[City of New York] Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch slashed the maximum number of cards that could be issued to current cops from 30 to 20, and to retirees from 20 to 10, sources told The Post.
The cards are often used to wiggle out of minor trouble such as speeding tickets, the theory being that presenting one suggests you know someone in the NYPD.
The rank and file is livid.
“They are treating active members like s–t, and retired members even worse than s–t,” griped an NYPD cop who retired on disability. “All the cops I spoke to were . . . very disappointed they couldn’t hand them out as Christmas gifts.”
Source: NYPost
The cards, issued for various states and agencies -- such as the DEA -- are available for purchase on eBay for around $100.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:34PM (42 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:52PM
This is Hamurrabi tier stuff. But hey. Justice hampers progress. It was useful to destroy the previous system, now it's obsolete. Justice by tv programs is the future.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:08PM (35 children)
The story is that the policeman's union in places like NYC are so powerful that they can simply have their name printed on a card with the standard 'spangled' background and see those cards being resold on ebay for $200. And their response to noticing this was to hand out fewer cards this year, which implies they want to see the price rise. I wonder who is actually selling them... hrmmm.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:17PM (30 children)
I think it helps to promote transparent and fair government, to remove even the smallest suspicion of favoritism, like these $200 "club cards".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:41PM (29 children)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:05PM (8 children)
There's nothing wrong with restricting free speech: we do it all the time. Try this: go to your boss, and call him some nasty names. See how long you stay employed. Same goes for the police: they should submit to speech restrictions, or else they can find another job. Technically, their speech isn't "forbidden", but it does carry the penalty of loss of employment.
Another big problem with the police is these unions: they should be forbidden. In other industries, if employees unionize, they get fired. Same should go here, and there's a better reason for it: in other industries, unionizing employees just want more money or better working conditions. For the police, they want to get away with murder.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:23PM
Just because certain activities are legal (or moral, for that matter) under some circumstances doesn't mean that they're legal (or moral) under yours.
Which let us note is nothing like prohibiting a private organization from printing cards. The boss is not acting as an agent of the state. For example, there's no law against calling your boss nasty names unless it crosses over into harassing behavior in the workplace (which is often illegal). The behavior is more than just speech, it is rude insubordination, disruption of a work environment, and perhaps harassing behavior. Not high legal drama, but definitely enough to get you fired.
While I agree (since these are public employee labor unions which can engage in a great deal of corruption with elected politicians such as vote buying), that again has nothing to do with the scenario of the printing of cards by the police union in question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)
Sigh. Getting fired for calling your boss names has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:53PM (5 children)
Do you normally sigh when you achieve reading comprehension?
Yes, the parent post was talking about "restricting free speech," not the First Amendment (which wasn't mentioned). One can restrict free speech in many scenarios.
What was your point again?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:28PM (4 children)
Grishnak made a very general statement about restricting free speech in reply to my post observing that making law restricting the practice of merely printing promo cards would restrict the free speech of the organization. I made that point to demonstrate that not only would such a law be illegal, it would be immoral as well.
So it's not good enough to claim that there are unusual scenarios where parties can restrict the speech of others. One also has to come up with a legal and moral argument for why the speech should be suppressed. That wasn't done.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)
No. The first amendment [wikipedia.org], in and of itself, is an admonition to the federal government.
The fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] extends that admonition to the states (in the case of all amendments that have been incorporated [wikipedia.org] which the first has been, according to SCOTUS, which due to an outright usurpation of power [constitutionality.us] is effectively the governing force here.)
The states in their turn extend such things to all governments subordinate to them. [shestokas.com] Cities, towns, etc.
At no level of government do these restrictions on the government transfer from the constitution into the private sector: That has to be done by specific (federal, state, local) legislation addressing whatever issue is at hand.
That's why, for instance, Facebook can (and does) choose to limit and otherwise interfere with the speech of citizens. They are in no wise required to bow to the admonitions in the US constitution just because it's there. Soylent, on the other hand, chooses not to.
TL;DR: The constitution applies to the government. Not the citizens, and not corporations. That's the role of legislation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:15AM
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00AM (1 child)
Seems yet more people need practice in reading comprehension. Go back and re-read the AC post I replied to. The AC post ONLY referenced the scenario about being fired for yelling at your boss, and how that doesn't have to do with the first amendment. Which it doesn't.
You may have other points going on in this discussion, but this particular scenario was clearly understood by Grishnak, and AC's "sigh" comment was weird given that Grishnak clearly understood that.
And as for your claim about "unusual scenarios," that's just nonsense from a legal standpoint. In the vast majority of circumstances it is legal to restrict free speech... As long as it isn't the government doing it. Moral is a different issue, but legal is clear.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @08:35AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:46PM (4 children)
It would be better is if the officers were not handed bland cards but sign up forms which must be submitted with a small administrative fee. The applicant becomes linked to the "issuing" officer's badge and said officer assumes responsibility for their issuing of the cards.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:57PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:16PM (2 children)
I have a card, used it, so I know how this works.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:53PM (1 child)
Of course, I don't think it is far fetched. Let us keep in mind that the IRS has demanded over the last few years the donor lists for various political ("social welfare" in the lingo) non profits (eg, the Tea Party [wikipedia.org] thing) and sometimes disclosed [propublica.org] confidential information (financial information was apparently part of the illegal disclosures, but not donor lists) to private parties.
We also have other examples where lists kept by or obtained by government have ended up abused. Gun owners were published [poynter.org] in the New York City area. There's also the never-ending abuse of lists of drivers licenses and home ownership, mined for advertising and such.
A particularly notable example was "Section 215" of the PATRIOT act. It allowed the FBI to hoover up all sorts of interesting lists. Originally, the clause was justified on the basis that 911 terrorists had checked out books with suspicious titles with the clause useful for obtaining such evidence in the future. But it has since been used to collect large-scale phone records and other things. A list of police union card recipients would be a valid target under this law, once the appropriate, secret rationalizations had been carried through.
In other words, US-based governments and the private world already have a track record of abusing such lists and the tools to do so in the near future. If democracy decays further, then such lists would be easy ways to find out who supports the NYC police, allowing for easier build up of lists of enemies or currently unlawful ways to extort concessions from the union.
And as has been noted before, the distribution of such cards is quite legal and protected by the First Amendment. The use of them to get out of trouble is what is illegal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:54PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)
Ok buddy everything is free speech. Speeding? Free speech, Dick waving, Free speech.
jesus christ can't you see that people want things to be free speech because freedom of speech is the law that trumps all others... not because they're free speech. This is racketeering and corruption.
Now mind you I'm about to buy one of these things on ebay and figure out how to duplicate them so I have a stack at home. Our country has gone to shit and I'll make sure i'm on the winning side.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
Nonsense. The passing out of such cards is clearly a protected act of free speech. The alleged tradition of using these cards to get out of minor offenses is not free speech. It's not hard.
No. I don't see that because it's not even remotely the problem.
And what is a stack at home going to do for you? Hold down that very mobile desk you have? Again, it's not the distribution of paper that is the problem. It's that this is being used as a tool to unlawfully create a more protected class of citizen.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:44AM
Going to have to agree, whether a person pulled over shows the cop a card or says "im a friend of jim" it is the same thing. The problem is that the officers think it is okay to not punish wrongdoers (if you consider traffic violations to be that) and that they think this is a thing they have the "right" to do. The card is meaningless, they will just use something else instead, the issue is that they accept them as a sign to let someone off easy.
Police claiming this is not the case is proven false because there is a market for these cards, they would not hold a value if they didn't work. Having or attempting to use a card is not illegal, but the cop handwaiving someone based on it is.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:11PM (1 child)
"No law making such a practice illegal would actually help transparent and fair government because it would inhibit the free speech of the organization in question. It's like the Citizens United case. You can't restrict the speech of an organization without restricting the speech of the people in that organization."
That's because you're proposing the wrong law should be made.
Let them hand out the cards as much as they want. No problem with that. But make it illegal for an officer to accept them in return for overlooking the law. At which point you'll have a lot fewer cops letting people drive recklessly simply because they have a card to "get out of jail free".
The way the cards are being treated right now almost sounds like a bribe to be honest.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:30PM
It's not my proposal. Look at my other posts in this thread. I make the same point you make here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:36PM (9 children)
Money isn't speech and the SCrOTUmS screwed the pooch on that one. Money isn't speech, it's money. At this point, I'm not even sure what one could do that would constitute bribery as paying off debt for politicians isn't legally bribery.
The cards are being used to solicit special treatment and that's above and beyond free speech.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:41PM (8 children)
And nobody says that here. Here's the Wikipedia short version [wikipedia.org]:
See? It was an act of speech, the airing of a movie critical of Clinton, that was suppressed, not some pile of money.
(Score: 4, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:21AM (7 children)
Emphasis added. Try reading it again, and don't stop halfway through this time.
The law says you can't spend money advocating the defeat of a candidate. They had that law overturned so they could spend money advocating the defeat of a candidate. How, exactly, is that not about money?
Even the Wikipedia article that you linked to makes that clear right in the first paragraph:
It was not a restriction on speech, it was a restriction on spending money. And that was overturned, because they decided that money is a form of speech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:42AM (6 children)
The part where they are advocating.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:14AM (5 children)
Right, so what you're saying is exactly what the court said, which is exactly what you previously claimed they DIDN'T say -- that money is speech. Can you try to stick to the same argument for more than two posts for once?
If money is speech, it also means prostitution is legal (it's no different than standard dating if money is no different than speech), taxes are illegal (as a federal regulation on speech), and companies have no obligation to honor warranties or returns because enforcing that would restrict how they can take your money, amounting to a government restriction on their speech. Also the Constitution contradicts itself by specifically stating that the government has a right to regulate monetary transactions (the commerce clause) and that they cannot regulate speech (first amendment) -- if those are the same thing, then those clauses are contradictions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:26AM (1 child)
Perhaps you could point to where in the court ruling a Supreme Court justice on the winning side actually said that money is speech? I think you won't be able to do that because "money is speech" is a silly label for paying for speech (which as I've already mentioned is protected by the First Amendment).
Non sequiturs don't mean a thing. By definition. Even if we were to attempt to assume that money is speech those ridiculous conclusions would not follow due to the absence of logic. For example, there's nothing to respond to in your argument that prostitution is like dating because money is like speech.
First Amendment takes priority because it came after. Next.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:19PM
Clearly that was not the intent of the amendment, or they would have made it explicit. It's part of the same document, written by pretty much the same people at roughly the same time. And they wrote quite a bit about why these documents say what they do. If they intended to make such a substantial change to the original document someone would have mentioned that at some point. In fact, what they wrote was that they did not consider the Bill of Rights to be necessary at all. They believed the existing Constitution constrained the government such that it could not violate any civil rights, and that enumerating some would only endanger those that were not explicitly mentioned. They certainly did not say that they intended the Bill of Rights to alter or correct the existing Constitution.
Found it! Check page 44 of the opinion (emphasis added):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [supremecourt.gov]
According to the court, the expenditure -- the act of spending money -- is political speech *by definition*. Or perhaps more accurately, they write as though the two concepts are already synonymous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @08:55AM (2 children)
In other words, the idea is that US-based government shouldn't be able to force you to fund the political speech of another private party. There is plenty of precedent where US-based government can and does successfully force us to fund government speech, such as wartime propaganda, public health notices and educational services, weather reports, and economic reports.
Once again, it's not the money that is claimed to be the problem, but the nature of the activities (particularly, political lobbying) done with the money. This is yet another example of why money is speech is a terrible description of what is actually going on.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)
How is that a speech issue? The speech might be what's getting people upset, but legally it seems pretty irrelevant IMO. When my employer gives me my paycheck, they don't get to tell me how much to spend on rent or how often I can go buy a case of beer or what I can talk about while I'm drinking that beer. They don't control the spending or the resulting speech -- once they pay me it's my money and I can do whatever I want with it. So there's no conflict with the union spending their money how they want to spend it -- it's *their money*! The problem is purely about people being compelled to pay for services that they might not want...although generally in these cases those services are being provided regardless as a condition of employment, so having to pay for services that you are receiving seems rather fair to me...nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to take that job...but that's a different issue. As far as free speech is concerned, the money can only be an issue if you're claiming that the money itself is a form of speech. Otherwise there's no conflict with your right to free speech -- your free speech rights do not extend to telling other people what they can and cannot say. Regardless of your relationship to that person or organization. Doesn't matter if you're paying them either, your money cannot revoke their right to free speech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @04:18AM
You are forced to give your money to another party who promotes speech that you disagree with. In your example, the employer is not paying you for your speech and thus, doesn't have expectations of your speech outside of the workplace. In the case of the labor union example, lobbying is a key part of its activities, and the union payments by non-union members are expected to in part go to this activity.
Further, the employer is a government. So we have a government withholding money from your paycheck to pay for speech by an organization whose speech you disagree with.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:40PM (3 children)
Okay, $200 for the first one. There are plenty of printers out there who can mass duplicate it exactly for a setup of ~$100 and unit cost of a few cents. That's if it is laminated card stock, maybe slightly more if it is a plastic card.
Sounds like a business opportunity to me.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:49PM
Yeah as soon as I heard about this it's the first thing I thought of. If they're "unofficial" then certianly forgeries are completely legal. Even if they afford me a small amount of protection from the police, I'd rather have a chill encounter instead of one of these roid fueled interrogations.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:46AM (1 child)
I think you'd run afoul of copyright and trademark law, and possibly fraud. I imagine it's the same as if you photocopy a promotional voucher and use it to get free stuff from a retailer under false pretenses.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:02AM
Probably. I was thinking more along the lines of print a few hundred, sell them on ebay and disappear.
I just did a quick ebay search for "nypd pba card" .There are dozens of different types, going for anywhere from $20 to $150.
You also get a bunch of results for wallets that hold both your drivers licence and the card. All embossed with "Policeman's Wife" , "Sergeant's Mother", "Family Member", etc.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:56PM
Otherwise, you just have a violently imposed monopoly.
However, this story is not example of "private" law.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:05PM (3 children)
Perhaps the news is that these cards work -- that people can get out of minor infractions by using one.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:20PM (2 children)
People in NY have been buying PBA stickers for ages. Think so many people would buy them, if there were not at least anecdotal evidence they "worked"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)
I don't think anybody really knows if they work. Just because you get pulled over doesn't mean that the officer is planning on writing a citation or making an arrest. Sometimes they just issue a warning.
What's insidious about these things is that there's no real way of knowing whether or not the officer would have otherwise given more than a warning. Cops are people and we don't always know what they're thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:05AM
Yeah right. And those stickers and cards have nothing to do with whether you get a warning or a ticket. They are probably good enough to make up for being black.