TheAgitator.com
Wisconsin? Needs More Gadaffi
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox was canned today. Good riddance.
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn’t end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: “Use live ammunition.”
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were “political enemies” and “thugs” who were “physically threatening legally elected officials.” In response to such behavior, he said, “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force.” He later called me a “typical leftist,” adding, “liberals hate police.”
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana…
In his nonpolitical tweets and blog posts, Cox displays a keen litigator’s mind, writing sharply and often wittily on military history and professional basketball. But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an “incompetent and treasonous” enemy of the nation to comparing “enviro-Nazis” to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi “brownshirts” on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as “a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up” by local police. A “sensible policy for handling Afghanistan,” he offered, could be summed up as: “KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!“
Does it count as violent right-wing anti-government rhetoric if the guy actually worked for the government?
And that’s really the scary part. For the last 10 years, this guy has had the power to put people in prison.
I don’t agree with the guy by any stretch, but can the Government fire him for private “political” comments? I can see a private organization, but he works for the state.
I live in Howard County, MD and there are all these bumper stickers that encourage “civility.” As I suspected, “civility” is just a nebulous term that really means, “don’t piss us off.”
I think the guy has a First Amendment case. What if he’d been terminated for saying things “uncivily” that you agreed with? This is the kind of thing that may test my political beliefs, but he should be allowed to tweet whatever the hell he wants without interference.
I’m okay with a government official getting canned for publicly advocating that political protesters be murdered.
You really want government officials to think that anti-government protesters should be shot on the spot? No.
Geeze, HoCo, MD. You ought to look up the history of the police there and Mickey Bowie sometime (happened circa ’88.)
/Wonder if this guy was involved in Indiana’s asset forfeitures?
I may be just another effete nanny-state liberal, but I guess one man’s ‘private’ ‘political’ statements is another man’s public call for state-sanctioned violence, terrorism, and tyranny. And yes, many of us across the spectrum would categorize acts of murder to be ‘uncivil.’ To put it mildly.
It is refreshing how quickly this little authoritarian got shit-canned.
What government officials who like violence need to remember is that (1) they’re outnumbered and (2) they’re surrounded.
If only we had the right people in office.
#2 Radley. I clearly see where you’re coming from, and morally, you are correct. However, I have to disagree. I think it’s protected speech and I believe he has a right to express it. It’s the classic free speech argument. “I’d die for his right . . . . blah blah blah.”
I also don’t think he *actually* wanted them to be murdered. Political hyperbole is often out of control.
In a way, I guess I’m glad that another asshat prosecutor is off the job. But I wish more of them would get fired for being heartless bastards on the job. I don’t really care about his private political beliefs.
I think public ridicule is enough of a punishment. Unlike most Americans these days, I don’t need my pound of flesh. I think taking his job away for “words” is roughly equivalent to jailing him for selling $31 dollars worth of bath salts – or whatever.
Jeepers. This is about the tenth time the argument “he works for the government, but his speech is protected” has been rolled out.
Yes, you can get fired for what you say. But, you can still say it.
The First Ammedment doesn’t protect you from any/all consequences.
Wow. Where’s the edit feature? My punctuation is terrible. Sorry.
Apply to 99% of posts on TA.
“… labeling President Obama an “incompetent and treasonous” enemy of the nation…”
Many of us agree with that statement. I consider it treasonous when a president, during wartime, scorns the leaders of allied nations, sucks up to dictators who support our enemies, and openly states that he may not honor treaties.
I agree that Jeff Cox needed to be fired, but only for his call for lethal force against protesters.
1. In his ten-year term, has Jeff Cox abused the power to put people in prison?
Sadly, Boyd. Still waiting for that realization to sink in.
I think it will all come down to whether the twitter account was private, or whether he ever used it officially. If it was private, while on the surface I’m happy he got fired, deep down it’s troubling for reasons mentioned in posts prior to this one. If it was used officially, I have no problem with him being canned.
I can’t take a job at CitiBank, put on my branded Polo shirt, and then tell people in the mall to open accounts or I’ll rape them. Well, I can, but I bet I’d fired post haste, and rightly so.
Here’s why it’s not “protected speech.”
It’s the very nature of this guys job to prosecute actual criminals by way of the well established (though extremely faulty) judicial process. His “private comments” in dealing with what amounts to being “judge, jury and executioner” is therefore pertinent to his job.
He didn’t just voice an opinion, he openly advocated government murder of its citizens.
Had he expressed his opinion about just about anything else, even if he just said that the protesters are wrong, and even used strong language, he’d be in safe waters. But the language he used was different.
It’s even possible that he could be prosecuted for inciting violence though I don’t think he should. I’m just saying, he might be guilty of a law that he himself would prosecute for.
And Pete, since Twitter is open to the public and tweets are available for all to see, it can no way be construed as private, even if it wasn’t done in the course of his duties. Though I’d be interested in knowing if it was done from his office computer.
It’s protected speech because most all speech is protected, but especially “political speech.” Also, since it’s unlikely that tweets are actually enough to sway people to violence, he wasn’t inciting any iminent action.
Also, unless you have something better than his views are “pertinent to his job,” he shouldn’t be terminated. I have views that my employer probably doesn’t agree with. I suppose I could get fired if they were public and brought negative light my employer. However, my employer is not the government – which should be hands off about free speech. I also go to Court all the time and advocate for things that I don’t necessarily like – because that’s what I do for my clients
Plus – and this site should well know – we’re advocating terminating a guy for using hyperbole. What’s next, we’re going to suspend kids from school for violent drawings or have them arrested? This is dumb. He didn’t really advocate for the murder of these protestors any more than my sister used to advocate for my death when she said she’d kill me for reading her diary.
I just feel as though if I want the Government to get past its assinine “everyone must be punished” attitude, I shouldn’t be allowed to adopt the same attitude when someone says something I believe is obviously stupid.
As a final matter. I’m pretty certain that any moderately skilled computer person could figure out my real name. However, I don’t expect my employer is going to try and ferret out what some otherwise random political posts mean. I sure hope Mother Jones doesn’t tattle on me too.
Sorry, but the more I think about this, the more I think it’s lame. I don’t remotely agree with the guy, but I’m also not going to intentionally blinker myself to the vast probability that he didn’t really want the government to . . . like . . . shoot some people. To act in any other way is to engage in the same behavior that we constantly criticize in others.
Difster beat me to the point that tweets are, by their nature, public statements. Yes, it’s a private company, but the statements are public, just like an ad in the paper.
And,
I am also curious how the media will spin this, as I think Radley points to the template they are likely to use. In reality, people in the government, from either party, who advocate force against those who oppose them politically are showing the distinctive characteristics of authoritarianism, not libertarianism. It will be interesting to see how anti-libertarian whiners try to associate this violently pro-statist outburst with those of us critical of state authority.
@#12 Dr.T-
“Many of us agree with that statement. I consider it treasonous when a president, during wartime, scorns the leaders of allied nations, sucks up to dictators who support our enemies, and openly states that he may not honor treaties.”
Clearly you have never read the Constitution because none of these are treason. I am guessing however that you are part of that “we love limited, constitutional government” crowd while supporting every US military misadventure around the world and that oh so Constitutional document, the patriot act.
If Cox had given a speech on a street corner saying the same thing, I would be fine with him being fired. He’s a public official, so he should be accountable for what he says in public. The same thing applies to public posts on the Internet.
Would an attorney general be more than eager to have a defendant’s tweets advocating crime be admitted as evidence? Obviously, I am not a lawyer.
My concern is that as a prosecutor, his tweets might be read by LEO’s and construed as a “free pass” if one of the LEO’s actually does shoot some protester. They might think, well I’ll never be indicted, or face a much lesser charge even if I do get indicted. Words have meaning, and power. Yes speech should be free, even for assholes. But from his position of power as a prosecutor, his words were totally out of line and could get someone killed. They were right to fire him.
@#20 Brian: The Constitution is not the only source of federal law on treason.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Did Obama give aid and comfort to our enemies? There is evidence that he has, but it depends upon how strictly we define “enemies” and what constitutes “aid and comfort.” My opinion is that Obama has said and done many things that gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
It’s protected speech, but a fireable offense.
How about if he’d said “FUCK democrats! In the SKULL!” Hell, I might get fired for saying that, and I don’t work for the freaking DA office, where there is a certain decorum and gravity expected.
Keep in mind that Cox wasn’t the office janitor. He was, at least in theory, an official charged with responsibilities in the areas of policy and exercises of discretion. His boss — an elected official — has to be able to hire and retain a certain type of individual in positions of major responsibility in order to be able to do his own job. For this reason, Cox could be legitimately fired for loudly proclaiming in favor of legal marijuana or equal marriage rights (as well as for the heinous things his actually did say).
The principle is not that much different from letting the president or the governor hire and fire people from their own staffs. Would Obama have to retain an underling who said that protesters should start breaking stuff in the Wisconsin State House? Methinks not.
I agree with Boyd’s assessment. It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘protected speech’ or not. The government is not trying to censor him. They are not saying “You cannot say that.” What his boss is saying is “You cannot hold this job if you show such poor judgment that you say that peaceful protesters should be murdered.” And just because it’s a government job does not mean that the act of getting fired is the government censoring him.
The statement that “I think firing him is equivalent to jailing him” shows that it’s not the same. Being fired from your job should never be equated to being put in jail. If he was *actually* jailed, then it would have been a First Amendment issue. But he wasn’t jailed. It’s not equivalent. And even if this incident follows him so much that he can’t get any job more important than overnight janitor it still wouldn’t be equivalent to jailing him.
I think this is protected speech, even advocating murder in a more concrete/less hyperbolic way. You can not incite violence, but that standard is based on a likelihood of immediate violence, not a general statement that someone should kill someone else some day. I suppose one could make an argument that this was sort of the former, but I disagree.
As such, we libertarians should be a little hesitant in seeing this man – disgusting as he apparently is – being fired for his words. I think a case can be made that he still can be fired, as people can be fired by the government for protected speech where it would clearly interfere with their job (e.g. racist statements from a DA or cop).
As disgusting as these comments are, I’m not sure they fall into that category any more than other offensive and hyperbolic rhetoric on any political issue would.
I won’t be shedding any tears for this ass clown but I also wouldn’t be surprised to find a very similar story (but with a more agreeable message) in the “more government stupidity to be outraged about” pile here on the Agitator, in the coming weeks.
Let’s face it, it was politics that got this loon his job in the first place, so I have no problem with the fact that politics is the reason for his shitcanning. Live by the sword, etc. etc.
#26 You’re wrong insofar as you claim the First Amendment is not implicated in the loss of your government job. It is. Jailing and censorship are not the only ways free speech is implicated or the only scenarios where it applies. Even if the government were to exact a nominal tax (say $5) on everyone who, say, tweeted something about Wikileaks, this would be a violation of your free speech rights. When the government punishes you or denies you a benefit based on your free speech (aka protected speech), it violates your free speech rights.
So the question/analysis is first whether the speech is protected, and then whether the government has a legitimate reason in responding to it and disfavoring it.
Kid Handsome,
Plus – and this site should well know – we’re advocating terminating a guy for using hyperbole.
But he wasn’t really. He defended the comments. He didn’t back away from them at all, which is what people who use hyperbole do. Also, the first amendment only prevents the government from preventing speech. It doesn’t say you can’t get fired for saying things.
Think about it. What if he said he believed black people were naturally more prone to commit crime? What if he said that most rape victims were asking for it? That’s just speech, isn’t it?
Bottom line is, we all have the right to say whatever we want. Employers have the right to fire people they think have demonstrated a mind-set that makes them less effective at their jobs. If you’re an employer and you see an employee putting up “white power” posters on telephone poles, you have, and should have, every right to fire the asshole.
“What if he said he believed black people were naturally more prone to commit crime?”
He would get in trouble, despite that statement being true.
The way I see it is, if the guy had all of these terrible statements out there before he was hired, an employer would have every right to say, “No, I’m not going to hire you, because you’re an asshole.”
Carter, I can only hope you misread “naturally” as “statistically,” which would still be questionable.
I have no problem with anyone getting fired for any reason as I have no problem with being able to quit my job for any reason.
I’m often being on the side that has to investigate individuals who are doing stupid things (like suspected of sleeping with their subordinates). His outburst was a classic case of incredibly poor judgment and a bigger problem waiting to happen. We’ve fired people for much less. My guess is that he has a history of it and firing him was trivial thing from a HR policy perspective. As is often the case.
If we are at war in Afghanistan… then so be it. War means killing people and breaking things. He is right on target. If on the other hand we do not have the stomach for war, then we need to GTFO of there. Just remember, if we let the tyrants rule, it WILL come back to haunt us some day. We let Gaddafi skate, back in Reagan’s time. We bombed Libya, killed his son. So Gaddafi went dormant for 20 years. HE’S BAAAAACK. We should have taken him out when we had the chance. Now he is killing his own countryman. What is the world doing? They are discussing “sanctions”… nice! That’ll work. NOT.
I didn’t misread anything, and there’s nothing questionable about the statistics.
Carter, just to be clear, are you saying that black people are, by their nature more inclined to commit crimes? The statistics are, indeed, questionable. It’s not questionable that blacks are more likely to be arrested for crimes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re committing more crimes.
For instance, we know that blacks are arrested more often for using drugs, while they don’t actually use drugs more often than whites.
Carter, go fuck yourself.
Kid Handsome: It’s protected speech, sure. But Cox’s belief that people who exercise their First Amendment rights should be shot is not really compatible with his job as an officer of the court. As any random two-week sample from this blog would show, it’s dangerous to have prosecutors who blatantly disrespect the Constitution.
Was it weird that my first thought was, “you don’t need to bust any heads, just fire them all for being either absent without a medical excuse (which I understand to be a terminatible offense for people under union contracts) or for filing a fraudulent document (which is what their medical excuses are.”
Then, when they are all s-canned, you let them reapply for their jobs. First come, first considered. That way, you get them all off the streets and in the interview process, and you don’t have to reapply the crappy ones that you needed an excuse to get rid of anyways.
It’s a fact blacks commit crimes at higher rates than other races. You think whites are secretly behind all the murders in Detroit? You can look up UCR and NCVS data.
“we know that blacks are arrested more often for using drugs”
Blacks are naturally more prone to getting arrested than other races.
Carter – you may as well just leave. Nobody here is interested in your bullshit.
Sorry for the threadjack, folks.
Carter, the word “naturally” implies that it’s part of their nature. I’m bending over backwards to make sure you’re not saying that something in the nature of black people makes them commit crimes more than other races.
Poor people are arrested more often than rich people, so we assume that they commit more crimes, and that might be the case. It’s not unreasonable to extrapolate that. But, like I said, we know for a fact that black people are arrested for drug use much more often than white people, even though they don’t use drugs more than white people. We also know for a fact that blacks are more likely to receive the death penalty than whites convicted of similar crimes.
Given the inherent racism in the justice system, what can we know? We know who’s getting arrested. We know who’s getting convicted. But how much do we know about who is actually committing crime? Do poor blacks commit more crimes than poor whites? I don’t know.
I do know that this is really funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U
I get the sense most people here are only interested in bullshit.
When the government punishes you or denies you a benefit based on your free speech (aka protected speech), it violates your free speech rights.
Job = benefit?
Les, we know blacks commit crimes at higher rates than other races. We know poor whites commit crimes at lower rates than poor blacks. An arrest isn’t needed to know a crime has been committed.
Carter — You’re ignorant. Black people are not “naturally” more prone to commit crime. Modern African immigrants, for example, don’t commit crime at higher rates than the general population. There’s an argument to be made that there are cultural influences at play in the American black community that glamorize criminality. And there are interesting questions about what caused those influences, and what to do about them. But your comment implies that blacks have a biological predisposition to commit crime. I’ve seen zero evidence to support that claim, and even it were true, I’m not sure what is to be gained by making it.
Funny how some conservatives will rail against the concept of group rights for minorities, but then have no qualms about assigning “group wrongs.”
I take it you agree blacks commit crimes at higher rates than other races. That’s a start.
“and even it were true, I’m not sure what is to be gained by making it”
I guess my problem is I never learned how to lie.
“I’ve seen zero evidence to support that claim”
And if you did, you would squeeze your eyes shut and think happy thoughts until the bad facts went away.
An arrest isn’t needed to know a crime has been committed.
But it is needed as a first step to know who committed the crime, right?
Carter, you seem reluctant to say that black people are not intrinsically more inclined to commit crimes than white people. Why?
I take that back. I should have said, “In most cases…it is needed as a first step to know who committed the crime…”
@#23 Dr.T –
“Did Obama give aid and comfort to our enemies? There is evidence that he has, but it depends upon how strictly we define “enemies” and what constitutes “aid and comfort.” My opinion is that Obama has said and done many things that gave aid and comfort to our enemies.”
“I consider it treasonous when a president, during wartime, scorns the leaders of allied nations, sucks up to dictators who support our enemies, and openly states that he may not honor treaties.”
Again, the reasons you give are not treason.
His blog is gone, but you can still find it in Google’s cache for now. Here’s one article:
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2010
“Missing White Girl Syndrome?”
At about 10:30 pm tonight I was awakened by a broadcast phone call (the phone literally would not stop ringing until I answered it) from a missing child tracking service, possibly working in conjunction with Indianapolis Metro Police, alerting me to a young child missing since 4 pm today a few blocks from my house on the Far East Side of Indianapolis.
If memory serves (remember, the call woke me up) the child is named Joseph Jackson. Black child about 4 feet tall. Call asked us to look in our yards for him.
I looked but did not see anything. Because I was (obviously) still drowsy when I got the call, I tried to find a description of the missing child, yet (as of 11 pm) none of the local media outlets appeared to have anything on him. None appeared to be covering the story at all.
WTF?
Today the Indianapolis media has been saturated with coverage of Brandon Johnson, a teenage black thug who was (deservedly) beaten up by IMPD as he tried to prevent the arrest of his equally thuggish brother for burglary. The story today was about the civilian police review board’s clearance of one of the officer’s involved of wrongdoing, and the rather threatening response of Johnson and some local black ministers.
But nothing on this missing black child, who may need help, in the hours after his disappearance.
Like I said, WTF?
POSTED BY PROCYNIC AT 11:54 PM
Arrests aren’t needed. There are crime reports, and surveys, see the UCR and NCVS (the data from which parallel arrest rates). Given demographics crimes can logically be attributed to certain groups as well (Japanese gangs aren’t terrorizing America’s inner cities). If you don’t like data and logic, you can explore these things first hand by strolling through a random black neighborhood.
“you seem reluctant to say that black people are not intrinsically more inclined to commit crimes than white people.”
I’m saying they are.
I’m saying they are.
Ah, there we go, then. I probably tried too hard. Oh, well.
Just so you know, there is as much data and “logic” to suggest that blacks are intrinsically more inclined to be criminals as there is to suggest that Noah got all those animals into that big boat or that George W. was involved in 9/11.
So, don’t pretend to have data or “logic” on your side, when all you have is an emotional hysteria. Also, you’re a bigot, so this is like a discussion between a geologist and a young earth creationist. Guess which one you are.
Good luck, and adios, amoeba.
If we are at war in Afghanistan…
I’m not at war with anyone.
Matt D (#40), speak for your own damned self.
Don’t feed the dimwitted racist troll.
Don’t feed trolls, people. They are voracious shiteaters.
And thread officially jacked.
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of people being fired from public office for private speech. In fact, I’m willing to argue that’s in many contexts unconstitutional. I am, however, willing to make a distinction between firing someone because of incidental disapproval of someone’s speech as a punitive measure against that speech and firing them because their speech reveals them incompetent to fulfill the duties of their public position. This is going to create tricky gray areas, but fortunately, this case is pretty cut and dry.
I’m sorry people. After reading numerous replies defending his firing and condemning his tweets, I still feel this is a case of him drawing a picture of a stick figure with a gun and the words “protesters must die”.
It’s reprehensible for an 11 year old to be caught up in the legal system for his speech, but it’s ok for someone else to be fired for it, from a government position?
And please understand, I DON’T WANT THIS DOUCHEBAG AS A PROSECUTOR. I think he’s a crackpot and a loon, but I’m not in a position to say “let’s make sure no crackpots and loons get government jobs.” If the political majority and almost-majority were in that position, no Libertarian would ever be elected or hired.
#45: “Funny how some conservatives will rail against the concept of group rights for minorities, but then have no qualms about assigning “group wrongs.” Which is just one way but not the only way they kill themselves with racial/ethnic minorities. Hey it’s not healthy that 90+ of African American voters vote Dem, but what’s the sane alternative?
Back on topic: A government official advocating the murder of people who disagree with government proposed policies? Sounds fab!
P.S.: Wanna bet that they will put his legal career under a microscope to ensure that he behaved ethically and in accordance with the Constitution while putting people in prison? Yeah, me neither.
I have little problem with canning this guy. His keeps his right to free speech, and his boss keeps the right to fire his ass. A man who advocates such views is manifestly ill-suited to his position.
#59- like it or not, being in certain positions carries certain responsibilities that may curtail your freedom. That’s the price you pay for power.
Example: Man on the street lewdly propositions pretty girl=crass free speech.
Man in his office lewdly propositions pretty girl he employs=harassment.
Woman on the street handing out fliers that abortion causes instant brain death=free speech
Woman employed in hospital as a gynecologist giving her patients fliers that abortion causes instant brain death=fired and probably tossed out of the medical profession.
You not only have rights, you not only have powers, you also have responsibilities.
#30 – “Also, the first amendment only prevents the government from preventing speech. It doesn’t say you can’t get fired for saying things.”
That’s just not accurate. First Amendment says congress “shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech. Obviously this now applies to all levels and branches of government and it means any abridgment including favoritism, and after-the-fact punishment (fines, criminal prosecution etc.). Preventing speech is called prior restraint which is the tippy-top of free speech violations, not the ONLY thing free speech is spared from. Also, free speech does say that you can’t get fired *from a government job* for your speech or other protected activity.
In many cases, like this one (or that weird case where a lawyer for the Michigan US Attorneys office was stalking and harassing the U of M student body president who was gay), that second fact is an inconvenience and creates bad outcomes. BUT, the “Agitatortots” here should have strong command of the realities of the First Amendment and also be happy and supportive of the fact that it has evolved to apply liberally to all kinds of activity and all kinds of minor government efforts at punishment or favoritism.
This link gives a great rundown, and look at the Rankin case it highlights where a person made an, albeit semi-private, remark about assassinating the President http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm
I think the case described in this post is a tough call, legally at least.
How about the possibility that all of this guy’s legal work could henceforth be impeached for bias? Think of it not that he was fired for what he said, but that what he said created a conflict going forward.
Many people on discussion forums post things that are rather more extreme than their real opinions. I don’t know that JCCentCom would, if given the opportunity, actually issue an order to shoot people who were physically threatening elected officials; indeed, I rather doubt that he would do so. More likely, he sees the debate as being somewhat like bartering; he posts that union thugs should get shot, someone else posts that they should simply be told to go home, and then they can “compromise” and agree that they should be prosecuted for extortion (or whatever). Whereas it he started out by posting that they should be prosecuted for making threats, then to appear reasonable he’d have to back down and suggest that they should simply be cited for disorderly conduct.
Unless JCCentCom represented himself as a government official, I see no reason to believe that his stated views represent those he would actually seek to put forth.
Guy seems like an asshole, and being a state employee I don’t find that he was fired. But I’d be a hell of a lot more interested in people getting fired for their actual poor behavior on the job than this sort of shit. In comparison, offense-induced firings seem like empty symbolic victories.
Soooo….
Mr Bradley, your side is allowed to use violence but the other side isn’t?
This isn’t a government vs the people thing. These protesters ARE the government. They work for the government and they want more tax money and power. There’s no more tax money to give out without chasing productive people out of the state.
Walker was elected to balance the budget. If someone decides to take him out using violence I see no problem with the people who elected him using violence to counteract that.
All this discussion about the Indiana prosecutor and no one mentions the Dem legislator: http://nhjournal.com/2011/02/23/dem-rep-to-unions-time-to-get-'bloody'/
And why do you say Carter is a conservative? True, I just scanned many of the slurs, but why not assume he’s a libertarian? Me, I’d say he’s just a nut.
Again, comparing it to story where the kid that got arrested for drawing a stick figure is saying “Being fired from your job is the same as being arrested.”
It’s not.
Nick T, in response to me, you’re using for examples situations that are not the same as having a government *job*. Enacting a tax on certain speech is different from losing a job that you have. Jailing people because they say something is different from losing their job. Heck, this guy probably serves *at the pleasure of the governor* as an Assistant State’s Attorney.
Yes, it’s a ‘free speech’ issue. But nobody has a right to be free from *all* consequences of speech. His speech is not prohibited. It is not being censored. It’s there for everyone to see. Noone’s saying “You can’t say that.” What they’re saying is “You cannot be a prosecutor for this state if you’re going to say things like that.”
After a couple of deep breaths and re-reading the article I think my previous response was wrong. Calling for live ammo by the AG is way out of line. I agree, good riddance.
But I still see the protesters as the government vs Walker who’s trying to stick up for the tax payers.
Highway -
I think you are conceptualizing it the wrong way. Don’t think of it as the government firing employees at will. Think of it as the government only being willing to give civil service positions, and the benefits and privileges that entails, if people maintain certain speech restrictions. I’m only Ok with that insofar as the speech is directly indicative of how well a person can fulfill their job duties.
#63 Also, free speech does say that you can’t get fired *from a government job* for your speech or other protected activity.
Where does the 1st amendment say this? I don’t think it does. What you’re suggesting implies that the President’s Chief of Staff can, on his own time and on his own blog, accuse the President of pedophilia (for example) and be protected from being fired. That just seems ridiculous.
Can a detective in the Special Victims Unit proudly announce his membership in NAMBLA and expect to keep his job because of the 1st amendment?
All this discussion about the Indiana prosecutor and no one mentions the Dem legislator…
Look, I hate Democrats as much as I hate Republicans, but can’t equate saying, “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” with “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force.”
True, I just scanned many of the slurs, but why not assume he’s a libertarian?
Because he’s an authoritarian, which is something libertarians aren’t. Conservatives, like leftists, are traditionally authoritarian.
This man meant physical harm to other people. It does not matter if he truly meant it or not. He declaired harm on people who we can all agree are undeserving of being condemned to death based on the opinions of one man.
Say a man working in an office found notes in a co-worker’s desk talking about how he wanted to kill the co-workers in his office because of their unruly conduct. There is no doubt he would be fired on terms of mental instability. Even if his co-workers were truly in the wrong, he made a physical threat against their lives.
Say a man went to a psychologist and suggested he wanted to murder people who are unjust “thugs”. The psychologist has every right to contact the authorities if he/she takes the threat seriously because it is a sign of deep mental instability, even if the man had no particular target in mind.
How is this any different? A man who expresses his desire to kill other human beings with such indifference is mentally unstable and therefore his place of work has every right to let go of him.
I realize that everyone has a right to free speach, but places of employment do have the power to relieve someone of their position if they pose a physical threat to co-workers or customers ( in this case citizens ). How can you possibly interprit this any other way? Would you rather he be given the benifit of the doubt, only to go out and beat or potentialy murder an innocent person he decides is a “thug”?
Even if the man was joking, he needed to be much more careful. His words can be taken as much more than a political statment. Freedom of speach does not protect you from threatening or the suggestion of taking the life of another person.
(this comment is based entirely on his comments about the protests, the African American boy, and his opinion on Afghanistan. Any other political comments that do not blatently suggest the murder of a group of people he happens to dislike are absolutly up for debate)
Has Carter made comments elsewhere that indicate that he’s an authoritarian?
Has Carter made comments elsewhere that indicate that he’s an authoritarian?
Besides his stated belief that unarmed protesters should be shot, his comments regarding Afghanistan, “KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!” and that a teenager who was beaten up by cops deserved it, are both authoritarian in that they condone the use of unnecessary violence by the state.
Whoops. Were you talking about Cox, the ex-Deputy Attorney General, or our visiting bigot, Carter?
Off topic alert.
Houston Police Chief worries about citizens who record cops because it could endanger cops. And apparently they’re starting to see more and more of it (recording cops, that is).
Those poor babies.
If I posted a threat towards LEO/President/ or other gov officials, then Radley would ban me. It is his blog, so I have no problem with that; however, I also would expect a visit from local law or the feds. Cause, you know, I might be a wacko and actually carry through. Yet, some here seem to think that a gov official can make the same sort of threat and face no consequence except for ridicule? Hypocrisy anybody?
#69 and #72, Highway and Les, please just read the link I provided. It outlines the contours of free speech as applied to government work.
Of course being censored (prior restraint) or jailed is very different than being taxed a small amount or losing a job you had no independent right to hold in the first place. But the Common Law (i.e. the Supreme Court defining and applying the First Amendment [and 14th Amendment in combo]) has said that those types of things implicate the First Amendment and effect its protections. In other words, the First Amendment is about more than just censorship or prosecution.
Les, in particular, that link explains a court recognized distinction between members of the President’s staff and other government workers, cites a case where a person was fired as a Prosecutor, and even a case where a person talked about killing the President but *could not be fired* for that comment. Just read the link @63
#71 framed it in a good way. People who protest at the state house, write letters to the editor, are members of the ACLU etc. AND who work for the government, are protected by this approach.
If it’s your job to enforce the law, you probably shouldn’t advocate for clearly illegal actions by the government you represent. It reflects poorly on your basic competence, and even in government jobs, incompetence is a firing offense if you broadcast it loudly enough.
Well, now I know that that’s apparently the case law, but like other Supreme Court decisions, I can’t see how that is grounded in a defensible position of rights as I think they should be applied. It’s in the same category now as anti-discrimination ‘Rights’ and Rights to health care and housing.
But that’s another discussion, where we get into “should”s. We’ll see if this guy files a wrongful termination suit.
It is part of any political job for the holder to remain ‘politic’. Of course if that were applied evenly a great many Democrat operatives would be unemployable….
But that hardly excuses this twit calling for the murder of the Wisconsin protesters. In any case, murdering them would be granting them a gravity to which they are hardly entitled. They are self-centered idiots, not dangerous revolutionaries. They should be treated carefully within the Law, but no better than, say, rioting Klansmen or Neo-Nazis. Then any of them that presented fraudulent doctor’s excuses should be fired,
Making them actually play by the rules they have for so long escaped is harsh enough.
Kid Handsome says:
“Also, since it’s unlikely that tweets are actually enough to sway people to violence, he wasn’t inciting any iminent action.”
Based upon the current situations in Egypt and Tunisia and Libya, I’d say that tweets ARE actually enough to sway people to violence.
If you make a call to arms, people will answer. When they do, you (the caller) are responsible if violence occurs. It is sad how often that needs to be explained to folks on both sides of the aisle – they are both doing it.
Getting fired in no way affects his ability to speak how he wants to speak on Twitter, or anywhere else. Firing someone froma job does not violate their First Amendment rights. Putting him in jail for those statements, for example, would violate those rights. There’s a big difference here.
He’s going to get a big payout.
#77: Whoops. Were you talking about Cox, the ex-Deputy Attorney General, or our visiting bigot, Carter?
Whoops indeed. Well, with all the anti-reason Carter’s comments have elicited, I just figured yours was yet another unsupported claim — or that you knew something I didn’t.
#84: If you make a call to arms, people will answer. When they do, you (the caller) are responsible if violence occurs.
I’m not sure I agree with that. That is, if I advocate violence without actually planning it or participating in it in any other way, and other people freely choose to engage in the actions that I only verbally support, how does that place responsibility upon me?
By the way, I’m not sure I disagree, either. However…
It is sad how often that needs to be explained to folks on both sides of the aisle – they are both doing it.
What is needed is not for you to “explain” your position, but for you to justify it. Stating your opinion as self-evident fact is not an argument.
Of course, in the case at hand, I am reluctant to bother taking a position on whether it’s okay for a violent gang to kick out one of its members.
[...] can’t do justice to this atrocity — just read Radley Balko’s account of an over-the-top state deputy attorney general in [...]
Are you people who are against the firing going to tell me that if this same exact fact pattern happened, but the tweeter was one of Obama’s cabinet department’s officials , that Obama’s demanding of his resignation would be unconstitutional?
Also, it wasn’t private speech. It was speech on a public forum with millions of viewers. It’s the same as buying commercial time on television or standing on the street corner with a megaphone. And it appears to impugn his ability to faithfully discharge the duties of his office.
Ben, in this thread you can take most uses of ‘private’ as meaning ‘between citizens’, rather than between government and citizens. That’s how I used it. Independent of his official office and duties.
I’m still troubled by this, truth be told. I’m not convinced he actually wanted to turn on the idiot box and see protestors torn into bloody chunks by National Guardsmen with small arms and crew-served weapons. I think it was hyperbole. (And in very poor taste.)
He’s advocating for one side of a fiscal/political issue in his private life (even if it was to potentially thousands or millions of people) in a poor way. If his tweet had read “brain the Guard, protestors! Molotovs for everyone!” I wonder if he would have still been fired. I.E., was this firing politically motivated because of the political content of his speech, or was it based purely on face-value advocating of violence against US citizens engaged in protest?
I don’t know, and neither do you know. (Unless I missed something and you DO know and I come across as an ass right now.)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nutjob, Jason Vines. Jason Vines said: Wisconsin? Needs More Gadaffi http://j.mp/eXhI5e #Uncategorized [...]
Speaking of public officials and social networking. Here’s a story from Maryland where state employees are required to fork over user names and passwords as a condition of employment:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=46&sid=2282721
Nick T., I understand what you’re saying, and it’s clearer now, having read your informative link.
However (knew that was coming, didn’t ya?), none of the cases cited involved the person fired advocating illegal behavior, like firing on unarmed protesters. This would seem to be a clear violation of test #5 given in a link (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/employpunishment.html) at your link:
If the employee’s speech did relate to a matter of public concern, is the government’s ability to “efficiently provide services” nonetheless adversely affected in a substantial way?
A Deputy A.G. who publicly and loudly advocates mass murder will have a hard time doing his job efficiently.
Again thanks for that link, I’m going to bookmark the site.
Let me quickly add that I was certainly wrong about government employees not having 1st amendment protections from being fired.
I’ve just skimmed here, but I’d be very surprised if Cox didn’t agree to some form of social media or general media policy as a condition of his job. The legalese varies, but these policies tend to come down to “don’t embarrass us.” I think by that standard, he’s been fired for cause, more or less unrelated to the actual political views expressed.
As for “This guy has been putting people in jail”: I have seen no information as to what this person’s job was. The odds are that he was not a prosecutor. Prosecution is a local government function in most states. A state attorney general’s offices typically focuses on civil matters, mostly advising various government departments and defending them in litigation.
( I also don’t know what his title means. The US DOJ has one Deputy Attorney General, who is a big shot.)
Actually, he was not in the criminal division, so whether or not he had the theoretical power to put people in prison, he never did practically.
What did he do?
According to USA Today, “His work focused on eminent domain issues for the Indiana Department of Transportation.”
That is, he drafted motions to have people’s property taken away by the government.
And then went on the internet and complained about government power.
Quite Rich.
#85 KristinS, again you’re not speaking accurately about what the First Amendment says and does. We shouldn’t just be making things up.
Les, I agree that there is a very strong argument that this firing was not a violation of the First Amendment (or in compliance with it). I think it’s a tough call, espeically compared to the reagan example which was an advocacy of an illegal act. Personally I’m happy this guy was fired and think this is allowable with under a robust view of the 1st Amendment, but the case law does put this in a gray area.
The First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. Some of you people are way too comfortable with domestic terrorism.
Our speech is already limited in ways that make this wingnut sociopath clearly a criminal. You can’t send death threats–there’s even a second set of laws forbidding death threats against people who work for the government. You can’t send bomb scares or false police reports. You can’t enter into conspiracy to commit murder, incitement to violence, can’t engage a prostitute or post murder bounties. The frequent cliche is “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” but what this demented criminal was doing was SETTING a fire in a crowded theater.
To hell with him. Everybody else like him should lose their jobs too, and I wouldn’t mind jailtime for them either. The very fact that we could debate whether death threats and incitement to murder are okay is just a sad measure of how the ultra-sicko right wing has successfully shifted the Overton window.
Carter says black people are naturally more prone to commit crime. Les says “Conservatives, like leftists, are traditionally authoritarian.”
Two bigots; different biases.
George, it’s not bigotry to describe a philosophy. Traditionally, conservatives subscribe to an authoritarian philosophy. Of course, there are fiscal conservatives, but if you’re liberal about everything but economic policies, you’re really a liberal. That’s why libertarians are primarily liberals, classical liberals.
Of course, a person can be personally conservative, but liberal in his societal beliefs. That’s why I used the word “traditionally,” because it’s true that conservatism (societal conservatism) is traditionally linked to authoritarianism.
Now, if I said that conservatives are more likely to be dishonest or in some other way bad people, that would be bigotry, because there’s no evidence to support that assertion. Saying that conservatives are traditionally authoritarian is like saying that anarchists are traditionally anti-authoritarian. It’s not a judgment, but rather an observation.
Perhaps I could have been clearer by saying, “Conservatism, like statism, is a traditionally authoritarian philosophy.”
“Everybody else like him should lose their jobs too, and I wouldn’t mind jailtime for them either.”
I agree. All prosecutors should lose their jobs, and most of them should be in jail.
Public officials are, well, public. With the job — a pretty much political job — comes an implied responsibility to not shoot your mouth off.
Still, I have to point out that an Indiana Deputy AG doesn’t command any kind of Wisconsin cop and that in any interaction with police, the threat of deadly force is present: that’s a loaded gun at Officer Friendly’s hip. There is live ammo in it; and if he is presented with deadly force, he’s not expected to just roll over. (He is expected to refrain from just shooting you for being in the way, pretty much the same kind of responsibility as should prevent .gov officials talking too wildly from government’s bully pulpit only more personal and immediately deadly).
Esquire Cox was impolitic; loudmouthed. But much as he earned his walking papers (and note his bosses worked that out in record time), he was not altogether inaccurate.
Asides:
(I kind of agree with him about SEIU, though they are more exclusive than the brownshirts and have, so far, beaten up fewer people. How many, exactly, do they have to knock down and kick before it counts?)
(Afghanistan: Yeah, he’s a bloody ijit based on the quote. Geez, I loathe the government’s wars. I’m pretty sure I’d loathe the Taliban with H-bombs even more. But I don’t know if there’s any moral high ground for miles around there, just degrees of lowness).
Les, you presented your observations just as well as Carter presented his. You’re just as good a bigot as he is. Congrats.
[...] deputy AG in Indiana was fired for saying that police should use live ammunition in dealing with protesters. This has people forgetting exactly how the police work and they are all [...]