I’d like to, again, point out that this went beyond a “free speech” issue. These firemen and police officers made the job the city has to do to protect it’s citizens immeasurable harder. They were not fired because they were on the float, they were fired for creating a situation that was injurious to the city as a whole and their continued employment would have caused further damage.
The float was in a labor day parade. On labor day. Here are some news reports of the situation before they were fired.
This was in the midst of the Louima outrage (after it hit the news, before it went to trial). Things could have gotten very, very ugly if these men had kept their jobs.
And I gotta tell you, there were plenty of New Yorkers of all colors that were relieved when the Mayor fired these men. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers others and I am not exaggerating when I say that these civil servants “stupid joke” would have a real toll on the citizens they were sworn to protect.
It would only “trump” the Constitution if there were no contract. Once employees agree to sign a contract for employment (as in the one typically bargained by unions), even government entities may set rules for private behavior, provided it is stipulated in that contract. This would not be a case of “hire at will,” but a specific violation of a signed contract governing conditions of employment.
I already think that Rehnquist is worse than these clowns, (and there is nothing I can do about it), and that Lott has suffered the correct penalty (loss of rank without resigning his seat). A university president would need to be judged by his or her board of governors/regents, but would probably lose his or her job because s/he would be unable to secure further funding for the school endowments. The lawyer that claimed that the police commissioner would not have been swiftly fired for such a stupid prank is every bit as stupid as his clients. People in power–especially those who “serve at will”–are always more susceptible to being removed for bad appearances. Secretary Watt, under Reagan, was able to sell off public lands at discount rates to his buddies for years with no punitive action, but having made one extraordinarily stupid racist and sexist remark, he was forced to resign, immediately.
I acknowledge the harm that other posters have pointed out regarding the ability of the entire forces to do their jobs under the scrutiny that the publicity generated. Whether this is sufficient to justify their dismissal (absent a contract that specifies a “no embarrassment” clause), I do not know. Certainly, Giuliani should have hit them as hard as he could–firing if allowed by contract, public condemnation if no other legal option was open to him.
The police officer deserved to be fired. Clearly they have rendered themselves unfit to serve and protect all the citizens of new Yorrk City.
Some classes of government employee have long been recognized to serve a function which requires strictures on conduct more restrictive than outlined by the protections of the Constitution. I have been subject to this personally as a member of the military, and I agree that it is a necessary compromise without which the protections for all of our liberties would be weakened. I think it quite reasonable to apply a similar standard to those charged with protecting us all against criminals within our borders.
I am less certain of the propriety in firing the firefighters, thoough I think the political realities certainly dictated the action, and I think it was the proper action to take, I am uncertain as to whether I think the firings should be overturned.
If the same officers in questons made a float for the 2002 parade…let’s say they called it “Ishtar’s Revenge” or something and they were dressed up as Osama Bin Laden or sterotypical Taliban types and made a parody of the world trade center attacks or even Daniel Pearls execution style killing, how would that change your feelings?
I don’t know if this makes even an emotional difference with me. Making fun of the dragging death pretty much reaches the highest level on my offensiveness meter, and needle can’t get any any higher, even though there many more deaths from OBL.
I still think this is free speech and should be protected.
So if this police officer was making fun of, say, democrats, or even going to the republican national convention, would that show that his capacity to help democrats was suddenly jeopardized?
Race issues are sensitive ones, but banning this kind of thing puts you on a slippery slope where free speech is concerned.
Do I really need to explain why your analogy is lame? This isn’t even just about “race issues”. White people just as much as blacks should find this type of behavior reprehensible. I find their actions just as offensive as I would if they were mocking a white guy’s death.
And just out of wary curiosity, are you trying to communicate something extra special with your username?
(Sorry to continue the hijack, but one last word…)
ywtf:I also sort of look at it in these terms: if I were a male gynecologist applying for a job at a women’s clinic and under work experience on my resume I had “porn star” and listed the titles of more than 50 movies I’d acted in, wouldn’t it be legal for the employer to discriminate against me because of this?
Any doctor who imagines that work experience as a porn star is professionally relevant to gynecological practice—and therefore lists such experience on his resume when applying for a GYN job—is way, way, WAY too clueless about gynecology (not to mention the entire profession of medicine) to deserve to be hired. It’s not his involvement with porn that’s the problem: it’s that he believes that involvement with porn is somehow a qualification for him to practice medicine.
If, on the other hand, a gynecologist is hired purely on his professional merits, it should make no difference if his employers later find out that he used to be a porn star (or still moonlights as one off-duty, for that matter). His private life is the man’s own business.
They absolutely have the right to free speech. I suppose it’s even possible they thought they were being funny and they are just insensitive and not racist. I dunno, and I don’t care. The one thing that’s absolutely certain is that they’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are to stupid to wear a uniform.