Now on ScienceBlogs: Where Were You When...?
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Another Gitmo Prosecutor Quits | Main | DonorsChoose Challenge »
Posted on: October 2, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
As cynical as I am, I am shocked by the utter stupidity and tastelessness of this story. Take a look at the t-shirt that the police union in Denver is selling to commemorate their actions during the Democratic National Convention:
I'm almost speechless. Here's the only thing I can think to say: Heads should roll. Every single officer involved in printing, selling or approving the sale of this shirt should be fired. Immediately.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Uncertain Principles 11.08.2009
Neurotopia 11.09.2009
The Primate Diaries 11.09.2009
Stoat 11.07.2009
Tomorrow's Table 11.07.2009
Comments
How... shockingly honest of them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 2, 2008 9:56 AM
Have you considered that it might be satirical? I'm pretty sure the police are just as fed up with being ordered to harass political dissidents at political rallies as are their victims.
Posted by: Flaky | October 2, 2008 10:02 AM
OK, so we've got a bunch of state-sponsored, uniformed boot-boys openly displaying their pride in beating up people for exercising their basic democratic rights, and in the previous post we've got a calls for a military lawyer to undergo psychiatric examination for refusing to go along with a show trial in a kangaroo court, using evidence extracted under torture.
Can we call it fascism yet? If not now, when?
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 10:07 AM
Yeah, that's pretty tasteless. Cops tend to have very dark senses of humor - you have to in order to survive in that line of work. Not defending it, just trying to provide context.
But also keep in mind that the Denver Police have been widely praised for how well they handled protestors at the DNC. A friend-of-a-friend who works for ACLU Denver said they were "bored to tears" throughout the DNC because there were so few complaints. Not zero, of course; any time you have that many protestors and that many police together, there are going to be some people on both sides who get out of hand. But you didn't seen anything like the mess they had in St Paul for the RNC.
Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 10:09 AM
Heads should roll, because you felt offended, Ed?
Shouldn't hiring and firing of police officers be dependent upon their on-the-job record?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 2, 2008 10:29 AM
Okay, so this shirt is bad judgment. But I think it's trying for a wry satirical take on the fact that the cops are sometimes perceived as fascist, not actually celebrating violence. I mean, the guy in the cartoon has sinister googly eyes and a maniac grin.
I'd compare this to the infamous New Yorker cover with the Obamas. Intended to be funny, with the expectation that everyone would understand it wasn't serious, but just really poor judgment because you can't assume that in a nation this size.
Posted by: tkozak | October 2, 2008 10:30 AM
No, heads should roll because it is incredibly inappropriate for police officers to celebrate or make light of gross abuse of their authority.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 10:35 AM
yeah , this doesnt shock me I consider the police a Legalized gang .i have seen first hand them brutalize and intimidate people . in fact the homeless community is under constant harassment.
Posted by: VicVanity | October 2, 2008 10:36 AM
This says more about the police union that it does about the officers themselves.
/actually in denver right now
Posted by: yoshi | October 2, 2008 10:38 AM
Gingerbaker, police officers serve the community. I think it might be satirical, as Flaky mentioned, or perhaps just an in-joke with the officers who came up with it. But it is highly inappropriate and unprofessional, at the very *least* -- and that's just assuming it is a joke or satire. If it is "serious" then it is an indication that they don't take their jobs seriously, and have no regard for the safety of the people they have been hired to keep safe.
Posted by: marilove | October 2, 2008 10:38 AM
Gretchen hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: marilove | October 2, 2008 10:40 AM
Well, since we're all just being humorous, I suppose I can wear my "Fuck off Denver Cops, you violent, fascist, authoritarian pigs" shirt around town now, and get a few chuckles as well? Surely a good time will be had by all.
Posted by: JRQ | October 2, 2008 10:40 AM
On a more practical "head rolling" note: this shirt was put out by the police union, not the Department itself. If the City tried to discipline the officers involved for tasteless-but-not-illegal union activities, they'd get sued so fast it'd make your head spin.
Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 10:42 AM
What does "inappropriate"{ really mean? It's a word like "wholesome" - it has no true definition.
One man's "inappropriate" is another's "wry humor".
As he is a staunch defender of freedom of speech, I am shocked - shocked I tell you! ;D - that Ed would not defend the right of any citizen express themselves freely.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 2, 2008 10:42 AM
Take a deep breath, Ed. Generally I think cops are fascist bully-boys who should be despised for the arrogant pricks they are. This just shows that I'm right. It is funny, just not in the way they think.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | October 2, 2008 10:42 AM
Where's the irony? Not funny.
Posted by: jls | October 2, 2008 10:48 AM
Gingerbaker said:
The freedom of speech protects the right of private citizens to say what they want without fearing punishment by the law. It does not protect the right of police officers to portray themselves as gestapo and still retain their jobs.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 10:49 AM
Ed,
You of all people should realize that these cops have the right to free speech.
"Heads should roll". Please, for what exactly, offending you?
Lighten up.
Posted by: Lance | October 2, 2008 10:53 AM
Taking a closer look at the picture, I think I went to high school with that guy. Way to go James!
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 2, 2008 10:53 AM
"inappropriate" most certainly has a definition and it's not "unwholesome". It means "not consistent with." To the extent that a Police Force has a mission and purpose, some actions will be appropriate, i.e., consistent with, and some will be unapproprate, i.e., not consistent with, that purpose. That "inappropriate" has a context-bound meaning does not mean it has no definition.
Posted by: JRQ | October 2, 2008 10:55 AM
Gretchen said:
"It does not protect the right of police officers to portray themselves as gestapo and still retain their jobs."
Why - do public employees not have a right to a sense of humor? To freedom of speech?
You are beginning to sound like the offended Catholics who demanded that P.Z. Myers lose his job at the public institution, the University of Minnesota because his desecration of a Eucharist wafer was just so darned "inappropriate".
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 2, 2008 10:56 AM
Gingerbaker, it seems to have escaped your attention that police brutality is illegal. Police officers who walk around wearing t-shirts that indicate a celebration of illegal activity-- much less one that is in the exclusive capacity of police officers-- should be let go. The last thing we need is enforcers of the law who give every indication that they have no respect for it whatsoever. P.Z. Myer's job has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of whether destroying a Eucharist wafer is wrong or right. It does not in any way conflict with his ability to teach biology, nor can any reasonable person conclude that it would. That's a really dumb comparison.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 11:05 AM
Actually, I think it's quite funny. I think the T-shirts that say "Don't taze me, bro" are too.
But I'd be really, really, really concerned if any police officers around me wore those shirts. It'd be a bit like my surgeon wearing a "let me just harvest a few more organs for fun and profit, while I'm in here" shirt. WTF were they thinking?
Posted by: Becca | October 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Gretchen: As WScott noted above, this is an action of the police union. Federal law prohibits the disciplining of employees based upon union activity. Since the Denver PD accepts Federal funds, it is also bound by a raft of regulations protecting employee freedom of expression, plus I imagine various Colorado statutes as well. There is nothing the city can do.
The issue, then, is what the city should do, if it had freedom of action. Does the shirt promote illegal activity? No. It celebrates rough treatment of people being arrested. The vast majority of the time this occurs, it is perfectly legal, incident to the arrest (most metropolitan police forces also have a "goon squad," however, who have the job of arresting those that someone wants roughed up; this is illegal, but we have no way of knowing if this is what is being endorsed).
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, and I'll hold to that here; The shirt is tacky and tasteless, but not illegal: It passes, and Ed is wrong here.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2008 11:24 AM
Well then, I guess the police can offload anything they might be disciplined for to "Union activity". How, prey tell, is this activity intended to make sure cops get a fair shake with the city, or have safer work conditions, or other Union charter purposes? Or is it just cops flaunting their dick-headedness from the safety of the Union hall?
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | October 2, 2008 11:31 AM
This is disgusting, but shouldn't we be talking about the overreach and abuse that took place in Denver and St. Paul, not t-shirts made to commemorate it?
Posted by: Julian | October 2, 2008 11:41 AM
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 11:52 AM
I would think was funny (as in making fun of the police) if it were put out by anyone but the Police Union.
For instance, if some random hippy walking down the street were wearing it, it would be funny (and the cops would probably disagree), but an officer in otherwise plain clothes wearing it would not be funny, except to other police officers.
It will be interesting to follow this and see if any non-police make thier own, and how the cops treat them.
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | October 2, 2008 11:55 AM
Ed, I am likewise shocked and appalled at the sentiments expressed in that T-shirt design, whether satirically or seriously. I could imagine someone wanting to wear such a thing to highlight police brutality in a critical manner -- but NOT by a cop himself, to celebrate it and show pride in being able to commit violence with impunity!
However, I reluctantly and sadly have to agree with those here who say that this falls under the heading of protected free speech. It is despicable, yes, but not illegal as I understand it.
As for firing anyone involved with the shirts, because I see this as free speech, I disagree; but I do think that anyone found to be committing the gratuitous violence celebrated by these shirts needs to be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law, for committing those acts of gratuitous violence -- not for the creation or wearing of an offensive T-shirt. It's just handy that some of them will target themselves for special scrutiny by wearing such shirts.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | October 2, 2008 11:56 AM
Speaking as a Denver resident who lives incredibly close to where the DNC occured, I have to say the Denver Police Department did an EXCELLENT job keeping order throughout the week. Their presence was most evident and most welcome.
I gained a lot of respect for our police department that week, but this shirt makes me take back a *little* bit of that.
Posted by: Michael | October 2, 2008 11:59 AM
The part where the police in Denver, you know, beat the crowds. It is not illegal to talk about a past even where a crime might have occurred, but didn't. Free Speech and all that.
Somehow, I'm sure Christians are being persecuted in all this. ;-)
(Trying to save mrroberts a post there).
Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2008 12:03 PM
It promotes beating on the crowds at the DNC, people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly. It goes straight past "illegal" to "Unconstitutional", with a healthy dash of "violates the very spirit of democracy" for flavor.
I know that there are plenty of people out there who think that it's not illegal if the police do it, but I hadn't thought to find so many here.
What a pleasant euphemism. You'd think the character on the shirt was wrestling a resisting suspect into a squad car instead of clutching something that looks more like a baseball bat than a nightstick and grinning in gleeful anticipation of busting some hippies' heads.
Clearly not, or you wouldn't think it was acceptable for police to celebrate the fact that they got (or thought they'd get) the chance to use violence on people exercising that right.
No one said it was illegal. It is, however, an announcement that these particular police enjoy opportunities to abuse their power (not to mention the public), which is the surest sign that power should be taken away from them.
As you point out, the city doesn't have the ability to do so at this point. Instead, I hope that both citizens' groups and the city watch every cop involved in this like hawks, so the second they cross the line from sadistic fantasy to actual brutality, they can be stripped of their badges instantly. With any luck, a few lawsuits might empty the Police Union's clearly overfilled coffers.
Posted by: Seraph | October 2, 2008 12:03 PM
Whoever was responsible for that shirt should be fired immediately, not necessarily because it is offensive, but because it represents such poor judgment. Public trust in the police department is incredibly important. This shirt does nothing but destroy that trust. Makes the police look like a bunch of thugs. You would think that the union would be sensitive to their perceived public image? Guess not.
Posted by: Bruce | October 2, 2008 12:36 PM
Honestly, how is this any different from the "Visit exotic land, meet new & interesting people, and kill them" shirts that used to be so popular when I was in the Army? Dark humor, yes, and (deliberately) tasteless. But to say it's advocating violence is to completely miss the point. tkozak' comparison with the New Yorker Obama cover is spot on.
Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 12:53 PM
In all seriousness I have long believed that the left will get nowhere without the good old asskicking bolshevik- types of old. Cops are conservative by nature. They always identify with facists. Even in blue state Maryland there is a scandal about the state police spying on anti-war and anti-death penalty groups.
I always try to put everything in historical context. So often the right wins because they are meaner and don't mind bashing heads. This thing in Minneapolis is a small chapter in a much longer story. Look back to 2000 during the election recount? Would have been nice to have some Red Brigade types who could have cracked the skulls of the Hitler Youth the repugs managed to round up to shut down the Dade County recount! Without ass kickers on the left who don't mind spilling blood you have a political movement as long as the police tolerate you. I'm sorry but that's just what history shows pretty consistently.
Posted by: Timothy | October 2, 2008 1:07 PM
Whether or not people can be fired over this, one would think that public outcry would lead to resignations, recall of the t-shirt and a public apology.
I know I would not be pleased if my local police officers began wearing shirts that appear to celebrate fascist violence regardless of what their actual conduct has been.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 2, 2008 1:19 PM
The real question is...
...is it worse for a cop to have designed this shirt or to have divorced the governor's sister?
Posted by: BAllanJ | October 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Maybe I'm slow, but I finally got the joke. Getting up EARLY to BEAT the crowds is actually a reference to rush hour traffic. I mean, what else could it possibly mean?
Posted by: william e emba | October 2, 2008 1:52 PM
GingerBaker, Gretchen etal -
My knee jerk reaction to reading Ginger's comment, was no, no, no your wrong. But as I calmed a bit, I realized that no, she's dead on.
I find this absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. All that this kind of bullshit does, is make a whole lot of people despise and distrust the police (for some that would be despise and distrust them even more). That it is the fucking police union doing it makes it even more vile and probably further alienates the public. But as long as it stays on their free time, the police have a right to be fucked up, simian morons.
If this was posted in a patrol car or in police stations where the public can see it, then yes, I would argue that heads should roll. But the creation and marketing of this offensive garbage is absolutely protected free speech.
Rather than arguing that heads should roll and jobs should be lost, I will write a letter to their union officials, encouraging them to rethink marketing this crap. I will also write the few friends I have in Denver and encourage them to do the same - as I am certain that it will be far more effective coming from their own citizens.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 2, 2008 2:05 PM
Well, for one thing, the Army shirts are an accurate (if incomplete and darkly sarcastic) description of the Army's job. The police shirts are announcing an eagerness to abuse their office by beating on citizens exercising their rights.
For another...well, would you have worn the "...and kill them" T-shirt while you were actually stationed in an "exotic land"? Not a close ally where they'll probably just roll their eyes at the Ugly American trying to be macho, but someplace where people's fingers are on triggers? Announcing your hostility might not be wise in such a situation. And that's what these police have done: announced their hostility to the people they've sworn to protect.
Fortunately, unlike the "new & interesting people" of the Army shirt, political activists have means to defend themselves that don't involve bombs and sniper fire. As I said before, I hope the police in question are stripped of their guns and badges the next time they put a single toe out of line, and these shirts are used as evidence in a couple of lawsuits that drain the Police Union's accounts to the point where they have to be a bit choosier about how they spend their money.
Posted by: Seraph | October 2, 2008 2:33 PM
As do we all.It's clearly meant as a joke, folks. I don't find it particularly funny either, but bad jokes aren't illegal either. DuWayne's got it right.
Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 2:57 PM
Wow william, I think you're right. That's actually pretty deep.
And I have to say, I think the difference between the army t-shirts that WScott is referring to and this is that most of us here probably feel more of a connection to the people brutalized by the police than those killed by the army in "exotic lands". When it comes to how much of a inappropriate dark "joke" it is, the army thing is quite a bit more evil (shall I say macabre).
But a bad joke isn't a reason for anyone to get fired, whether it's this, the guys behind the Obama caricature, or PZ Myers. Actions that result in actual harm is another matter.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 2, 2008 3:18 PM
Jerk doesn't really capture it, though idiot might. Wearing that shirt at home is a bit of black humor about what Life In The Army is actually about, a retort to the "be all you can be" and "army of one" commercials. Wearing it in one of the "exotic lands" announces to the "interesting people" that you think it would be funny to kill them.
Nor is this against the law. What it is, is an announcement that they think it would be just hilarious to beat up some dirty hippies for exercising their Constitutional rights. With that in mind, they should be watched very carefully so they can be fired the instant they do just that. And they will, sooner or later. Everyone needs a laugh at the end of a long day, you know?
Of course it is. That doesn't mean that it isn't also a threat. A threat delivered with a smile and a chuckle, an arm around the shoulders and a "just kidding" is one I'd take more seriously than someone shouting and waving his fists in the air.
With this shirt, the Denver PD publicly declares that they are brutal thugs who would find it just hi-larious to beat your head in. I see no reason not to take them at their word.
Posted by: Seraph | October 2, 2008 3:57 PM
Seraph, I really think you're inferring threats where none are implied. IMO the proof is in the pudding -- as I and other posters have commented, Denver PD showed amazing restraint during the DNC, even when the protestors were throwing bricks, jars of urine, bags of feces, etc at them. If DPD were the thugs you think they are we would've had a lot more arrests, many injuries, and the ACLU Denver wouldn't have been bored stiff. But instead they allowed a couple of unpermitted marches to proceed, declined to arrest several thousand protestors outside the convention when "by the rules" they could have, went out of their way to seperate violent rioters from peaceful protestors, and even negotiated a deal for Veterans Against The War to meet with the Obama campaign. Numerous times, I saw cops put themselves at risk to PROTECT the 1st Amendment rights of protestors. The motives you're inferring simply doesn't match their actions.
Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 4:43 PM
They're not implied. They're very openly stated.
Still, you have a point. Their actions don't match their words - which is the first time I've ever seen a situation where that's a good thing.
I just believe - and if you'll look back, this is all I've ever suggested - that this "joke" suggests that they should be watched very carefully, in case they decide to start matching deeds to words. What could be wrong with that?
Posted by: Seraph | October 2, 2008 4:56 PM
@All protecting "free speech":
At what point does government endorsement of illegal suppression of free speech stop being "protected free speech"?
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 2, 2008 5:16 PM
Robin: Perhaps when it is the government that is doing the endorsement?
Once again, the Fraternal Oder of Police is not a government agency. And since I have seen no evidence that the shirt in question was produced before the Convention, we have to conclude that is was a self-conscious joke about their perceived public image. The shirt is tasteless, but I see no evidence that it is advocating police brutality as so many here seem to believe. It's just in poor taste.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2008 6:18 PM
"Order", of course. Freudian slip.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2008 6:21 PM
@kehrsam:
No, but its members are government agents, and they are the ones responsible for producing the shirt and wearing it; why do you give the police a free pass when you wouldn't give teachers the same latitude? I agree that teachers shouldn't; what puzzles me is why you feel that the police should.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 2, 2008 9:23 PM
I think it's a pretty damn funny shirt. That said, it's a bit more appropriate coming from an offensive t-shirt company like T-Shirt Hell instead of a police union.
But should people lose their jobs over it? Meh, I don't really think so.
Posted by: sinned34 | October 2, 2008 11:43 PM
This is my first post on this site, but I have been a rabid reader since I learned of PZ's infamy through Wafergate, aka "It's just a f%$@#& cracker". First off, and you'll love this, I've been a cop in Houston, Texas, where there's quite a lot of money to be made in the diagnosis, and treatment of, microcephalia, for 18 years now. I am quite infamous in my department, as I'm sure you could immagine, for my embrace of godless heathenism, and my tendency to go on protest marches against the drug war, drug sentencing laws, pro-choice rallies, gay rights marches, seperation of church and state protests, etc. To summerize, as an introduction to where I'm coming from, I agree with 98% of what I've read from PZ. I also love this site because between PZ and the comments, I just don't ever find myself with anything to add to what are, very regularly, quite satisfying, witty, intelligent posts. I've never had anything to add, previously, that had not already been offered up by another commentor. That being said....
Since we hit on my specialty with this one, here goes...
The ACLU would almost definitely sue if the officers were fired or even reprimanded. It's off duty freedom of speech, and they are not in uniform or on duty while wearing or making the shirts. To be blunt, that law is the only reason I have never heard so much as a peep from my thoroughly Republican employer about my website, which was more profane and bluntly unapologetic back in 1994 than Hitchens is today. You can immagine how much my employer loves me for that one. (Dont bother looking for the website. It's a dinosaur that I built entirely on Front Page. I have to rebuild the whole thing just to republish it... as an antique, I suppose.) There are still a shocking amount of people in this department, even to this day, who still think I'm a "Devil worshipper" and without that very law, I would definitley have been fired a long time ago. I have even had Internal Affairs complaints from people who wanted me fired because of the website.
As to the T-shirt, I wish it was some high minded, intelligent, witty and sarcastic remark in it's intent, but I very seriously doubt it. I think you are giving them way too much credit in the "tendency towards rational thought" department. The majority of cops I have met are seriously hobbled in at least a few ways. First, the vast majority are Christians. Thus enters the "good vs evil" mindset, along with it's twisted, feeble, horribly disfigured sibling, "free will". They think of law breakers as bad people, not people who are all too frequently socially, economically, intellectually, educationally and psychologically screwed before they ever hit puberty. They look at criminals as evil people, instead of people who deserve empathy and humane treatment. That view of evil justifies, in their minds, the beating of protesters. They see themselves as good people, fighting against evil people. That is just another lovely way faith touches our lives.
Second, I think people in our society have enough problems with paranoia just because of watching too much cable tv and local news stations. The problem with cops is further agitated by their training which leaves them with another layer of isolationism and paranoia upon the initial layer they came into the job with. Basically, the police departments still trains cadets as thought they're military troops. They need to train cadets as cousnellors, and mediators, not as shock troops. I talk about 95% of the poeple I arrest into the handcuffs, and I've been told by countless people I'm the coolest cop they ever met. That's wrong. EVERY cop should be better than me, because they should have extensive training, which is stressed to be the most important part of the training, in dealing with people in duress, but they're not, and neither was I. I, luckily, eventually overcame the gripping paranoia I felt after my training. They train these people like army bootcamp, instead of training them in psychology, and hands on crisis intervention techniques.
WHY? Why don't we have any nationally mandated minimum requirements for local law enforcement officers? Why don't we have nationally mandated coures and curriculum? Or, how about nationally mandated mininum pay scales? The lower the pay, the more likely you're going to get curruption, lower IQ's, lower education levels, and higher amounts of fundamentalist, ethnocentric bullies with badges.
I have to tell you though, as somebody who's still on the inside of this one, we have come a LONG way in the last 18 years, but we have a helluva long list of improvements we need to make in law enforcement. End the drug war. Stop passing out badges to reprobates and bullies. Require all peace officers to carry sound and video recording equipment that's always on whenever they are on duty, etc, etc.
So there ya go. There's my two cents, and then some.
Christopher
aka Peter Pan (forty years old and still playing cops and robbers) I look FABULOUSSSSSSSS in the green tights.
Posted by: Christopher | October 3, 2008 4:41 AM
Great post, Christopher!
Welcome.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 3, 2008 9:24 AM
@Christopher:
I liked your post but this, above, is the crux of the matter.
Your website conveyed the message that you, personally, were an atheist; and you, personally, have lawfully exercised your rights of protest against unjust laws.
The tee-shirt message is not however a personal message. The message conveyed by the tee-shirt is that the Denver Police Department - of which the individual is part - approves of unlawful suppression of the right to protest and of freedom of speech. The whole point of the tee-shirt is that it is being worn by Denver policemen.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 3, 2008 11:42 AM
Robin Levett said:
"The whole point of the tee-shirt is that it is being worn by Denver policemen."
No, the whole point of the T-shirt is to produce a chuckle.
YOUR whole point is to contrive the notion that a joke on a shirt sold by a Police Union is somehow the official policy of the Denver Police, which is really out there, Robin, especially considering that the Denver Police was not a bad actor.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 3, 2008 1:59 PM
As a regular you'll appreciate why I find these T-shirts deeply unfunny. Perhaps when some malefactors take a Denver policeman for a ride and beat the shit out of him, the cops will persuade the Judge it was a really funny joke -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 3, 2008 2:11 PM
@Gingerbaker:
Nope; my point is that Denver policemen wearing it means that Denver policemen approve of the message - and Christopher has told us quite how humorously they do so. If the Denver Police Department do not dissociate themselves from that message - by, if necessary, disciplinary action, then the DPD has indeed condoned the message.
As I understand the position, you have no problem with USAan (or Oz) teachers, as teachers, endorsing creationism? Or Oz ones? You don't believe that there is a problem with the USAan or Oz Constitution, which both forbid government endorsement of religion?
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 3, 2008 4:08 PM
Robin Levett
As I understand the position, you have no problem with USAan (or Oz) teachers, as teachers, endorsing creationism?
I really wish that they wouldn't, but they have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. Indeed, my son's best friends dad is a middle school math teacher and he does exactly that, on a regular basis - hell, our kids have actually debated the issue. The distinction is that he does it on his own time.
Now if the police were wearing these shirts on duty, or posted it in public at the station or in their cars, you'd have a point. But it is not apparent that they have done so and until they do, they have every right to wear these shirts.b
Posted by: DuWayne | October 3, 2008 4:45 PM
Robin said:
"As I understand the position, you have no problem with USAan (or Oz) teachers, as teachers, endorsing creationism?"
Sorry - you have completely lost me.
What is USAan and Oz, and what does creationism have to do with the discussion?
And you are still up to that no-good contrivance again. Stop it! ;D
Should I type slower? That a t-shirt is for sale with a chilling message does not mean that the Denver Police Department "approves of unlawful suppression of the right to protest and of freedom of speech."
Evaluate the Denver Police Dept by their actions, not by a message on a "frackin'" t-shirt. And, again - the Denver Police Dept accorded themselves well at the DNC, according to previous posters. Christopher works in Houston.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 3, 2008 4:48 PM
How about this for a t-shirt design:
A cartoon of a obviously dead Police Chief Wiggum, trussed up like a suckling pig with an apple in his mouth, surrounded with the legend "Keep Denver kosher, kill all pigs".
I'm sure the Denver PD would defend it as being "just a joke" -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2008 1:32 AM
I apologize. I should have mentioned that the activities related to the printing and sales of the t-shirts is an off duty matter because it is done by the members of the local police union, which is not a government entity. The union is not just entirely separate from the department, but it's actually directly opposed to the department. Unions are formed to give the officers some basic protections from the department itself. The union I'm a member of has been fighting for two decades against cronyism, nepotism, sexism, and in favor of basic, rational standards the department needs badly just so it can be remotely referred to as a modern department.
What's hilarious and ironic about this, especially here in such a Republican stronghold, is to see all these Republican cops complaining about the Republicans they work for because of all the Republican values they make use of in their management of the workforce. Every single progressive change the union seeks that gets shot down in the state legislature is always shot down by the Republicans, yet, somehow, their minds are impervious to all of this and they use the word Democrat as though it was a profane term. Faith is belief without evidence. This is belief against evidence. Sound familiar?
Christopher
Posted by: Christopher | October 4, 2008 3:17 AM
@DuWayne/Gingerbaker/Christopher:
The crucial point that I am making, which neither of you directly address (you might consider it so obvious as to be unnecessary) is that the t-shirt was designed and produced for/by policemen, to be worn by policemen; indeed the whole point of the humour is lost if it is not worn by a policeman. The message of the t-shirt therefore begins with "I am a policeman and...". It is entirely irrelevant that the t-shirt is produced by the union and that the union fights the DPD for its members' rights; qualification for membership of that union involves being a policeman.
"Government endorsement" for the purposes of creationism or indeed any other religious indoctrination has been interpreted very broadly. Are you sure that were the wearer not a policeman but a teacher (and the message appropriately different) you would be arguing the same way?
Again, policemen are in a unique position of trust within their communities. US police take an oath of office, to uphold the constitution. Certainly in the UK, and presumably in the US, they are never "off-duty" in the sense that they can act in disregard of the ethical an legal duties they assume as policemen. What they say *as policemen* is the business of the force (or department, as the case may be). They *are* constrained in what they can say, by the fact that they are policemen who owe duties to the police force and to the community. However well-regarded was the policing of the 2008 DNC (and it certainly wasn't without its headbreaking moments), saying "I am a policeman and I think that breaking the law in the course of suppressing free speech is something that I either do or that I consider to be a joke" is outside those bounds.
@Gingerbaker:
I apologise for putting words in your mouth, but I was trying to get you to see the point I was making. "USAan" is because I (but inconsistently) like to distinguish between inhabitants of a continent and citizens of a country; and Oz because I had it in my head you were Australian.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 4, 2008 5:52 AM
Robon said:
"because I had it in my head you were Australian."
Heh heh :D
It is really funny how we generate our mental pictures of each other. DuWayne thinks I am a woman. :D
I live in Vermont, not Australia.
Australia is that sun-bleached killing field festooned with ultra poisonous snakes and spiders whose shores are patrolled by scimitar-toothed fish.
In Vermont we make maple syrup and socialist Senators.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 4, 2008 1:35 PM
Gingerbaker - So you haven't got my parcel of Atrax robustus specimens yet? Must of got lost in the post over there! - :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Robin said:
I'll need citations for this claim, seeing as it completely mistaken. I took Education Law back in the early 90's and in the past couple of years helped my girlfried struggle throgh two such courses as she got her license as a Principal. Unless there have been some cases in the last year, they don't exist.
Moreover. we have a lot of teachers at my church who wear t-shirts at church events which are anti-evolution or pro-YEC. They have similar bumper stickers on their cars. They have freedom of expression to put items on their desks or on the walls behind them, so long as it is clear that this is no more than their personal opinions. They are allowed to spam the mailboxes of the other staff with ID messages if they like. In Ohio, the infamous Mr Freshwater is accused of keeping a Bible on his desk: This is perfectly legal, just as burning crosses on his students is not.
As for this shirt, it was probably devised by union officials, who are likely ex-policemen employed by the Local, not active-duty officers as you seem to believe. There is no issue here but poor taste and terrible public relations. And there is certainly no Endorsement issue: The only First Amendment issue is whether a civil service union has the same right to really stupid free expression as everyone else. As it happens, they do.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 4, 2008 3:15 PM
DJ said:
"So you haven't got my parcel of Atrax robustus specimens yet? Must of got lost in the post over there! - :D DJ"
Not so loud, DJ!
My ever vigilant government has likely intercepted your shipment, and will be treating it as a bona fide terrorist attack.
If there is a knock at your door, be sure to call out in a strong voice "There is no one at home".
:D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 4, 2008 3:27 PM
@kehrsam:
I'm willing to be persuaded that there's no strict First Amendment endorsement issue here (but the fact still remains that the interpretation of endorsement for First Amendment purposes seems to an outsider to be very broad); but you're going to have to go a lot further - starting by addressing the point - to persuade me that the Denver Police Department does not have a legitimate interest - based upon the apparent endorsement by its officers (not the union - the union doesn't wear the shirts, the policemen do) of police brutality and suppression of legitimate free speech by others - in the issue, as police authority and employer.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 4, 2008 5:13 PM
Robin: Good, then. We're agreed that the shirts are legal and not a fireable offense. We're also agreed that any officer would be stupid to wear one outside the house, and I assume that the proper message has been sent from the Commissioner's office about the Department's public image. I don't wear my FSM t-shirt when I'm anywhere near my church, either. Mixed messages don't usually work.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 4, 2008 5:52 PM
Robin -
Are you sure that were the wearer not a policeman but a teacher (and the message appropriately different) you would be arguing the same way?
I am absolutely certain. My friend who is a middle school math teacher, often wears shirts that mock "darwinism" and evolution - just not at school. He even has students who have come to youth group events, because they had heard that he was a youth leader from other students and they really like him. But he clearly delineates between his position as a public school teacher and as a youth minister.
Teachers still have the same freedom of speech that everyone else enjoys, outside the school setting. So do the cops. We don't take anyone's freedom of speech, excepting people who sign nondisclosure agreements or are ordered into a nondisclosure by a judge. But even those are limited limitations.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 4, 2008 11:06 PM
@Duwayne:
Maybe so - but this t-shirt doesn't so delineate; indeed, to the contrary, it relies for its effect upon the fact that the intended wearer is a police officer.
Christopher's position as an atheist devil-worshippin' all-around satanic person is different; he was an individual who happened to be a police officer who held those positions. There was nothing peculiar to his position as a policeman that was engaged by those positions.
@kehrsam:
I'm willing to be persuaded on the First Amendment point - but you haven't even tried. On the employment front; I don't see why it wouldn't at least be a disciplinary offence for any active policemen employed by the DPD to be involved in the design and production, or wearing in public, of these t-shirts. "Bringing the department into public disrepute" (however it's phrased) would seem to cover promoting - or at least condoning - assault and breach of the policeman's oath of office, don't you think?
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 5, 2008 3:16 PM
Robin -
Maybe so - but this t-shirt doesn't so delineate; indeed, to the contrary, it relies for its effect upon the fact that the intended wearer is a police officer.
Doesn't matter. It would be just as legit if my friend sported shirts that say he is a public school teacher and creationist. Indeed, he regularly mentions that he is a public school teacher at events where he is a speaker. All that he delineates is between when he is working as a public school teacher and when he is acting as a private citizen - and then, it is only important when he happens to be interacting with kids who happen to be his students, outside the context of school.
Let me ask you this; Would you say the same thing about police officers who wear shirts advertising that they are members of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)? They are obviously using their position as police officers to make a strong political statement, a statement that wouldn't be nearly as effective if they weren't clear about being police officers. Is their wearing such a shirt effectively a claim that the police in general believe in ending the war on drugs?
...to persuade me that the Denver Police Department does not have a legitimate interest...
They most certainly do, but not one that provides any legal basis for disciplining officers for what they say when they aren't on duty. There are places where LEAP is actually well supported by local officers and where they have a pretty strong turnout at their public functions. It would be very easy for the local citizenry to get the impression that their local cops support an end to prohibition. Guess what? It's still completely legal for them to hold such events and be very outspoken about both being a cop and supporting an end to prohibition.
Now if the shirt made a claim that this is an official department endorsement of something, you would have a case here, but it does no such thing. Even if it made specific mention of the Denver PD, you might have a case - but it doesn't even do that. I'm sorry, but one doesn't give up their freedom of expression, just because they happen to be a cop, teacher or other public employee.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2008 4:09 PM
I notice that you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that this could be considered illegal in any way. You want to ask Kurt to actually make a case based on the first ammendment - yet you have not actually made a case of your own - at least a case based on evidence.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2008 4:11 PM
@DuWayne:
It's a claim that a segment, maybe a significant segment, of the police believe in ending the war on drugs. So far as I know, however, being against the war on drugs is not yet illegal in the US. The existence of a range of opinion within the police force on the issue is hardly surprising, and the fact that a segment of opinion within the force opposes the war on drugs does not affect the reputation of the police - which is a legitimate interest of the police department.
It is however illegal to beat up protestors and unconstitutional to prevent demonstrators exercising their right to free speech. This is not an issue where one expects there to be a range of opinion; police officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, and the whole point of their office is to uphold the laws that exist. That a segment of police opinion considers that it is funny to beat up protestors does affect the reputation of the police (and indeed doesn't make doing their job any easier, in a range of ways - trust is pretty important); if the police department doesn't take visible steps to dissociate itself from the view, by disciplinary action against the officers involved, that would also reflect upon the reputation of the police department. One possible view is that by failing to take such steps the department could be taken to endorse the view - which I why I am not yet completely convinced that there is no first amendment issue here. Even if, however, there is no first amendment issue arising from that possible implicit endorsement nevertheless there is an effect on the force. Another view is that by failing to take steps the department is demonstrating that it is unable to control the officers concerned - hardly an ideal situation.
You are ignoring the fact that unlike even teachers, policemen take an oath of office that applies throughout their lives, not just their working lives; just like lawyers, their activities outside work can lead to disciplinary action. It's the way it is.
Let me change the position. If policemen from a Mississippi police force - say in Oxford - produced and wore a t-shirt depicting policemen wearing white hoods and a fiery cross with the legend "nobody crosses us" (or words to that effect - you get the picture) do you feel that the department should take disciplinary action against those officers? If not, why not. If so, what is the difference of principle between that situation and this one. Now assume that the date is 2nd October 1962. Is your answer still the same?
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 5, 2008 6:37 PM
and the fact that a segment of opinion within the force opposes the war on drugs does not affect the reputation of the police...
It most certainly could.
...which is a legitimate interest of the police department.
It certainly is and the police department is more than welcome to publicly and clearly disassociate themselves from any position taken by officers in their department. It does not however, provide them with the right to restrict the freedom of expression of off duty officers.
This is not an issue where one expects there to be a range of opinion; police officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, and the whole point of their office is to uphold the laws that exist.
And when they fail in that duty, they can and should be punished for it. That is very different than expressing an opinion.
That a segment of police opinion considers that it is funny to beat up protestors does affect the reputation of the police...
This is absolutely true and why (aside from teh tastelessness) I think this was a fucking moronic thing for the union to put out there. But again, it is not a reasonable excuse for infringing on their freedom of expression.
...if the police department doesn't take visible steps to dissociate itself from the view, by disciplinary action against the officers involved, that would also reflect upon the reputation of the police department.
The department has every right to publicly announce that they do not support or endorse the views expressed on the shirt. They can even explain that they would love to discipline the officers involved, but are constitutionally unable to do so.
Another view is that by failing to take steps the department is demonstrating that it is unable to control the officers concerned - hardly an ideal situation.
Not at all the case. The department obviously can control the officers involved, while they are on duty. The DPD didn't actually assault any protesters and by all accounts did exactly what they were supposed to do. Given the above shirt was produced, obviously some officers would love to have beat up protesters - yet they didn't.
Off duty is a very different story.
...policemen take an oath of office that applies throughout their lives, not just their working lives; just like lawyers, their activities outside work can lead to disciplinary action.
Yes they do, but that oath does not allow for restrictions on their freedom of expression, excepting that it may require they not speak about aspects of their job or cases they are involved with.
Let me change the position. If policemen from a Mississippi police force - say in Oxford - produced and wore a t-shirt depicting policemen wearing white hoods and a fiery cross with the legend "nobody crosses us" (or words to that effect - you get the picture) do you feel that the department should take disciplinary action against those officers?
No.
If not, why not.
Because it is constitutionally protected free speech. The fact that I find the sentiment absolutely vile and repugnant does not change that simple fact. And indeed I would prefer that people who actually feel that way, be out in the open about it. While it is entirely within their rights to express those feelings, it is within the rights of others to watch them more closely because of it.
Now assume that the date is 2nd October 1962. Is your answer still the same?
Ok, you seem to mistake me for someone who's principles depend on the climate in which they are tested. I can assure you that this is certainly not the case.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2008 7:05 PM
I note that you still haven't actually provided any evidence that the department could discipline the officers if they wanted to.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2008 7:13 PM
@Robin: Here's a pretty good summary of the state of the law.
Do you have backing for your assertions?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2008 12:44 PM
@kehrsam & DuWayne:
I'm not able to answer at any length at the moment - I'll try to do so later on this evening - but for the moment please tell me whether you consider McMullen v Carson and McPherson v Rankin to be good law.
And try RR-105 for the disciplnary provision that applies. And RR-107 as to on/off duty. (They're in the police discipline handbook).
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 6, 2008 1:55 PM
@Robin: Yes, I do think McMullen might be bad law, as it effectively adopts the Heckler's Veto as an aim of government. On the other hand, the plaintiff there went on TV to identify himself as both a member of the KKK and an employee of the Sheriff's Department. It's a close call, made less close by the apparent incompetence of Plaintiff's lawyer, who appears to have not challenged any of the defense statements lumping the Imperial Knights with every other group that has ever borne the KKK label.
In any case, McPherson overrules McMullen, and applying the factors considered by the Supremes, McMullen almost certainly would go to the Plaintiff.
McPherson was a 5-4 decision, and it is entirely possible (perhaps likely) that if it came up again today would be 5-4 the other way. As I stated above, I am a free speech absolutist in so far as that is possible. Nevertheless, those two cases are close enough that reasonable people can disagree which side of the line they are on.
I am not familiar with your other two references, although I am guessing they are state or logal regulations. I really don't have time to look that up, and in any case if there is a Constitutional claim, such regulations are irrelevant.
This has been an interesting discussion, Robin, thanks for the fun.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 7, 2008 11:08 AM