Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mitt_romney_12 1063 days ago
> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others?

These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".
2 comments
hellojesus 1063 days ago
> Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession

What? There are no such things as criminal hate speech or am I misunderstanding 1A?

link
mitt_romney_12 1063 days ago
You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...

link
hellojesus 1063 days ago
This case is not going to result in a criminal indictment. It is clearly a 1A violation. Much like how Florida has recently been nabbing people from other states for online posts[1].

In both cases, it seems the justice system is being weaponized to punish those via a lengthy judicial process. Hopefully the defendants will sue for civil rights violations.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-in-minec...

link
mitt_romney_12 1063 days ago
They hopefully won't but the threat of arrest, even if they won't be indicted, is definitely enough to have a dampening effect on people exercising their rights. At the same time I wouldn't be confident in the courts protecting your first amendment rights [1] especially given the current court.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States (Note: this case has been overturned, but it took 50 years)

link
lordfrito 1063 days ago
I'm not sure I'm following you.

I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post).

I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person inside.

Meanwhile, related to civil-rights issues, and workplace related issues, "Police Officers" are still just "normal people" and should have the same basic rights as normal people. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

link
semanticist 1063 days ago
I think you're conflating someone's job with a protected characteristic in the context of anti-discrimination and hate speech law. If a cop gets special laws to prevent people smirking at them, or 'being a cop' is considered a protected characteristic, that is not "having the same basic rights as normal people", it's having extra rights that you can choose to opt-into by getting a certain job.

A person cannot choose their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, able-bodiedness, etc, that is why discriminating against them based on those grounds is inherently unfair and thus not allowed.

No one is born a cop. Someone chooses to join the police, with an understanding of what the job represents and entails. If they choose to join the police when the police are widely considered corrupt and looked down upon by society (or at least some parts of it), that's on them.

Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws are about ensuring the people are not mistreated for a fundamental characteristic of who they are. No one has cop DNA.

link