Fair or Bigoted Criticism?

[DrmDoc]

A Louisiana police chief was recently fired because of his social media criticism of the President's handling of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. According to this Washington Post article, Jonesville's police chief Skylar Dore criticized Pres. Obama in a Facebook rant for not labeling BLM protestors as terrorist after three fellow Baton Rouge officers he called "brothers" were killed by a lone gunman. Dore, who is white, was fired by Jonesville's "majority-black" town council who preside over a population that is 70% black. His firing didn't come without outrage and protest by other town residents. So, was chief Dore's criticism fair or bigoted? Was his firing warranted?

[swansont]

Public criticism by a goverment official could be viewed as insubordination. There have been several instances of employees being fired for social media posts that reflect poorly on the company for whom they worked. A police chief needs the community confident in his or her abilities - you could consider that a job requirement - and something widely perceived as a racist rant undermines that.

[StringJunky]

Public criticism by a goverment official could be viewed as insubordination. There have been several instances of employees being fired for social media posts that reflect poorly on the company for whom they worked. A police chief needs the community confident in his or her abilities - you could consider that a job requirement - and something widely perceived as a racist rant undermines that.

I agree, he spoke in his official capacity which should not be contrary to the policy associated with his office.

[DrmDoc]

Public criticism by a goverment official could be viewed as insubordination. There have been several instances of employees being fired for social media posts that reflect poorly on the company for whom they worked. A police chief needs the community confident in his or her abilities - you could consider that a job requirement - and something widely perceived as a racist rant undermines that.

 

 

I agree, he spoke in his official capacity which should not be contrary to the policy associated with his office.

 

I agree, it's not in the best interests of a community's trust and confident to make publicly divisive statements. He, unlike civilians, doesn't have the liberty to express either a public or private opinions that could be construed as compromising his ability to do his job with integrity. However, there have been statements made in forums like this that suggest political correctness has gone too far by infringing on our right to free speech and labeling those who do speak as bigots and racists. I don't know whether Chief Dore's rant was truly racist but it was certainly uninformed, in my opinion.

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

I agree, it's not in the best interests of a community's trust and confident to make publicly divisive statements. He, unlike civilians, doesn't have the liberty to express either a public or private opinions that could be construed as compromising his ability to do his job with integrity. However, there have been statements made in forums like this that suggest political correctness has gone too far by infringing on our right to free speech and labeling those who do speak as bigots and racists. I don't know whether Chief Dore's rant was truly racist but it was certainly uninformed, in my opinion.

Yes, my post should have been more encompassing by including statements made privately as well.

[Delta1212]

Well, no, everyone has the freedom to speak out about things that may undermine their ability to do their job, whether it is private or public.

 

They should not be surprised if they get fired for doing so, however. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. It is freedom from specific kinds of consequences for speech, and being fired for saying something that interferes with your ability to properly do your job is not one of the consequences you are protected against.

[StringJunky]

Well, no, everyone has the freedom to speak out about things that may undermine their ability to do their job, whether it is private or public.

 

They should not be surprised if they get fired for doing so, however. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. It is freedom from specific kinds of consequences for speech, and being fired for saying something that interferes with your ability to properly do your job is not one of the consequences you are protected

Isn't that rather obvious without saying it?

[zapatos]

Isn't that rather obvious without saying it?

 

Unfortunately, no. It is not obvious to a great number of people.

[John Cuthber]

Isn't that rather obvious without saying it?

Apparently not, or the guy wouldn't have sad what he did.

[swansont]

Isn't that rather obvious without saying it?

Not for some people. There are those who think that freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever they want, full stop. No recognition of limits or consequences, or that this only involves government censorship. In this case, there is the additional wrinkle that the employer is the government; employees give up certain rights when they work for the government.

[StringJunky]

Not for some people. There are those who think that freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever they want, full stop. No recognition of limits or consequences, or that this only involves government censorship. In this case, there is the additional wrinkle that the employer is the government; employees give up certain rights when they work for the government.

No, he was stating the obvious

 

 

Well, no, everyone has the freedom to speak out about things that may undermine their ability to do their job, whether it is private or public.

If there are negative consequences to an action then you DON'T have the freedom; it's plain for anyone of normal cognition to see that.

Edited September 17, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

No, he was stating the obvious

 

If there are negative consequences to an action then you DON'T have the freedom; it's plain for anyone of normal cognition to see that.

Then any freedom is impossible as long as there is more than one person in the world.

[StringJunky]

Not for some people. There are those who think that freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever they want, full stop. No recognition of limits or consequences, or that this only involves government censorship. In this case, there is the additional wrinkle that the employer is the government; employees give up certain rights when they work for the government.

Wasn't even on about anything like that. I was chiding delta for a superfluous post; it was covered by what I and drm doc said. He was making issue of what we said and we don't disagree with him anyway. I don't know what else to say.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

If there are negative consequences to an action then you DON'T have the freedom; it's plain for anyone of normal cognition to see that.

"Normal cognition"b should be the reason why you don't need legislation to get people to wear seat belts.

[StringJunky]

"Normal cognition"b should be the reason why you don't need legislation to get people to wear seat belts.

We seem to be at cross-purposes. I'm on about this group having normal cognition to understand what drm doc and I were talking about. It looks like that's not the case and it's been necessary for him to spell it out for everybody.

 

Let's get back to the discussion at hand and not go off on a tangent, shall we?

Edited September 17, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

I think SJ got it right here. If a person is punished for expressing an opinion, then that person was never really free to express that opinion. Further, people in government service don't, for good reasons, have the same freedoms as those who aren't. In the military, for example, there's a different set of rules for soldiers because of a need for strict discipline in battle and adherence to the chain of command. Officials in government are seen as speaking for the government rather than themselves and should be more thoughtful of their position and circumspect about what they say.

Edited September 17, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Delta1212]

Wasn't even on about anything like that. I was chiding delta for a superfluous post; it was covered by what I and drm doc said. He was making issue of what we said and we don't disagree with him anyway. I don't know what else to say.

I was disagreeing most specifically with the "unlike civilians" part of what you quoted and highlighted. Civilians are no more or less free to say things that compromise their ability to do their job than public employees are. Private employers can and will fire people who compromise their own ability to do the job they are employed to do.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Delta1212

[swansont]

If there are negative consequences to an action then you DON'T have the freedom; it's plain for anyone of normal cognition to see that.

That's part of the issue that the freedom is with respect to government repercussion. It doesn't protect you from other people disagreeing, or your employer not being happy that you've put them in a bad light, or that it shows to them you might not be able to effectively do your job.

 

It doesn't relieve you of the responsibility for what you say.

[StringJunky]

I was disagreeing most specifically with the "unlike civilians" part of what you quoted and highlighted. Civilians are no more or less free to say things that compromise their ability to do their job than public employees are. Private employers can and will fire people who compromise their own ability to do the job they are employed to do.

Ok. I think drmdoc was on about private individuals - civilians - outside of their work and not wrt the job they do.

Edited September 17, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

I was disagreeing most specifically with the "unlike civilians" part of what you quoted and highlighted. Civilians are no more or less free to say things that compromise their ability to do their job than public employees are. Private employers can and will fire people who compromise their own ability to do the job they are employed to do.

 

I disagree. Although opinion in the private sector (civilians) may also have certain restrictions, those in government are a lot less free because they are presumed to speak for the government and, thereby, speak for us as the electorate of that government. There is a presumption in the private sector as well; however, private sector employers do not represent the electorate.

[swansont]

I disagree. Although opinion in the private sector (civilians) may also have certain restrictions, those in government are a lot less free because they are presumed to speak for the government and, thereby, speak for us as the electorate of that government. There is a presumption in the private sector as well; however, private sector employers do not represent the electorate.

For government employees it depends where you are in the bureaucracy and how much your identity is tied up with you job. A secretary isn't likely to garner as much scrutiny as the boss will for the same speech. But there's probably a line for every employee.

[DrmDoc]

For government employees it depends where you are in the bureaucracy and how much your identity is tied up with you job. A secretary isn't likely to garner as much scrutiny as the boss will for the same speech. But there's probably a line for every employee.

 

I've thought about this and imagined what position in government might one hold where there may not be severe repercussions for unapproved speech. Janitorial came to mind. I concede that there may indeed be government positions with greater freedom of speech; however, those in positions like Mr. Dore certainly have greater responsibilities to the public and, therefore, fewer speech liberties than we common folk.

[MigL]

Does anyone have a link as to what he actually said ?

I can see the point of calling the shooter of the policemen a terrorist, but what is the link to BLM ?

[DrmDoc]

Does anyone have a link as to what he actually said ?

I can see the point of calling the shooter of the policemen a terrorist, but what is the link to BLM ?

 

In my initial post, there's a link to a Washington Post article where chief Dore is quoted as saying, "Hey Mr. Bulls--- president, When are you going to grow a f---ing pair. And tell it like it is. These are terrorist. That have declared f---ing war on my brother. (White police officers) enough is enough.” The article goes on to say those remarks were in response to police shootings allegedly by participants in the BLM movement. If I may further inquire, what is the point you see?

Edited September 18, 2016 by DrmDoc

[MigL]

Anyone who actually targets cops for shooting is trying to incite terror, hence terrorist.

Anyone protesting peacefully is exercising their legal rights, hence not a terrorist.

Anyone calling for the shooting of policemen, is committing a hate crime against a particular demographic, and should be prosecuted, although not a terrorist.

If some of the participants in the protest, ( allegedly ) incited or participated in the shooting, certainly they should be prosecuted for terrorism or hate crimes as the case may be. But BLM isn't itself responsible.

 

He voiced his opinion about a ( hopefully ) peaceful protest, and was within his rights.

The people who fired him were also within their rights to react to his actions.