigation.