tanqtonic
Hall of Famer
Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
|
RE: Trump Administration
(07-02-2019 11:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote: (07-02-2019 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-02-2019 11:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote: (07-02-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: On the Facebook issue itself, any post that threatened physical violence to *any* sitting member of Congress should be dealt with by suspensions and/or termination.
That being said, many of the depictions of AOC, and the verbal insults, are absolutely and fundamentally protected speech, as abhorrent as they be. If they fall short of the threat threshold, they are protected. Period.
If such a Facebook page existed for, say, workers at the EPA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs that was as vociferous against McConnell, or Trump, I would have the exact same stance --- no matter how crude or vile any posts might be.
But, I think we all know where the protections of the 1st Amendment fall on many 'progressive important issues' scale.
So from an employment law standpoint, this protected free speech should not have any effect on their current job of working in these detention centers? Honest question... not arguing the point.
I am not such an employment law expert to render an opinion there.
I think a case could be made that if one who is charged with the enforcement of the laws *and* the subsequent safekeeping of those detained shows what might be an abdication of that duty, then they should not be in that position.
If a post refers solely to 'beaners' and 'wetbacks', that might not be a strong enough showing to show that they would be remiss in that duty. Vile, yes --- guaranteed to raise voices, yes -- and they actually might get fired.
But, that firing in the civil service might put some liability back onto the government; remember that the government as of last year cannot even restrict a trademark for the word 'Slants' for an all Asian band, since that is a viewpoint based restriction on something being 'disparaging' or not. When a government makes a 'viewpoint' based restriction, there are definitely 1st Amendment issues.
If it referred to 'it might just be easier to weigh them down and toss them back in the river', undoubtedly that would be a far better case to make; in fact that might even rise to the level of an explicit threat.
Quote:Quote:And yes, perhaps the 'scapegoating' of all the left towards the 'jackboot' Border Patrol, not to mention the absolute huge verbal assault ICE undergoes from even state and local government officials does have an impact.
In some views of the deeply 'deplorable' the immigration laws actually mean something; to most of the left they are objects to be ignored, ripped down, and the officials who actually enforce the law (yes, its still the gd law, no matter what San Francisco or Austin says) are fundamentally told they are inhuman at many stretches -- I can see why a certain hard shell might be formed by those actually entrusted to enforce the law (again, that stupid phrase with zero meaning or import to a decent population of progressives, the 'law').
So for all the absolute horror that some of these posts take, perhaps those on the oh-so innocent left might actually take a long gd look at themselves and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their attitudes towards these officers of the law (again, that stupid nonsensical word) just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.
I don't dispute your point here. It still doesn't excuse this abhorrent behavior. Maybe the far right should take a gd look at themselves as well and ask *themselves* that perhaps maybe, just maybe, that their rhetoric towards these "illegal trespassers" just *might* have something to do with the callousness on exhibit to us today.
So we shouldnt refer to them as 'illegal trespassers'? Not 'illegal immigrants'? Then what the hell should we use to refer to them? The fundamental fact is that the vast, vast majority of them are breaking the law to enter and reside in this country. And many of them are perjuring themselves when blindly claiming asylum.
Good god. And it is *bad* to use 'illegal immigrants'. This is better (actually worse) than a Monty Python skit.
So actually asking that a law be actually enforced, instead of ignored, is callous rhetoric in your view?
If, when you state the far right as being *actual* ignoramuses who actually use the term 'mud people', no offense but I disavow every single one in that lot. If that is what you meant, nice try at another 'implied tying of the right to Nazi types'.
I was using "illegal trespassers" because it seems to be the term you guys prefer. I don't look at it as especially problematic and not sure why you are directing your post towards the use of this term.
Are you confused about the rhetoric coming from the administration? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? Perhaps you should google "Stephen Miller Trump administration".
I did google him,
Wikipedia Entry for Said Stephen Miller
Perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out said 'rhetoric' that is so offensive to you here.
In fact here is another source, probably more in line with your biases. Again, point out the 'horrible rhetoric'.
Leftie viewpoint of Miller
Funny, in that last one all I see all over the gd place is 'anti-immigrant'. Funny that, they seem to have left off a very important adjective with that leftwards autonomic response. Can you tell me which adjective that might be, 93? Hint, it starts with the letters I-L-L. And it has a G in it.
Yeah '93, I get it. Anything Trump means racist in your book. Any 'policy' as it pertains to actually enforcing illegal immigration is a mortal sin. Tell us something we dont already know.
Anything that the Trump administration does, utters, or breathes is bathed in racism. Trust me '93, it is painfully obvious that that is your take on it.
|
|