Comedy Act Gets Internal Affairs Cop Suspended
Bo Raxo
Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
Bo Raxo
--
"My only solace is that in the future, you will be played in movies and
television series by character actors who otherwise specialize in pedophile
and serial killer roles. And they will hesitate to take the job." - John
Rogers talking about Karl Rove.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1
Around West Orange, John Feder is known as a no-nonsense police sergeant, a
22-year veteran with an $88,000 salary and a plum assignment in the
department's internal affairs division.
But on the local comedy circuit, the towering cop goes by another name --
"Club Soda Kenny," a crass stand-up comic whose routine pokes fun at such
taboo topics as rape, pedophilia and bestiality. The act has landed Club
Soda Kenny on the popular "Opie & Anthony" radio program and gotten him gigs
at top New York comedy clubs.
For years, Sgt. Feder and Club Soda Kenny have co-existed peacefully. But
this week, the two personas collided when several West Orange officials were
anonymously mailed a CD of Feder's act, an eight-minute, profanity-laced
tirade performed at a December comedy show in Manhattan and later posted
online. Feder does not wear his uniform or identify himself as a police
officer in the act.
The routine, in which Club Soda Kenny jokes about raping a bride at
knifepoint and molesting his own 5-year-old son, has, at least temporarily,
cost Feder his gun, badge and paycheck.
He was suspended without pay Monday pending an investigation into his act,
West Orange officials said. Though no administrative charges have been
filed, the 48-year-old Feder could be charged with conduct unbecoming of an
officer, an administrative offense that could strip Feder of his job and
possibly even his pension, officials said.
Township officials would not comment on the investigation because it is an
internal personnel matter. However, they said that if Feder was paid for his
performance, it would be a violation of the department's policy that
prohibits officers from moonlighting without departmental approval.
"Without question, he has no authorization under policy to do this as
employment," Police Chief James Abbott said. "We would never allow anybody
to make racial jokes or anything like that."
When visited at his home in Springfield yesterday, Feder declined to
comment.
The suspension places West Orange squarely inside a legal gray area, pitting
First Amendment advocates against defenders of decency.
Mayor John McKeon said the town has "zero tolerance for any law enforcement
officer or other township employee that isn't racially sensitive or isn't
sensitive to victims of criminal activity."
[...]
netuse...@yahoo.com
Bo Raxo wrote:
> Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
Close to call - but I don't think the PD is violating Feder's free
speech.
Nowhere does it state that Feder isn't allowed to persue his "comedy
act" or freely say what he wants, just that he may not be able to do so
while in his employment as an Officer at West Orange's PD.
> Bo Raxo
> --
> "My only solace is that in the future, you will be played in movies and
> television series by character actors who otherwise specialize in pedophile
> and serial killer roles. And they will hesitate to take the job." - John
> Rogers talking about Karl Rove.
>
>
> http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1
>
> Around West Orange, John Feder is known as a no-nonsense police sergeant, a
> 22-year veteran with an $88,000 salary and a plum assignment in the
> department's internal affairs division.
>
> But on the local comedy circuit, the towering cop goes by another name --
> "Club Soda Kenny," a crass stand-up comic whose routine pokes fun at such
> taboo topics as rape, pedophilia and bestiality. The act has landed Club
> Soda Kenny on the popular "Opie & Anthony" radio program and gotten him gigs
> at top New York comedy clubs.
>
> For years, Sgt. Feder and Club Soda Kenny have co-existed peacefully. But
> this week, the two personas collided when several West Orange officials were
> anonymously mailed a CD of Feder's act, an eight-minute, profanity-laced
> tirade performed at a December comedy show in Manhattan and later posted
> online. Feder does not wear his uniform or identify himself as a police
> officer in the act.
>
> The routine, in which Club Soda Kenny jokes about raping a bride at
> knifepoint and molesting his own 5-year-old son, has, at least temporarily,
> cost Feder his gun, badge and paycheck.
Rape and child molestation? - sounds hysterical.
> He was suspended without pay Monday pending an investigation into his act,
> West Orange officials said. Though no administrative charges have been
> filed, the 48-year-old Feder could be charged with conduct unbecoming of an
> officer, an administrative offense that could strip Feder of his job and
> possibly even his pension, officials said.
>
> Township officials would not comment on the investigation because it is an
> internal personnel matter. However, they said that if Feder was paid for his
> performance, it would be a violation of the department's policy that
> prohibits officers from moonlighting without departmental approval.
Minus the content of his act - THIS may be enough for the PD to pursue
disciplinary actions.
> "Without question, he has no authorization under policy to do this as
> employment," Police Chief James Abbott said. "We would never allow anybody
> to make racial jokes or anything like that."
>
> When visited at his home in Springfield yesterday, Feder declined to
> comment.
>
> The suspension places West Orange squarely inside a legal gray area, pitting
> First Amendment advocates against defenders of decency.
Be interesting to see how this one plays out.
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies
<netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139577642.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bo Raxo wrote:
>> Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
>
> Close to call - but I don't think the PD is violating Feder's free
> speech.
> Nowhere does it state that Feder isn't allowed to persue his "comedy
> act" or freely say what he wants, just that he may not be able to do so
> while in his employment as an Officer at West Orange's PD.
Isn't that the same as saying, "We're not going to hire you because you're
gay"? After all, it's not like people are butt-fucking each other in the
conference room, is it?
Uncle Buck
<vol...@tds.net> wrote:
>
><netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1139577642.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>> Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
>>
>> Close to call - but I don't think the PD is violating Feder's free
>> speech.
>> Nowhere does it state that Feder isn't allowed to persue his "comedy
>> act" or freely say what he wants, just that he may not be able to do so
>> while in his employment as an Officer at West Orange's PD.
IOW, they have to fire him or he has to quit first? Or do you mean only while
he's "on duty"?
>Isn't that the same as saying, "We're not going to hire you because you're
>gay"? After all, it's not like people are butt-fucking each other in the
>conference room, is it?
Sure they are. They call it "plea bargaining" if I remember correctly. One
party or the other will _always_ end up taking it up the ass.
netuse...@yahoo.com
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies wrote:
> <netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139577642.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
> >> Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
> >
> > Close to call - but I don't think the PD is violating Feder's free
> > speech.
> > Nowhere does it state that Feder isn't allowed to persue his "comedy
> > act" or freely say what he wants, just that he may not be able to do so
> > while in his employment as an Officer at West Orange's PD.
>
> Isn't that the same as saying, "We're not going to hire you because you're gay"?
No - that would be discrimination.
> After all, it's not like people are butt-fucking each other in the conference room, is it?
HUH?
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies
<netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139585863.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Okay, simple words:
HE'S DOES NOT DO HIS COMEDY ROUTINE AT WORK JUST LIKE
PEOPLE DON'T FUCK AT WORK.*
THEREFORE, WHAT THEY DO OUTSIDE OF THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT
IS THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
OTHER.
*generally -- at least the higher class folks don't
netuse...@yahoo.com
Uncle Buck wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:29:22 -0500, "de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies"
> <vol...@tds.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1139577642.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Bo Raxo wrote:
> >>> Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
> >>
> >> Close to call - but I don't think the PD is violating Feder's free
> >> speech.
> >> Nowhere does it state that Feder isn't allowed to persue his "comedy
> >> act" or freely say what he wants, just that he may not be able to do so
> >> while in his employment as an Officer at West Orange's PD.
>
> IOW, they have to fire him or he has to quit first? Or do you mean only while
> he's "on duty"?
I understand that many LEO's operate or are expected to act in an
ethical and appropriate manner befitting an Officer or representative
of his/her dept.; I recall cases where Officers, and other pub figs,
Teachers for example, have been removed from thier positions for
conduct which while "legal" would portray their employer/dept in an
unfavorable light.
I don't think his off-duty comedy gigs are an offense worthy of firing
- but I can see where Feder may be disciplined, especially when the
mayor tosses in weak-kneed PC statements like;
[Mayor John McKeon said the town has "zero tolerance for any law
enforcement officer or other township employee that isn't racially
sensitive or isn't sensitive to victims of criminal activity."]
netuse...@yahoo.com
SO DO YA' THINK THE DEPT. WOULD BE OK WITH AN OFFICER WORKING IN PORNO
MOVIES? HOW ABOUT, PART TIME STRIPPER? PERHAPS A NUDE MAGAZINE MODEL?
Like it or not - some occupations do require a certain amount of
decorum by people who've chosen that profession; law enforcement being
one of them. Whether on or off duty - there are expectations of and
ethical standards typically considered of law enforcement personnel.
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies
<netuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139595752.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But he's not, Blanche, he's NOT.
> Like it or not - some occupations do require a certain amount of
> decorum by people who've chosen that profession; law enforcement being
> one of them. Whether on or off duty - there are expectations of and
> ethical standards typically considered of law enforcement personnel.
<piffle>
Uncle Buck
As long as it doesn't hinder the officer's ability to do their job, I don't see
why they should mind. In fact, some cops _have_ modeled nude. Not many,
thankfully (I mean honestly, from the cops _I've_ seen? Wouldn't _WANNA_ see
'em nekkid...), but some.
>Like it or not - some occupations do require a certain amount of
>decorum by people who've chosen that profession; law enforcement being
>one of them. Whether on or off duty - there are expectations of and
>ethical standards typically considered of law enforcement personnel.
True enough. The thing from this case, though, is that if I remember correctly
what I've read, the officers of that area (perhaps all areas for all I know)
were prohibitted from working a second job. Thus, if he was making money at it,
then he was breaking the rules he agreed to when joining up, but if he wasn't,
_then_ it becomes a case of "professional standards".
Alan Hope
>Sounds like an egregious violation of this man's free speech rights.
PDs often impose conditions on officers that curtail certain rights
they would have as civilians. There's probably some clause in his
contract that will cover this.
--
AH
Bo Raxo
Only if he gets paid for his performance - that's moonlighting.
Otherwise, it's a first amendment issue. That refers to an explicit
guarantee of rights we enjoy over here in this country:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
But Frank Askin, director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at
Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the U.S. Constitution should protect
Feder from repercussions at work, no matter how outlandish his routine.
"If he's off-duty, the First Amendment protects him and they can't
punish him by taking his job away for exercising his right to free
speech," Askin said.
The courts have upheld that view in the past.
In 1985, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Baltimore
Police Department could not punish an officer for performing a
blackface routine while off-duty, even though the performance sparked
outrage and demonstrations throughout the city.
Alan Hope
>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
He may well have signed a contract including a pledge not to bring the
PD into disrepute or something of that nature, which they will now use
as a justification. You know perfectly well that a policeman's freedom
of speech is curtailed in other ways for reasons of operational
security and the integrity of investigations, for example. Part of the
job you agree to abide by when you sign up. And that's what I'm
suggesting in this context.
Of course I don't know, and it could be he's signed away none of his
Constitutional rights, which means the PD missed a trick.
--
AH
Bo Raxo
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:uubqu1pab5jg52fnb...@4ax.com...
You can't sign away your constitutional rights.
> You know perfectly well that a policeman's freedom
> of speech is curtailed in other ways for reasons of operational
> security and the integrity of investigations, for example.
Which has nothing to do with this case. Obviously.
> Part of the
> job you agree to abide by when you sign up. And that's what I'm
> suggesting in this context.
You're suggesting that his comedy act could be construed as giving up
information that could affect the operational security or the integrity of
an investigation?
Or are you suggesting that people can contractually sign away inalienable
rights? I'll give you a hint: note the lack of (formal, legal) indentured
servants in the U.S.
>
> Of course I don't know, and it could be he's signed away none of his
> Constitutional rights, which means the PD missed a trick.
>
It could be that any such contract clause is unenforceable, as long as the
speech is non-commercial (he isn't getting paid or asking for money), and he
doesn't identify himself as a police officer or an employee of the city.
Signing away your freedom of speech, entirely and in whole, when you are not
at work and not in uniform. You actually think that would be enforceable?
Hilarious. Maybe you should stick to talking about things you actually know
something about. Can't think of any, but there must be *something*.
Bo Raxo
Alan Hope
>Signing away your freedom of speech, entirely and in whole, when you are not
>at work and not in uniform. You actually think that would be enforceable?
It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of conduct
unbecoming.
>Hilarious. Maybe you should stick to talking about things you actually know
>something about. Can't think of any, but there must be *something*.
Unlike Bo, who's of course an expert on *everything*.
So how do you explain intelligence operatives who seem not to have the
free speech you have? Where did their inalienable rights go, smart
guy?
Is it not in fact the case that a company can abridge your
"inalienable" right to say whatever you like? See, I thought you said
you can't sign them away. Perhaps free speech is not an inalienable
right in the first place?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Or are you suggesting that people can contractually sign away inalienable
>rights?
You'll be telling me next that the military don't have to shut the
fuck up about classified information, because their First Amendment
rights can't be taken away from them.
Of course you can sign away your rights. People do it all the time.
Hence piss-tests at work. Hence non-disclosure agreements.
You're so busy looking for a fight you forgot to put your thinking cap
on.
--
AH
tiny dancer
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:S3eHf.9487$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I'm afraid I have to disagree here bo. The profession of teaching being
another example. Although teachers have 'off time', if they do something in
that 'off time' that their employers find to be *objectionable* in nature.
Something that reflects bad upon their profession, they can and are
terminated. Heck, I seem to recall I believe it was fire-fighters, posing
for some sort of calendar, finding their jobs on the line. Many professions
have certain 'morals clauses'.
Bo Raxo
> Bo Raxo goes:
>
> >Or are you suggesting that people can contractually sign away inalienable
> >rights?
>
> You'll be telling me next that the military don't have to shut the
> fuck up about classified information, because their First Amendment
> rights can't be taken away from them.
>
That's related to the job. Completely different, moron.
> Of course you can sign away your rights. People do it all the time.
> Hence piss-tests at work. Hence non-disclosure agreements.
>
You have a right to a job without being drug tested? You have a right to
disclose commercial secrets? What amendment is that?
Go look up the case law on "commercial speech" and learn the difference
between that and "free speech".
Or, you know, read the part of the article I cited that said courts have
held - if what you are doing is unrelated to your job, and you're not
getting paid, and you're not wearing a uniform or otherwise being identified
with your employer, its free speech. As was the case of the cop who did an
act in blackface that set off riots - the courts ruled he couldn't be fired.
> You're so busy looking for a fight you forgot to put your thinking cap
> on.
>
You're so full of shit it never occurred to you I actually know something
about U.S. civil rights and you don't.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PVsHf.2465$Ly6...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
There's a difference between what you *do* and what you *say*. And there is
a big difference if your off duty activity is in exchange for money (which
makes it commercial speech rather than purely free speech, huge difference
under the law).
> Something that reflects bad upon their profession, they can and are
> terminated. Heck, I seem to recall I believe it was fire-fighters, posing
> for some sort of calendar, finding their jobs on the line. Many
professions
> have certain 'morals clauses'.
>
Because the firefighters identified themselves as firefighters. Thus,
reflects on the profession. If you are just "Joe the naked guy" and you
don't get paid, and the activity is legal, you can't be fired.
That said, there are some jobs where employment is at will: you can be fired
for nothing. However, I would bet a large sum of cash that the union that
cop is represented by kept any such "at will" clause out of their contract.
He can only be fired for cause, and if he doesn't identify himself as a cop,
he doesn't get paid, it's free speech. Read the article, it explicitly says
the courts have ruled this way, citing the example of an officer whose
performance in black face set off riots - he was reinstated to the job by
order of the court.
Bo Raxo
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:pdesu1tckl3bm02r8...@4ax.com...
>> Bo Raxo goes:
>> >Or are you suggesting that people can contractually sign away inalienable
>> >rights?
>> You'll be telling me next that the military don't have to shut the
>> fuck up about classified information, because their First Amendment
>> rights can't be taken away from them.
>That's related to the job. Completely different, moron.
But you said these rights were "inalienable". Do you know what that
word means? You said they couldn't be signed away. Are you now saying
they can be signed away?
>> Of course you can sign away your rights. People do it all the time.
>> Hence piss-tests at work. Hence non-disclosure agreements.
>You have a right to a job without being drug tested? You have a right to
>disclose commercial secrets? What amendment is that?
You sign away your Fourth and First Amendment rights respectively. Are
you being wilfully obtuse?
>Go look up the case law on "commercial speech" and learn the difference
>between that and "free speech".
>Or, you know, read the part of the article I cited that said courts have
>held - if what you are doing is unrelated to your job, and you're not
>getting paid, and you're not wearing a uniform or otherwise being identified
>with your employer, its free speech.
Has this case already been decided, then?
>As was the case of the cop who did an
>act in blackface that set off riots - the courts ruled he couldn't be fired.
Did it mention a contract of employment? You know, where you sign away
those rights that can't ever be signed away until they can?
>> You're so busy looking for a fight you forgot to put your thinking cap
>> on.
>You're so full of shit it never occurred to you I actually know something
>about U.S. civil rights and you don't.
You don't even agree with yourself, you stupid cunt.
--
AH