Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
Bruce Olin
By Lara Jakes Jordan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:47 p.m. June 1, 2004
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20040601-1447-us-prisonerabuse.html
WASHINGTON - An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall
complained that the military was violating international war standards by
incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in attacks
against U.S.-led forces.
It was one among dozens of observations in a still-classified report,
obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, portraying an overcrowded,
dysfunctional prison system lacking basic sanitation and medical supplies.
"Due to operational limitations, facility limitations and force protection
issues, there are criminal detainees collocated with other types of
detainees, including security detainees," wrote Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the
Army's provost marshal general. "However, the Geneva Convention does not
allow this."
Ryder warned that mixing such prisoners "invites confusion about handling,
processing and treatment."
Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of
war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general
criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in
facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."
Ryder's 64-page report, dated Nov. 5, states at the outset that
investigators found no evidence of "inappropriate" treatment of Iraqi
detainees by military police. It does not detail any efforts to find
evidence of the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib around the time he visited
the prison - except to note that his team found a "wide variance" of
detention practices at Coalition Provisional Authority facilities, including
"flawed or insufficiently detailed use of force and other standing operating
procedures or policies."
Widely circulated photos have shown U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners.
An Army spokesman declined to comment on the report. Ryder's mission in Iraq
was to assess the capabilities of the country's prison system - not at a
specific prison. The report was assigned by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the
chief of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Other senior Army officials, including Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who was
appointed in January to investigate allegations of abuses and whose report
found them widespread, also have complained separately about the mingling of
prison populations in Iraq.
But none so explicitly acknowledged that the Army's procedures might have
violated international law.
"You can no longer say there was some unclarity or wiggle room about what we
were doing there," said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. law and
security program for Human Rights First, a private rights organization.
"Here you have your own general saying, 'We're in violation of international
law.'"
The report described a chaotic prison system, with staff lacking "basic
necessities" such as food, cleaning supplies and hygiene items, and carrying
little accountability for providing adequate health care.
At some facilities, contractors were allowed to use "unsecured" and
"unsupervised" tools, while soldiers carried weapons when interacting with
detainees - "an unacceptable risk inside a confinement facility," according
to the report. The report does not specify what the tools were.
At Camp Ganci, the holding facility for security internees at Abu Ghraib,
the "area is littered with trash, has pools of water standing around
latrines and the bottles of water carried by detainees for water consumption
are filthy," the report said. Moreover, it charged, Abu Ghraib "lacks
hospital beds, diagnostic equipment" and is understaffed and unprepared to
care for chronically sick and mentally ill detainees.
At one point, the report prescribes brooms and bleach to be distributed
throughout the prison system. It also recommends building a laundry facility
where detainees could work.
Although President Bush and some members of Congress have called for
destroying Abu Ghraib, Ryder strongly recommended keeping it in operation.
It "should be the centerpiece for both the military mission and the eventual
transfer of facilities to Iraqi control" until a new, $100 million prison is
built elsewhere, perhaps at Kanbani Saad, according to the report.
Abu Ghraib "should continue in operation to help meet anticipated future bed
space requirements," the report noted.
Tazmanian Devil
An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall
complained that the military was violating international war standards
by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in
attacks against U.S.-led forces. It was one among dozens of observations
in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic
sanitation and medical supplies.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm?
POE=click-refer
Liberal Divide
"Tazmanian Devil" <my...@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b27c39a4...@news.vgernet.net...
1. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva conventions.
2. Your subject line is misinformation.
3. Ryder's mission in Iraq was to assess the capabilities of the country's
Arnold Dulcimer
<libe...@dividingthecountry.com> wrote:
>
>"Tazmanian Devil" <my...@biteme.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b27c39a4...@news.vgernet.net...
>> Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
>>
>> An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall
>> complained that the military was violating international war standards
>> by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in
>> attacks against U.S.-led forces. It was one among dozens of observations
>> in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
>> portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic
>> sanitation and medical supplies.
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm?
>> POE=click-refer
>
>
>1. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva conventions.
Yes, they are. I suggest you read the sections pertaining to a
military occupation. Besides, they aren't terrorists, they are
resistance fighters attacking legitimate military targets. If they are
terrorists, so are the US troops.
>2. Your subject line is misinformation.
No, it isn't. Did you read the article?
>3. Ryder's mission in Iraq was to assess the capabilities of the country's
>prison system - not at a specific prison.
So?
>
Steveo
> "Tazmanian Devil" <my...@biteme.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b27c39a4...@news.vgernet.net...
>
>>Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
>>
>>An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall
>>complained that the military was violating international war standards
>>by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in
>>attacks against U.S.-led forces. It was one among dozens of observations
>>in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
>>portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic
>>sanitation and medical supplies.
>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm?
>>POE=click-refer
>
>
>
> 1. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva conventions.
There have been few, if any, terrorists in Abu Ghraib.
> 2. Your subject line is misinformation.
The subject line is identical to the title of the article, so it is not
misinformation.
> 3. Ryder's mission in Iraq was to assess the capabilities of the country's
> prison system - not at a specific prison.
That does not invalidate his assessment of Genenva Conventions violations.
Server 13
"Liberal Divide" <libe...@dividingthecountry.com> wrote in message
news:Ltnvc.466$uY.456@attbi_s53...
>
> "Tazmanian Devil" <my...@biteme.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b27c39a4...@news.vgernet.net...
> > Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
> >
> > An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall
> > complained that the military was violating international war standards
> > by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in
> > attacks against U.S.-led forces. It was one among dozens of observations
> > in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press,
> > portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic
> > sanitation and medical supplies.
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm?
> > POE=click-refer
>
>
> 1. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva conventions.
common criminals
> 2. Your subject line is misinformation.
Proof?
> 3. Ryder's mission in Iraq was to assess the capabilities of the
country's
> prison system - not at a specific prison.
So?
cep
Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15
ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15
ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings) Written by Charlie Van Horn
Nobody 'O'Frankly' cares
(BURBANK, California)--Air America, the liberal leaning radio network
has announced that the ratings have doubled since its inception earlier
this year.
Ned Willkins, 31, of Bridgeport, Connecticut became the second listener
of the "O'Franken Factor'.
"I just turned it on when I was in my garage working on my lawnmower,
and it really felt like Al was talking just to me" Willkins said Sunday.
According to Arbitron, the company responsible for radio ratings, Ned
was correct. He was the only person tuned in to the broadcast.
Air America's first listener, Janine Garofalos' niece, Ashley Teegan
Reynolds, says she only listens when grandpa is on with her aunt.
Otherwise, she says, "she just bitches too much"
Al Franken, who was in one scene of the 1983 movie "Trading Spaces", was
rather upset by this notion that nobody listens to his show.
"This is just another right-wing fascist conspiracy put out by the
radical Christian right in an effort to target me for the ovens that
Dubya is constructing to conceal his hate crimes against this and many
other planets" Franken said in a statement released by his publicist,
who also frankly admitted to not listening to his show either.
Air America is currently heard on almost thirty radio stations, mostly
small teeny tiny AM ones, and in markets where they get their ass handed
to them every quarter. You can also listen to them on the internet, but
who really wants to do that.
Agathena
We do.
http://www.airamericaradio.com
If AA is such a bombing failure why do the right-wingers
conintually report on it, listen to it intently, tape it
and listen to the tapes over and over???
It's only a radio network. Why you people are
so obsessed and worried about it, beats me.
But Bu$h@yahoo.com anybody-but-bush
"Agathena" <nos...@thisaddress.com> wrote in message news:ITovc.612806$Pk3.605848@pd7tw1no...
:
:
Dear Agathena:
You left out --Why do they call in to Air America to defend themselves from being called LIARS
in the face of recorded proof of them telling the lie?
BOORTZ's best response ' " It must be a transcription error, I never said that!"
Again. If it is so unimportant why are the right wing hate mongers like NEAL BOORTZ calling in
to Air America?
Answer: It takes the attention away from the stench of them craping their panties.
Have you heard his latest Limbaug lies in the forefront of the "blowing off steam" incident.
It is great.We can finally have a real look at the right wing neocon scum.
We love you Air America.
--
abb
www.airamericaradio.com
Creating more neocon assholes without creating more neocons.
Learn how to rip your favorite neocon a new one using today's current events.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt
:
Server 13
"cep" <1ct...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:40BE141D...@mindspring.com...
Agathena
Hey,
I had that Boortz interview on, when I was about to leave
the house, but I couldn't leave. The guy blustered,
and flustered and had no where to go when faced with
his own lying voice on the tape.
Why can't they just admit, "I make stuff up."
I love listening to the intelligent conversations on
Air America. Hope it continues for a long time. If
not, Franken has set up a good format.
Even Clear Channel is sponsoring Air America and
they only sponsor a sure thing.
We love you Air America in Canada, too.
zepp
wrote:
Did you catch that bit this morning on the O'Franken factor with that
nit-wit libertarian? Al was shaking his head over the fact that they
can't admit they were bullshitting, even when they are caught dead to
rights on tape, like that clown was.
It's especially weird seeing a libertarian do it, since the movement
was originally based on honest thinking over ideology.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Liberal Divide
Fredric L. Rice
>Air America ratings double
>Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15
>ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15
>ratings)Rated 3.5 out of 5 (from 15 ratings) Written by Charlie Van Horn
For some reason Air America Radio really terrorizes you Republicans.
<smirk> Good. You get a dose of truth to go along with your Limbaugh
lies, hatred, and bigotry.
---
Scientology tries to disrupt terrorist attacks relief efforts: http://www.cosvm.org/
"Bush is doing what's necessary to keep the military in top form." -- David Wilson
"Top form for an S&M porno." == Jingo
Agathena
Boortz sounds a lot like Rush. Fast talking & nasal.
I couldn't believe my ears the way he reacted when
caught with undisputable proof that he lied.
It was like a typical White House response:
Squirm and deny, deny, deny.
Tempest
> Bortz is a Libertarian.
Boortz is a rightwing, hate filled kook.
He's also a known liar.
But Bu$h@yahoo.com anybody-but-bush
"Tempest" <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2df29c5c.04060...@posting.google.com...
: "Liberal Divide" <libe...@dividingthecountry.com> wrote in message
Yeah, I listened to him for years. He claims to be libertarian, but he is nothing more than a
right wing mouthpiece, A true lying sack of shit.
Liberal Divide
news:<8hwvc.3425$uY.2911@attbi_s53>...
> > Bortz is a Libertarian.
>
> Boortz is a rightwing, hate filled kook.
>
Nope, Libertarian.
Edw
Give it up. Most Libertarians are rightists. They are not exclusive
categories.
>
>
Liberal Divide
"Edw" <the...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cB6wc.19360$eH1.8...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Wrong, for example Libertarians believe in legalizing drugs, Conservatives
don't.
Libertarians are much more left on the homeless issue than are
Conservatives.
Edw
William Buckley was the first prominent commentator to propose an end to
"war on drugs' as I recall.
As far as I can recall, Libertarians haven't made any sweeping statements
about the homeless.
>
Vince McGowan
But a "hate filled kook", nevertheless.
Vince McGowan
> Libertarians are Republicans who want to fire up a joint.
Frequently gay in my experience.
Asmodeus
@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
> Most Libertarians are rightists
Nope, but to you bed-wetters, anyone who isn't a Trotskyist
liberal is a right-winger.
--
/"\ || Free Enterprise
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Limited Government
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Individual Freedom
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rlc.org
Asmodeus
@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
> As far as I can recall, Libertarians haven't made any sweeping statements
> about the homeless
Here's one: get a job.
Asmodeus
news:cYdwc.941$c76.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> But a "hate filled kook"
You are such a brainwashed little PC nerd that you don't
have any idea what "hate" means, do you. Sue the schools
you attended--they screwed you over.
Edw
"Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94FF4DC4A8E31as...@204.127.199.17...
> "Edw" <the...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:jZ7wc.19388$eH1.8834316
> @newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > As far as I can recall, Libertarians haven't made any sweeping
statements
> > about the homeless
>
> Here's one: get a job.
Wow! So cutting.
Edw
"Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
> "Edw" <the...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:cB6wc.19360$eH1.8820505
> @newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > Most Libertarians are rightists
>
> Nope, but to you bed-wetters, anyone who isn't a Trotskyist
> liberal is a right-winger.
Your ignorance is showing.
Asmodeus
news:qdgac0tu8o9r0cob7...@4ax.com:
> I USED to actually have RESPECT for you people
Until you found out we didn't want to pay for your welfare checks?
Get a job. Get a life. Get a clue.
Asmodeus
> What about the billions of $$$ in welfare you are implicitly
> advocating for corporate high-rollers?
None at all, bozo. None. Get it? As in no IRS. And
since you don't have a clue: corporations don't pay
taxes--you do when they pass the cost on to you,
and no amount of legislation can ever change that.
Like I said, get a life, get a job, get a clue.
Sid9
> I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
> news:2o1cc0pfjlm69pa19...@4ax.com:
>
>> What about the billions of $$$ in welfare you are implicitly
>> advocating for corporate high-rollers?
>
> None at all, bozo. None. Get it? As in no IRS. And
> since you don't have a clue: corporations don't pay
> taxes--you do when they pass the cost on to you,
> and no amount of legislation can ever change that.
>
> Like I said, get a life, get a job, get a clue.
I see you advocate anarchy.
They used to arrest anarchists.
Asmodeus
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
> I see you advocate anarchy
Look up the 16th Amendment and when it was passed. Was the
United States in anarchy until then?
Asmodeus
> This alone costs the federal gov't about $350 billion a year in lost
> revenues. And because of this, YOUR income taxes have to make up the
> difference
Costs the federal government in lost revenues? You speak as if
the federal government has a right to steal money.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
Asmodeus
> I'm RETIRED, thank you very much, after being gainfully employed for
> over 30 years... BOY
I could be, but I prefer to continue working. Boy. Maybe you should
consider doing the same instead of jacking off to your left-wing
fantasies. And I'm into my fourth decade of gainful employment.
How is it being on the dole?
Larry Hewitt
"Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
> I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
> news:78cic0dq2icf5e7b4...@4ax.com:
>
> > This alone costs the federal gov't about $350 billion a year in lost
> > revenues. And because of this, YOUR income taxes have to make up the
> > difference
>
> Costs the federal government in lost revenues? You speak as if
> the federal government has a right to steal money.
No, but uit has the right to levy taxes and collect tarrifs.
Larry
Tempest
Larry Hewitt wrote:
> "Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9505A39E1B306as...@63.240.76.16...
>
>>I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
>>news:78cic0dq2icf5e7b4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>This alone costs the federal gov't about $350 billion a year in lost
>>>revenues. And because of this, YOUR income taxes have to make up the
>>>difference
>>
>>Costs the federal government in lost revenues? You speak as if
>>the federal government has a right to steal money.
>
>
> No, but uit has the right to levy taxes and collect tarrifs.
Assmode hasn't finished grade school yet.
They don't start teaching about the government until high school.
--
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
zepp
>
>
>Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> "Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9505A39E1B306as...@63.240.76.16...
>>
>>>I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
>>>news:78cic0dq2icf5e7b4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This alone costs the federal gov't about $350 billion a year in lost
>>>>revenues. And because of this, YOUR income taxes have to make up the
>>>>difference
>>>
>>>Costs the federal government in lost revenues? You speak as if
>>>the federal government has a right to steal money.
>>
>>
>> No, but uit has the right to levy taxes and collect tarrifs.
Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
tarrifs. Government has no rights.
>
>
>Assmode hasn't finished grade school yet.
>
>They don't start teaching about the government until high school.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Asmodeus
> They don't start teaching about the government until high school
From what we see from you and the other liberals, they don't teach
anything about government at all anymore. You keep going on about
the popular vote for president, as if it had any relevance (it does
not, is not supposed to, never has), you insist that the economy,
the "plight" of the poor, and other things are the job of the
government, demonstrating that you have never read the Constitution,
and overall, just show your ignorance.
Asmodeus
news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
> Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
> tarrifs. Government has no rights
Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
Milt
> zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
> news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
>>tarrifs. Government has no rights
>
>
> Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
> granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
> Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
>
Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent.
That must be why 3/4 of the people in the world have none, and why so
many people have had to die to protect them, because they're inherent...
Vince McGowan
> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:dTJxc.228$FC3.126
> @bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>>I see you advocate anarchy
>
> Look up the 16th Amendment and when it was passed. Was the
> United States in anarchy until then?
What the devil are you talking about here?
The US has been "in anarchy" since 20 Jan 1981.
Vince McGowan
> I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
> news:78cic0dq2icf5e7b4...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>This alone costs the federal gov't about $350 billion a year in lost
>>revenues. And because of this, YOUR income taxes have to make up the
>>difference
>
>
> Costs the federal government in lost revenues? You speak as if
> the federal government has a right to steal money.
It certainly has the right to levy & collect taxes. Seriously, check out
the Constitution.
zepp
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
>
>> Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
>> tarrifs. Government has no rights
>
>Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
>granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
>Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
So does this mean we won't hear any crap from you about "states
rights" or arguing that corporations should be stripped of rights?
Vince McGowan
> I. M. Stranger <scsm...@bellsouth.NOT> wrote in
> news:e3ujc0ljjadgs54vt...@4ax.com:
>
>>I'm RETIRED, thank you very much, after being gainfully employed for
>>over 30 years... BOY
>
> I could be, but I prefer to continue working. Boy. Maybe you should
> consider doing the same instead of jacking off to your left-wing
> fantasies. And I'm into my fourth decade of gainful employment.
That paper route has really worked out for you, hasn't it?
> How is it being on the dole?
I'm retired myself and not on the dole. I'm living on the assets I
accumulated while I was employed. Bet that really torques you off - deal
with it.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Asmodeus wrote:
>
>> zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>> news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
>>>tarrifs. Government has no rights
>>
>>
>> Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
>> granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
>> Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
>>
>
>Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent.
>
...and yet, Milt Shook seems to think his right to free speech is
inherent...
--
Milt Shook says, "Your right to free speech is protected from
more than the government."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4KCdnTvZZ-z35wDdRVn-sQ%40comcast.com
The Supreme Court says, "the constitutional guarantee of free
speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state."
-U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
Milt
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:11:13 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>>>news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
>>>>tarrifs. Government has no rights
>>>
>>>
>>>Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
>>>granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
>>>Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
>>>
>>
>>Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent.
>>
>
>
> ...and yet, Milt Shook seems to think his right to free speech is
> inherent...
Another non-sequiter from the president of the Usenet Resident Idiots.
No, our rights derive from the Constitution.
Yet, you think that, when I go to court to demand them, a judge -- who
is the government -- can simply laugh me out of court.
How odd.
> --
>
> Milt Shook says, "Your right to free speech is protected from
> more than the government."
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4KCdnTvZZ-z35wDdRVn-sQ%40comcast.com
>
> The Supreme Court says, "the constitutional guarantee of free
> speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state."
> -U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
>
Read the case, folks. It proves ME right...
>
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:11:13 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>>>>news:t7mkc0huj8j7da2kr...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well, strictly speaking, it is EMPOWERED to levy taxes and collect
>>>>>tarrifs. Government has no rights
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very good! No group has rights. Only individuals have rights, not
>>>>granted us by any document or government, but inherent to all. The
>>>>Constitution only recognizes rights; it does not grant them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ...and yet, Milt Shook seems to think his right to free speech is
>> inherent...
>
>Another non-sequiter from the president of the Usenet Resident Idiots.
>
>No, our rights derive from the Constitution.
Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
government?" Since the constitution states, and the Supreme Court has
affirmed clearly that "the constitutional guarantee of free speech is
a guarantee only against abridgment by government?"
>Yet, you think that, when I go to court to demand them, a judge -- who
>is the government -- can simply laugh me out of court.
No, only if your demands of him are 1st Amendment freedom of speech
rights against a private party....
...and then he will surely laugh....
Ouroboros Rex
"Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
> Tempest <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:40CA54F0...@hotmail.com:
>
> > They don't start teaching about the government until high school
>
> From what we see from you and the other liberals, they don't teach
> anything about government at all anymore. You keep going on about
> the popular vote for president, as if it had any relevance (it does
> not, is not supposed to, never has), you insist that the economy,
> the "plight" of the poor, and other things are the job of the
> government, demonstrating that you have never read the Constitution,
> and overall, just show your ignorance.
Where's the rest of his post, coward?
Asmodeus
h...@comcast.com:
> Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent
I'm in good company:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Asmodeus
news:kp0mc09h69je0kvuh...@4ax.com:
> ...and yet, Milt Shook seems to think his right to free speech is
> inherent...
It's oddly the only right liberals are concerned about, and only
when they are the ones doing the talking. It is not a problem for
liberals to pass "hate crime" legislation, and "hate speech" laws
are next.
Asmodeus
> Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
> have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
> government?"
Because liberals don't undertand that the Constitution limits what
the government can do, not individuals.
Asmodeus
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> The US has been "in anarchy" since 20 Jan 1981
Ah, I see. In your fucked up little universe, anything other than
socialism is anarchy.
Asmodeus
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> It certainly has the right to levy & collect taxes. Seriously, check out
> the Constitution
Amendment XVI. It's on the repeal list, along with XIV, XV, and
XVII.
--
/"\ || Columbine happened, not because there
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || were too many guns at the school that
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || day, but because there were too few.
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --L. Neil Smith
,
Asmodeus
news:7o2mc0p76g8uiqm8a...@4ax.com:
> So does this mean we won't hear any crap from you about "states
> rights" or arguing that corporations should be stripped of rights?
"States rights" is not a misnomer, though it is an unfortunate
usage. On a republican and/or libertarian forum, I prefer to use
the term "Federalism," but few liberals know what that means;
after all, most believe the Constitution grants them rights,
believe the Constitution grants a right to privacy, believe
the United States is a democracy, oh the list goes on and on.
But yes, states have rights only because the individuals in those
states have rights. I'm quite sure, however, that you are either
too stupid, or not educated well enough in US history and government
to understand the distinction--and that's a problem, because it
is truly a crucial distinction.
Asmodeus
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> I'm retired myself and not on the dole. I'm living on the assets I
> accumulated while I was employed
You obviously need to go back to work. So you're not collecting
social security checks?
Asmodeus
@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
> Where's the rest of his post, coward?
So you think changing your little name is going to fool anyone,
dumbfuck?
Milt
> Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in news:LZudnRVgdr1unVbdRVn-
> h...@comcast.com:
>
>
>>Jesus... another fool who thinks rights are inherent
>
>
> I'm in good company:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all (landed white) men are created equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
> secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
> just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
> Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
> to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
> foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
> them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>
Of course, the guy who wrote that had a passel of slaves doing his yard
work. Black men wouldn't get the vote for another century, and women
wouldn't even get the vote for damn near another century and a half. And
look at the number of people who die, and continue to die, attempting
to obtain these supposedly "unalienable rights." Shit; if you're gay,
you STILL don't get them, in law or practice. He left out a few words in
the above, which I have replaced.
Add to that the fact that they had to fight a war to gain independence...
It's called rhetoric. It's a nice idea, but it's not grounded in reality.
Milt
> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
> news:4i8mc0h8nre4g9orp...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
>>have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
>>government?"
>
>
> Because liberals don't undertand that the Constitution limits what
> the government can do, not individuals.
>
Of course, Cartoon Boy never mentions that I never said otherwise.
cep
Wait a second, did you really expect the government to be perfect day
one? You're a fool.
This government today is a product of evolution. We grow better
everyday. This change occurs as the world changes. If you thought that
the U.S. should have looked on day one as it does today, you're stupid,
just as you might think that 100 years from now we'll look like today.
Milt
No. I'm acknowledging that it isn't perfect, EVER. And that rights are
NOT inherent. That is obvious, based on the billions of people who have
died and continue to die throughout history in order to get them. The
rights we take for granted because they're "inherent" are NOT shared by
roughly 3/4 of the world population. Plus, they could be taken away at
any timne if we don't pay attention. That sure as hell doesn't sound
"inherent" to me.
Would I like them to be? Sure. But I'd probably have to wait few
thousand years to see that possibility. But for now, they're only
inherent to idealistic fools with their heads in the clouds.
> You're a fool.
>
> This government today is a product of evolution. We grow better
> everyday.
No, we grow better, and then we fall backwards a little bit, when we
become too complacent.
> This change occurs as the world changes. If you thought that
> the U.S. should have looked on day one as it does today, you're stupid,
> just as you might think that 100 years from now we'll look like today.
>
So, you see nothing wrong with citing the DOI as "proof" of something
that is not in evidence, and has never BEEN in evidence? And why are you
only talking about the US? There are no "all men" in the rest of the world?
zepp
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>zepp <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>news:7o2mc0p76g8uiqm8a...@4ax.com:
>
>> So does this mean we won't hear any crap from you about "states
>> rights" or arguing that corporations should be stripped of rights?
>
>"States rights" is not a misnomer, though it is an unfortunate
>usage. On a republican and/or libertarian forum, I prefer to use
>the term "Federalism," but few liberals know what that means;
It means you want sovereignty to lie with the various states, instead
of the people.
>after all, most believe the Constitution grants them rights,
>believe the Constitution grants a right to privacy, believe
>the United States is a democracy, oh the list goes on and on.
>But yes, states have rights only because the individuals in those
>states have rights. I'm quite sure, however, that you are either
>too stupid, or not educated well enough in US history and government
>to understand the distinction--and that's a problem, because it
>is truly a crucial distinction.
So you've totally inverted the intent of the constitution and are
arguing that states have rights because people have rights.
And you're trying to pretend I don't know anything about the
constitution?
I see why you post under a pseudonym.
zepp
wrote:
Asmodeus is arguing now that State governments have rights because the
citizenry has rights.
zepp
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>news:4i8mc0h8nre4g9orp...@4ax.com:
>
>> Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
>> have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
>> government?"
>
>Because liberals don't undertand that the Constitution limits what
>the government can do, not individuals.
But state governments have rights, right Assy?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Asmodeus wrote:
Of course you said otherwise, Milt, and you said it several times in
several different ways...
Milt began by saying, "if you're standing on the corner, legally
handing out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which
you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has
big guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis
for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
Milt also said, "Your right to free speech is protected from more than
the government."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4KCdnTvZZ-z35wDdRVn-sQ%40comcast.com
Milt also said, "that the
government has an obligation to protect your First Amendment rights to
the best of its ability, even from a private party who would abrogate
them."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=N4Wdnfn1v6AJwDrdRVn-jg%40comcast.com&
Milt also said, "Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, think the First
Amendment only protects us from the government."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=69mdnQzM9536gFTdRVn-jg%40comcast.com
Milt also said, ""I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're
arguing is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the
government. That's insane."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
Milt also said, "I think the government has a responsibility to
protect your First Amendment rights when a private party tries to
prevent you from exercising them, yes."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405171017.79b33efa%40posting.google.com
Milt also said, "If Joe Blow takes my fliers and escorts me from the
public sidewalk in front of his store, and I sue him, please explain
to us once more why the judge --WHO WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND TAKES
AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION -- is under no oblgation to protect
my First Amendment rights and order Joe Blow to allow me to hand oout
fliers on the front sidewalk."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405171033.1320f324%40posting.google.com
Milt also said,"You are guaranteed the right to free speech. That
doesn't only prevent the government from quashing free speech. It also
creates an obligation on their part to protect it from others who
would quash it."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405071300.2c1b2d32%40posting.google.com
Milt thinks he can deny his own words...
Milt
The fact that you're an ignoramus and a liar doesn't mean I'm trying to
deny shit. Fact is, I have never denied diddly.
Here's another clue, and probably the last one I'll give you;
The court in the Marsh case slammed the private corporation partly
because it acted like a government, right? At least, that's what you
said. That's not entirely it, but you're simple-minded, so we'll go with it.
When the store owner is running me off the sidewalk, isn't he taking on
something of a "government role"?
Jesus... you're too dense to believe. Try clearing your mind or your
preconceptions, and think a little...
Or is that the impossibility I think it is?
Tempest
zepp wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:58:06 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>news:4i8mc0h8nre4g9orp...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
>>>>have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
>>>>government?"
>>>
>>>
>>>Because liberals don't undertand that the Constitution limits what
>>>the government can do, not individuals.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, Cartoon Boy never mentions that I never said otherwise.
>
>
> Asmodeus is arguing now that State governments have rights because the
> citizenry has rights.
Assmode's one of the dumber Karl Rove recruits.
From the recruits we've seen here lately, Rove is scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
--
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> Poor, poor, Milt, he couldn't score a point with an
icepick....
>Jesus... you're too dense to believe. Try clearing your mind or your
>preconceptions, and think a little...
Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
-http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
>Or is that the impossibility I think it is?
The best possibility I see here is that Milt is a moron.
Steve Canyon
>because it acted like a government, right? At least, that's what you
>said. That's not entirely it, but you're simple-minded, so we'll go with it.
>
BTW, Milt, the name of that case is Marsh vs Alabama. Alabama is a
state government and therefore not "more than government."
There is no way that a case where a state government is being sued can
be used to show that the First Amendment protects against "more than
government."
Milt's status as a moron is intact.
Milt
I'm pretty sure your skull would result in a broken icepick. Facts to
you seems to be like garlic to Dracula...
>
>
>>Jesus... you're too dense to believe. Try clearing your mind or your
>>preconceptions, and think a little...
>
>
> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
> -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
>
>
>>Or is that the impossibility I think it is?
>
>
> The best possibility I see here is that Milt is a moron.
A moron that is soundly kicking your ass. So what does that make you?
zepp
>
>
>zepp wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:58:06 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:4i8mc0h8nre4g9orp...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Then, perhaps you'll explain this curious concept of yours that you
>>>>>have a right to have your free speech be protected from "more than
>>>>>government?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because liberals don't undertand that the Constitution limits what
>>>>the government can do, not individuals.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, Cartoon Boy never mentions that I never said otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Asmodeus is arguing now that State governments have rights because the
>> citizenry has rights.
>
>
>Assmode's one of the dumber Karl Rove recruits.
>
> From the recruits we've seen here lately, Rove is scraping the bottom
>of the barrel.
Given that Rove is cosidered the TOP of the barrel, he didn't have to
reach down very far to scrape.
Milt
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:36:46 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The court in the Marsh case slammed the private corporation partly
>>because it acted like a government, right? At least, that's what you
>>said. That's not entirely it, but you're simple-minded, so we'll go with it.
>>
>
>
> BTW, Milt, the name of that case is Marsh vs Alabama. Alabama is a
> state government and therefore not "more than government."
Wait.
Didn't you say the main reason for the decision was the fact that the
private corporation was acting like a government?
You don't even know what your argument is...
Clue(again): Before the case, Gulf could use their private security to
remove people from their "business block" who were exercising their
freedom of speech. After the case, they had to let them be, unless they
were causing a disturbance. If their security people removed them from
the "business block" for legally exercising their First Amendment
rights, Gulf would be in trouble.
Yet, you STILL don't get it...
Here's the case, folks.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marshvala.html
Read it and decide for yourself. Cartoon Boy thinks that any private
entity can interfere with your First Amendment rights, because you're
only protected "from the government." I say the fact that the First
Amendment creates an obligation on the part of the government to protect
your right to free speech.
>
> There is no way that a case where a state government is being sued can
> be used to show that the First Amendment protects against "more than
> government."
Who arrested the Jehovah's Witness, you dumbass? Who can no longer use
the shield of "private property rights" to push a trespassing charge
against someone who uses a public sidewalk in a company town?
"A claim upon which relief may be granted to respondents against Flagg
Brothers under § 1983 must embody at least two elements. Respondents are
first bound to show that they have been deprived of a right "secured by
the Constitution and the laws" of the United States. They must secondly
show that Flagg Brothers deprived them of this right acting "under color
of any statute" of the State of New York. It is clear that these two
elements denote two separate areas of inquiry."
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149
What? You mean a private corporation can be stopped if it acts "under
color of any statute"??? According to you, they can't be stopped at all,
despite the fact that YOU YOURSELF keep citing the Marsh case, in which
a PRIVATE COROORATION was told to stop rousting people who are legally
exercising their rights...
> Milt's status as a moron is intact.
>
You're boring me with your inability to think.
> Milt Shook says, "Your right to free speech is protected from
> more than the government."
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4KCdnTvZZ-z35wDdRVn-sQ%40comcast.com
>
> The Supreme Court says, "the constitutional guarantee of free
> speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
> federal or state."
> -U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
>
>
From the above case (the DECISION, no less...):
The Babcock & Wilcox opinion established the basic objective under the
Act: accommodation of rights and private property rights "with as little
destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other."
The locus of that accommodation, however, may fall at differing points
along the spectrum depending on the nature and strength of the
respective rights and private property rights asserted in any given
context. In each generic situation, the primary responsibility for
making this accommodation must rest with the Board in the first
instance. See NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox, supra, at 112; cf. NLRB v. Erie
Resistor Corp., supra, at 235-236; [424 U.S. 507, 523] NLRB v.
Truckdrivers Union, 353 U.S. 87, 97 . "The responsibility to adapt the
Act to changing patterns of industrial life is entrusted to the Board."
NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 266 .
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment is vacated and the
case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand to
the National Labor Relations Board, so that the case may be there
considered under the statutory criteria of the National Labor Relations
Act alone.
It is so ordered.
You are a fuckwit, and I guarantee that only you and other closed-minded
assholes think otherwise.
It's time to leave this one for good. You're too stupid and
closed-minded to waste this much time on. Even the 15-20 minutes a day I
spend on this bullshit is too much...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> So, according to the moron, Milt Shook, running someone off
the sidewalk is "taking a government role."
>I'm pretty sure your skull would result in a broken icepick. Facts to
>you seems to be like garlic to Dracula...
>>
>>
>>>Jesus... you're too dense to believe. Try clearing your mind or your
>>>preconceptions, and think a little...
>>
>>
>> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>> -http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
>>
>>
>>>Or is that the impossibility I think it is?
>>
>>
>> The best possibility I see here is that Milt is a moron.
>
>A moron that is soundly kicking your ass. So what does that make you?
<LOL> Yep, Milt is going for the title of Usenet village idiot. It
was one of the old Usenet village idiot, Glen Yeadon's lame tactics to
claim that he was kicking someone's ass whenever he sensed that things
were not going his way....
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:36:46 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The court in the Marsh case slammed the private corporation partly
>>>because it acted like a government, right? At least, that's what you
>>>said. That's not entirely it, but you're simple-minded, so we'll go with it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, Milt, the name of that case is Marsh vs Alabama. Alabama is a
>> state government and therefore not "more than government."
>
>Wait.
>
>Didn't you say the main reason for the decision was the fact that the
>private corporation was acting like a government?
>
>You don't even know what your argument is...
>
>Clue(again): Before the case, Gulf could use their private security to
>remove people from their "business block" who were exercising their
>freedom of speech. After the case, they had to let them be, unless they
>were causing a disturbance. If their security people removed them from
>the "business block" for legally exercising their First Amendment
>rights, Gulf would be in trouble.
Milt, Milt, Milt, did you not read the case. The Arrest was made by a
deputy sheriff, not private security people and the case didn not so
much as mention what Gulf private security people could or could not
do....
>Yet, you STILL don't get it...
Irony anyone?
>Here's the case, folks.
>
>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marshvala.html
>
>Read it and decide for yourself. Cartoon Boy thinks that any private
>entity can interfere with your First Amendment rights, because you're
>only protected "from the government." I say the fact that the First
>Amendment creates an obligation on the part of the government to protect
>your right to free speech.
But the case was "Marsh vs Alabama," Milt. Alabama is government,
Milt. A government is *not* "more than government," Milt.
>> There is no way that a case where a state government is being sued can
>> be used to show that the First Amendment protects against "more than
>> government."
>
>Who arrested the Jehovah's Witness, you dumbass?
Errrr, a deputy Sheriff.
>Who can no longer use
>the shield of "private property rights" to push a trespassing charge
>against someone who uses a public sidewalk in a company town?
The state of Alabama.
>"A claim upon which relief may be granted to respondents against Flagg
>Brothers under § 1983 must embody at least two elements. Respondents are
>first bound to show that they have been deprived of a right "secured by
>the Constitution and the laws" of the United States. They must secondly
>show that Flagg Brothers deprived them of this right acting "under color
>of any statute" of the State of New York. It is clear that these two
>elements denote two separate areas of inquiry."
Errrrr, did you happen to notice the part about "acting "under color
of any statute" of the State of New York," Milt?
The State of New York is a government, you moron.
>Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149
>
>What? You mean a private corporation can be stopped if it acts "under
>color of any statute"??? According to you, they can't be stopped at all,
>despite the fact that YOU YOURSELF keep citing the Marsh case, in which
>a PRIVATE COROORATION was told to stop rousting people who are legally
>exercising their rights...
The State of New York is a government, you moron.
Errrrr, what does that have to do with anything, you moron?
>It is so ordered.
>
>
>You are a fuckwit, and I guarantee that only you and other closed-minded
>assholes think otherwise.
<LOL> You guarantee, eh?
>It's time to leave this one for good. You're too stupid and
>closed-minded to waste this much time on. Even the 15-20 minutes a day I
>spend on this bullshit is too much...
Run away, Milt.... I knew you would....
--
Steve Canyon
>
>It's time to leave this one for good. You're too stupid and
>closed-minded to waste this much time on. Even the 15-20 minutes a day I
>spend on this bullshit is too much...
Milt spent 15-20 minutes a day (actually he spent much more than
that), trying to demonstrate that:
"I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
exercising them, yes." --Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405171017.79b33efa%40posting.google.com
...and he did it in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that stated:
"It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of
free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
federal or state. Thus, while statutory or common law may in some
situations extend protection or provide redress against a private
corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of
others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution
itself." --U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
Yeah, Shook, I think you've proven that you're a moron enough for
now.
--
Asmodeus
v...@comcast.com:
> No. I'm acknowledging that it isn't perfect, EVER. And that rights are
> NOT inherent. That is obvious, based on the billions of people who have
> died and continue to die throughout history in order to get them
Those people were born with those rights. That a coercive government
prohibited them from exercising those rights is a different issue,
but those rights are inherent, and no government grants anyone rights.
Asmodeus
> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
Asmodeus
> Irony anyone?
I think we crossed that line about sixteen articles ago.
Milt
> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>
>
> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>
Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public sidewalk
on your time...
wbarwell
> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>
>> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>
> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>
Here where I work, a whole bunch of people have been laid off.
Because work has slowed down considerably.
That probably has a lot of people considering if Bush is really
capable of dealing with the economy.
Flyers, we don't need no stinking flyers!
We had Bush pushing to cut overtime pay for millions and
a lot of lost jobs since he lied his way into office.
The overtime shit incensed a lot of people, all I needed to do was
post the newsclippings on bulletin boards for all to see.
Pissed off a lot of people.
Tell us again how good the economy is and how Bush loves us.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
Tempest
Milt
>
>
> Milt wrote:
>
>> Asmodeus wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>>> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>>
>> Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
>>
>> Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public
>> sidewalk on your time...
>
>
>
> He sure can.
>
> http://atheism.about.com/b/a/076025.htm
>
>
This case might be tough, though, since it's a religious job.
In secular positions, however, you have a pretty good case...
Larry Hewitt
"Milt" <Miltrem...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:5fqdnV6BZKZ...@comcast.com...
> Tempest wrote:
> >
> >
> > Milt wrote:
> >
> >> Asmodeus wrote:
> >>
> >>> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
> >>> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
> >>>> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
> >>> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
> >>>
> >> Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
> >>
> >> Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public
> >> sidewalk on your time...
> >
> >
> >
> > He sure can.
> >
> > http://atheism.about.com/b/a/076025.htm
> >
> >
> Not legally.
>
This is starting to look juvenile, but yes, he can. Especially if you live
in a "right to work state". Employers are not obligated to state why you
were dismissed. So long as thee employee cannot prove that one of the
"protected" characteristics - race, age, gender, religion, national origin -
was used, hiring is strictlly up to the employer. Speech is not protected.
Only the governemnt is forbidden from interfering with political speech.
Larry
Milt
The above is the very definition of "juvenile."
First of all, "right to work" state has nothing to do with this issue.
What you are thinking of is "at will" employment. In such situations, an
employer can fire you for NO reason, and for GOOD reason. The minute he
states a reason, however, he better hope it's a valid, work-related
reason, and he'd better have plenty of documentation, or he's toast. And
yes, you would have a specific cause of action if an employer fired you
for expressing an opinion that he didn't like.
Anyone who thinks an employer really can fire anyone they wish for damn
near any reason has no experience in this area. When you are hired by
most companies, there is often created an implied contract that the
employer will only terminate the employer for "good cause." Even if that
contract isn't present at the beginning of the contract, it's often
created over time. And if you fire an employee because you saw him or
her handing out Kerry fliers on their own time, you'd better make sure
you fire every other employer who's handing out Bush fliers, and you'd
better make damn sure that something like that is written in your
employee handbook, or you will be screwed in a lawsuit.
And you will be screwed, precisely because the employee will be taking
his case to the judge, who will be faced with a choice; your right to
fire, versus the employee's First Amendment rights.
And guess which one is in the Constitution...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Asmodeus wrote:
>> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>
>Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
Oh, yes it was, Milt. You claimed that "If you planned to hold a Bush
fundraiser in your basement, and the folks at your work (a private
employer, not Ohio State) objected, promising to fire you if you did
that, and they followed through on that threat, under the authority of
what parts of the Bill of Rights would you sue?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405111231.151eed4%40posting.google.com
IOW, Milt claimed that you could sue him on the basis of the First
Amendment...
>Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public sidewalk
>on your time...
What's going to stop him? Unlike all the cases you cited, simply
firing someone wouldn't involve any government, so the First Amendment
wouldn't apply. You couldn't even hit the guy for assault, like you
could in the case you presented.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Tempest wrote:
>>
>>
>> Milt wrote:
>>
>>> Asmodeus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>>> action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>>>> political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>>>
>>> Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
>>>
>>> Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public
>>> sidewalk on your time...
>>
>>
>>
>> He sure can.
>>
>> http://atheism.about.com/b/a/076025.htm
>>
>>
>Not legally.
What law did they break?
>This case might be tough, though, since it's a religious job.
>
>In secular positions, however, you have a pretty good case...
Under what law?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Nope.. There's no such laws.
>Anyone who thinks an employer really can fire anyone they wish for damn
>near any reason has no experience in this area.
Irony anyone?
>When you are hired by
>most companies, there is often created an implied contract that the
>employer will only terminate the employer for "good cause." Even if that
> contract isn't present at the beginning of the contract, it's often
>created over time. And if you fire an employee because you saw him or
>her handing out Kerry fliers on their own time, you'd better make sure
>you fire every other employer who's handing out Bush fliers, and you'd
>better make damn sure that something like that is written in your
>employee handbook, or you will be screwed in a lawsuit.
>
>And you will be screwed, precisely because the employee will be taking
>his case to the judge, who will be faced with a choice; your right to
>fire, versus the employee's First Amendment rights.
>
"Private employers, like private newspaper publishers or private
homeowners, are not bound by the First Amendment"
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harasswp.htm
<LOL> Milt, why do you do this to yourself?
Steve Canyon
>What you are thinking of is "at will" employment. In such situations, an
>employer can fire you for NO reason, and for GOOD reason. The minute he
>states a reason, however, he better hope it's a valid, work-related
>reason, and he'd better have plenty of documentation, or he's toast. And
>yes, you would have a specific cause of action if an employer fired you
>for expressing an opinion that he didn't like.
>
>Anyone who thinks an employer really can fire anyone they wish for damn
>near any reason has no experience in this area. When you are hired by
>most companies, there is often created an implied contract that the
>employer will only terminate the employer for "good cause." Even if that
> contract isn't present at the beginning of the contract, it's often
>created over time. And if you fire an employee because you saw him or
>her handing out Kerry fliers on their own time, you'd better make sure
>you fire every other employer who's handing out Bush fliers, and you'd
>better make damn sure that something like that is written in your
>employee handbook, or you will be screwed in a lawsuit.
>
>And you will be screwed, precisely because the employee will be taking
>his case to the judge, who will be faced with a choice; your right to
>fire, versus the employee's First Amendment rights.
>
>And guess which one is in the Constitution...
Guess how poorly Milt understands the Constitution.
While the First Amendment protects Damen's right to articulate his
viewpoint on his Web site, it does not bar a private employer from
firing him for doing so, said Lewis Maltby, director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Workplace Rights office.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10217,00.html
<LOL> Even the leftist ACLU says Milt is a moron.
Milt
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:25:49 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>>action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>>>political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
>
>
> Oh, yes it was, Milt. You claimed that "If you planned to hold a Bush
> fundraiser in your basement, and the folks at your work (a private
> employer, not Ohio State) objected, promising to fire you if you did
> that, and they followed through on that threat, under the authority of
> what parts of the Bill of Rights would you sue?"
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405111231.151eed4%40posting.google.com
>
> IOW, Milt claimed that you could sue him on the basis of the First
> Amendment...
>
Can you BE any dumber?
Do you even see the difference between "in your basement" and "at work"??
>
>>Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public sidewalk
>>on your time...
>
>
> What's going to stop him? Unlike all the cases you cited, simply
> firing someone wouldn't involve any government, so the First Amendment
> wouldn't apply. You couldn't even hit the guy for assault, like you
> could in the case you presented.
Yeah, you're definitely the densest fucker on the planet.
If someone fires me for exercising my First Amendment rights on MY TIME,
he'd better have done the same thing to everyone who expressed ANY
political opinion, or I have a cause of action.
Now; if I stand before the judge, he has a choice of protecting the
employer's right to fire people for their political beliefs, or
protecting my right to express my political beliefs, on my property, on
my time.
Which one do you think the judge will choose?
Milt
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:11:26 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tempest wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Milt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>>>>action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>>>>>political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
>>>>
>>>>Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public
>>>>sidewalk on your time...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>He sure can.
>>>
>>>http://atheism.about.com/b/a/076025.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not legally.
>
>
> What law did they break?
>
>
>>This case might be tough, though, since it's a religious job.
>>
>>In secular positions, however, you have a pretty good case...
>
>
> Under what law?
Gosh, it must be fun to be so simple-minded.
To put it simply, when you work for someone, an employment contract is
created. In most states these days, that contract is "at-will," which
means the employer can fire you "at will." The problem is, the longer
you work there, the more the contract essentially becomes "at will for
good cause." The employer could fire you for NO reason, quite easily.
But if he or she does so, and there is no documentation that you ever
did anything wrong, and there is no economic reason for the dismissal,
and there is evidence that you did not treat you the same as the other
employees, there is a potential breach of contract claim. Not only that,
but in many circumstances, a discrimination claim could be brought.
You do understand the concept of breach of contract, right?
Milt
How naive you are...
Naive, and stupid and arrogant about it.
And yet, he thinks he's kickign everyone else's ass.
Add delusional to that...
Put it this way; even "at will" employers are very careful to document
everything, to conduct employment evaluations and the like. If the only
applicable law is the "at-will" doctrine, why would they do that?
>>Anyone who thinks an employer really can fire anyone they wish for damn
>>near any reason has no experience in this area.
>
>
> Irony anyone?
There's at least a little in every one of your posts...
>
>
>>When you are hired by
>>most companies, there is often created an implied contract that the
>>employer will only terminate the employer for "good cause." Even if that
>> contract isn't present at the beginning of the contract, it's often
>>created over time. And if you fire an employee because you saw him or
>>her handing out Kerry fliers on their own time, you'd better make sure
>>you fire every other employer who's handing out Bush fliers, and you'd
>>better make damn sure that something like that is written in your
>>employee handbook, or you will be screwed in a lawsuit.
>>
>>And you will be screwed, precisely because the employee will be taking
>>his case to the judge, who will be faced with a choice; your right to
>>fire, versus the employee's First Amendment rights.
>>
>
>
> "Private employers, like private newspaper publishers or private
> homeowners, are not bound by the First Amendment"
> http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harasswp.htm
>
> <LOL> Milt, why do you do this to yourself?
Ya dumb fuck. You always put your foot in it.
Not that I said "in your basement," not "at work." An employer is not
bound by the First Amendment at work. But if you lose your ability to
make a living because you exercised your First Amendment right, and put
that before a judge, the judge IS bound by the First Amendment...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:17:50 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>First of all, "right to work" state has nothing to do with this issue.
>>>What you are thinking of is "at will" employment. In such situations, an
>>>employer can fire you for NO reason, and for GOOD reason. The minute he
>>>states a reason, however, he better hope it's a valid, work-related
>>>reason, and he'd better have plenty of documentation, or he's toast. And
>>>yes, you would have a specific cause of action if an employer fired you
>>>for expressing an opinion that he didn't like.
>>
>>
>> Nope.. There's no such laws.
>
>How naive you are...
Name the law....
>Naive, and stupid and arrogant about it.
More irony from Milt.
>And yet, he thinks he's kickign everyone else's ass.
Even more irony
The quote above didn't say anything about being at work, nor does this
one.
In the absence of government action, of course, private employers may
restrict employees' speech with no First Amendment difficulties, and
even fire employees for speech that's otherwise protected against
government censorship, such as profanity or political speech.
http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/practiceguide.htm
>An employer is not
>bound by the First Amendment at work. But if you lose your ability to
>make a living because you exercised your First Amendment right, and put
>that before a judge, the judge IS bound by the First Amendment...
<LOL> Nope, sorry. BTW here's one where a guy was fired for what he
said on his own website, you moron...
While the First Amendment protects Damen's right to articulate his
viewpoint on his Web site, it does not bar a private employer from
firing him for doing so, said Lewis Maltby, director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Workplace Rights office.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10217,00.html
....and even the ACLU's Workplace Rights office acknowledges that
there's nothing that can be done about it...
BTW, Milt, "The First Amendment applies only to government action, not
the actions of a private person or corporation."
-http://experts.about.com/q/342/2024692.htm
Larry Hewitt
In a right to work state all employment is at will unless specifically
covered under an employment contract. There are no state restrictions n
employment. My point was that employment contracts that restrict an
employer;s ability to fire an employee are rare in rght to work states -
unlike many other states.
And the only reason that an employer needs to state for your firing is
dissatisfaction with your performance. That can and does include bringing
unfavorable attention on the company.
Anything can be work related. Anything. I teach in a Christian middle
school. I have been told that if I go to certain , eh hem - "entertainment
venues" I will be fired. My kids don;t have to see me. None of the
congregatin neds to see me. BTW, this includes bars. I can drink in
restaurants, though (go figure).
I worked for a very large bank years ago. Officers (managers) were told that
political activity for a candidate or cause that the bank disapproved of
would result in termination - the theory was that you were wroking against
the best interests of the bank.
Other companies want to appear neutral, politically.
> Anyone who thinks an employer really can fire anyone they wish for damn
> near any reason has no experience in this area. When you are hired by
> most companies, there is often created an implied contract that the
> employer will only terminate the employer for "good cause." Even if that
> contract isn't present at the beginning of the contract, it's often
> created over time. And if you fire an employee because you saw him or
> her handing out Kerry fliers on their own time, you'd better make sure
> you fire every other employer who's handing out Bush fliers, and you'd
> better make damn sure that something like that is written in your
> employee handbook, or you will be screwed in a lawsuit.
>
Actually, I have lots of experience in this area. All you have to do is word
the termination correctly. specially in riught to work states. When I fired
someone in Maryland I had to dot all my i's, cross my t's and have have a 30
page report detailing my employee's deficeincies because the state had
employment laws.
Here in SC all I have to do is say you're fired. I technically do not even
have to say why.
In either case, I can fire someone for anything I want to, so long as I word
it properly and show that the employee was adequately warned.
> And you will be screwed, precisely because the employee will be taking
> his case to the judge, who will be faced with a choice; your right to
> fire, versus the employee's First Amendment rights.
>
> And guess which one is in the Constitution...
Neither. The first amendment only governs interactions between the Congress
and citizens. It does not apply to citizen-citizen interactions.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Read the first word. The restriction is only on congress.
Larry
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:11:26 -0400, Milt <Miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tempest wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Milt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:u75pc0p4igh2257s4...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, Milt, but the First Amendment applies only to government
>>>>>>>action, not the actions of a private person or corporation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. This is why your employer may fire you for passing out
>>>>>>political flyers at work and you have no First Amendment defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, that wouldn't be a corollary to anything I ever said.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your employer can't fire you for handing out fliers on a public
>>>>>sidewalk on your time...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He sure can.
>>>>
>>>>http://atheism.about.com/b/a/076025.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not legally.
>>
>>
>> What law did they break?
>>
>>
>>>This case might be tough, though, since it's a religious job.
>>>
>>>In secular positions, however, you have a pretty good case...
>>
>>
>> Under what law?
>
>Gosh, it must be fun to be so simple-minded.
Tell us more about it, Milt.
>To put it simply, when you work for someone, an employment contract is
>created. In most states these days, that contract is "at-will," which
>means the employer can fire you "at will." The problem is, the longer
>you work there, the more the contract essentially becomes "at will for
>good cause." The employer could fire you for NO reason, quite easily.
>But if he or she does so, and there is no documentation that you ever
>did anything wrong, and there is no economic reason for the dismissal,
>and there is evidence that you did not treat you the same as the other
>employees, there is a potential breach of contract claim.
<LOL> That sure is a lot of "ifs."
> Not only that,
>but in many circumstances, a discrimination claim could be brought.
Discrimination??????? Where's the law that says that I cannot
discriminate against leftist morons?
>You do understand the concept of breach of contract, right?
You have heard of the ACLU, haven't you?
While the First Amendment protects Damen's right to articulate his
viewpoint on his Web site, it does not bar a private employer from
firing him for doing so, said Lewis Maltby, director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Workplace Rights office.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10217,00.html
Steve Canyon
wrote:
I think the Judge will tell you that the employer has a perfect right
to fire you for your beliefs.. So does the ACLU.
While the First Amendment protects Damen's right to articulate his
viewpoint on his Web site, it does not bar a private employer from
firing him for doing so, said Lewis Maltby, director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Workplace Rights office.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10217,00.html
So does the NYCLU:
The Rocker controversy involves the subject of free speech in
baseball. Is there any? If so, under what circumstances? Many Rocker
defenders were quoted as saying Rocker has First Amendment rights and
it was wrong to punish him. So, what’s the story?
Rocker has a First Amendment right, as we all do, to say what he wants
and, generally, not to be punished by the government. However, since
the issue is whether the Braves or Major League Baseball can and
should punish him for his remarks, the First Amendment is not
applicable. The First Amendment is a prohibition against government
action not against action by a private employer. Moreover, federal and
state civil rights laws, generally, do not bar private sector
employers from hiring or firing based on political beliefs. (In New
York, a private employer generally cannot punish an employee who, off
the job, runs for public office or campaigns or fund raises for a
candidate)
http://www.nyclu.org/siegel/siegel23.html
So does the First Amendment center
he First Amendment provides free-speech protection to public, not
private, employees because the Bill of Rights applies only to
governmental actions. This means that a private employer generally can
discipline an employee as he sees fit unless the employer is found to
be engaging in a discriminatory practice). While the private employer
probably can fire an employee whose speech he dislikes, the First
Amendment governs the circumstances under which public employers may
discipline employees for their speech.
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ PDF/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.PDF
Milt continues to demonstrate that he's a moron.
Larry Hewitt
No no no no no. First of all, you have no "first amendment rights" with
regard to an individual or a company. The Amendment reads CONGRESS shall
pass no law.... This amendment applies only to congfrss..
Second, since they would not be firing you for "exercising your first
amendment rights", but for what you said or how you said it, your
restrictions do not apply. Again, they can posit that your support for a
candidate they feel will propose legislation harmful to their bottom line is
harmful to the compaany, while at the same time encouraging employees to
support "their" candidate.
> Now; if I stand before the judge, he has a choice of protecting the
> employer's right to fire people for their political beliefs, or
> protecting my right to express my political beliefs, on my property, on
> my time.
>
You have no such right when it comes to companies. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
> Which one do you think the judge will choose?
>
>
Never even get to a judge. Thrown out as frivolous.
Larry