Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the equal-treatment-under-the-law? dept.

[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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:12PM (#626633)

    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)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:53PM (#626717) Journal

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:28PM (#626770) Journal
      The key thing is that the First Amendment is the dominant law here. It's a US organization engaged in speech.

      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)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:31PM (#626808) Journal

        The key thing is that the First Amendment is the dominant law here. It's a US organization engaged in speech.

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:15AM (#626912) Journal
          And we were speaking of passing law to regulate said speech of the police union. The law is what is subject to the First Amendment.
      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00AM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00AM (#627553) Journal

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @08:35AM (#627599) Journal
          I disagree. As originally presented, the thread has First Amendment implications. I wouldn't have presented it in terms of the First Amendment as the earlier poster did (since I think here my more general argument on the restriction of speech is a more appropriate way), but that's the law of the land here. Grishnakh detours into a non sequitur both from legal and moral standpoints. That doesn't strike me as understanding.