Black Philadelphia police sue over message board

[Torakus]

In short: A web site created by a white Philadelphia police sergeant is the focal point for a law suit against the city of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia police department and others because some racist comments have been made on it.

This lawsuit is being brought on behalf of a black police officers group called the Guardian Civic League, by the same people representing the Philadelphia day care center whose minority children were turned away by an area swim club.

Brian Mildenberg, the owner of the firm representing the Guardian Civic League, represented this comment on the message board by the site founder as "racially abusive commentary"; "Blacks and other minorities frequently don't have the resources that white people have. Consequently, blacks may not be able to keep their vehicles inspected, registered, and roadworthy."

So the argument for most race based quota systems, or affirmative action style policies - being that minorities lack access to opportunity or resources that whites have - is now racially abusive?

Personally I fear this type of litigation. There seems to be a wave of "ZOMG we have a black president, now we are going to get some pay back" going around. Unfortunately it appears many strongly fear the backlash associated with ignoring or challenging this frivolous, petty, bullshit litigation.

/drama queen powers ACTIVATE

Sotomayor and the Guardian Civic League are eroding our constitutional right to free expression and grounds that we are racists based solely on the color of our skin rather than the content of our character.

/drama queen hat OFF

Seriously, I am concerned that an avalanche of this type of silliness has the potential to further impair our civil court system, and in fact only hurts race relations. This is like picking a scab and is encouraged by continued acceptance and promotion of racially exclusive minority associations. I find it particularly distasteful in an occupation that prides itself on the unity of its members. I had always thought that the strength of the fraternal bond between officers kept officer of all races above this type of stuff. I guess I was dead wrong. It is obvious that the officers, both black and white, in Philadelphia have some issues that need worked out, but I don't think lawyers should be involved.

In the end, this is about easy money. I fucking hate lawyers, and the worst of them are those that play the race card for money.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/pol ... index.html

Tora

[Lurker]

What does Sotomayor have to do with this? How has she eroded your constitutional right to free expression on the grounds that you're racist? That is really silly and takes away from the point you are trying to make.

[Harlowe]

What does Sotomayor have to do with this? How has she eroded your constitutional right to free expression on the grounds that you're racist? That is really silly and takes away from the point you are trying to make.

I was wondering that same, that sounded like a burst of crazy to me.

[Torakus]

What does Sotomayor have to do with this? How has she eroded your constitutional right to free expression on the grounds that you're racist? That is really silly and takes away from the point you are trying to make.

It was a joke, didn't you notice the drama queen powers tags around it? Sorry for hitting such a sensitive nerve with you two.

Tora

[Lurker]

Just further proof that Harlowe is a flaming liberal.

Anyways... if white officers are coming to work and joking about racist stuff they read on the local cop website, that's not protected speech. I agree that the post from the founder you quoted was perfectly reasonable and not at all racist. But that's not the only quote in the article.

[Harlowe]

The whole drama queen tag seemed like an excuse to say something stupid.

[Kulaf]

This really dosen't have much to do with the website and how they can sue the city is a mystery to me. Even if the officers were violating whatever Internet usage policy the police enforce it is not the citys problem. If the officer did violate the Internet usage policy then they should be subjected to whatever punishment is proscribed.

This is just silly.

[Torakus]

The whole drama queen tag seemed like an excuse to say something stupid.

Earth to Harlowe: No shit. That was the point. Make whack-job statement and qualify it as such with tags. That way when the real whack-jobs read it, they realize how ridiculous their position is. I guess I should dumb down the tags so that the rabid among us can understand it rather than just going on the attack when any of their pet positions appears to be under fire. Sheesh you are a nut.

Lurker,

The rest of the stuff in the CNN article is also not in the actual complaint, but the one that I quoted is, and that is why I used it. In fact, if you go to the complaint and read the things that they are calling racist, you might be surprised. If we are to believe this complaint, any white officer offering an alternative explanation for minority arrest statistics, that challenges racial profiling claims, is a raving racist and must be silenced.

If they come to work and make racist jokes or statements, then that is a different story, and should be handled through the processes in place in the department. I guarantee you that they have an internal process for addressing EO issues. But whatever they say on the web site on their own time is very much still protected speech and NAACP and GCL's use of race to try to silence anyone with an opposing viewpoint is disgusting and racist itself.

Tora

[Lurker]

I guess I should dumb down the tags so that the rabid among us can understand it rather than just going on the attack when any of their pet positions appears to be under fire. Sheesh you are a nut.

I don't think we went on the attack. It didn't seem like you were just mocking an insane position so I asked for clarification. You say you don't believe anything that you said in the "/drama queen" section. That's nice, but it sure seemed like you did believe some of it based on the rest of the post.

If they come to work and make racist jokes or statements, then that is a different story, and should be handled through the processes in place in the department.

According to the lawsuit, the black officers tried to handle things with the department but their complaints were ignored.

managers of the Philadelphia Police Department have ignored the complaints, and have allowed this discriminatory material to be used, operated, and published from computers owned by the Department, by police officer employees of the Departmment, including those of rank and supervisory position, thereby creating a racially offensive and hostile work environment for African American Philadelphia Police Officers.

If true, that is not acceptable and is a valid grounds for a lawsuit. This doesn't look like some "ZOMG we have a black president, now we are going to get some pay back" situation at all. (Note that you said that directly prior to the "/drama queen" tag, and it's just as silly as the stuff about Sotomayor)

Most of the content listed in the lawsuit isn't what I'd consider racist or offensive, but some of it certainly is, and we have no idea what the actual work environment was like in the department as a result. It would be nice if that was documented in the complaint but it will likely only come out during the trial.

[Klast Brell]

Did you even rerad the article you linked to?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/pol ... index.html

Domelights' users "often joke about the racially offensive commentary on the site ... or will mention them in front of black police officers,
...
A look at the site's forums Friday for racist comments found several possibilities.

Reads one: "In urban areas, it seems [African-Americans] living on welfare in paid for housing is ingrained in their culture as well as fighting. ... Kids, along with adults can't speak proper English or spell at a 3rd grade level, but they can sing among "theyselves" the lyrics to a rap song."
...
Said another Domelights user of an African-American woman: "She is a classic example of that exact non tax paying, no car insurance driving, bad weave wearing, all the whitey's are racist black women."
...
She may have been referring to this comment posted on Domelights: "Maybe the people who work for a living didn't want to swim with a bunch of ghetto monkey faces."

Accessing the website on the job is a violation of department policy. When alerted to the issue the department chooses not to enforce their own policy. It certainly seems like they are begging for a lawsuit.

[Kulaf]

Because a lawsuit alleges something does not make it fact. Also I see no mention of what the acceptable Internet ussage policy of the department is so we really have no idea of whether or not they violated it even if they did post during duty hours......and if the department took any action whatever other than apparently whatever action they did or did not take was not acceptable to the plaintiffs.

[Harlowe]

and if the department took any action whatever other than apparently whatever action they did or did not take was not acceptable to the plaintiffs.

....

[Kulaf]

Aww isn't it cute....Harlowe's in full on bitch mode.

[Lurker]

Can you translate that sentence or do we need to wait for Rsak to do it?

[Select]

No, no one can understand you. Either just say, "Guys, MS is fucking up the cognitive today and the typing's gonna be screwy." and then correct it or just get smarter and correct it.

[Harlowe]

Either Kulaf is in flaming vagina mode or ....going full retard and man, you never go full retard.

[Kulaf]

Can you translate that sentence or do we need to wait for Rsak to do it?

Well what she quoted isn't a sentece......it's a fragment of the sentence:

"Also I see no mention of what the acceptable Internet ussage policy of the department is so we really have no idea of whether or not they violated it even if they did post during duty hours......and if the department took any action whatever other than apparently whatever action they did or did not take was not acceptable to the plaintiffs."

If you would like me to break it down for you into two sentences I can to make is simpler for you:

"Also I see no mention of what the acceptable Internet ussage policy of the department is so we really have no idea of whether or not they violated it even if they did post during duty hours. I also see no mention that the department took any action whatever other than apparently whatever action they did or did not take was not acceptable to the plaintiffs."

[Lurker]

Breaking it into actual english sentences helps a little. Just a little.

In any case, the filing with the court said management "ignored the complaints, and have allowed this discriminatory material to be used, operated, and published from computers owned by the Department, by police officer employees of the Departmment, including those of rank and supervisory position, thereby creating a racially offensive and hostile work environment for African American Philadelphia Police Officers."

Ignored usually means no action. Just saying.

[Kulaf]

Not when the stated goal is to have the website closed down. Ignored then takes on an entirely different meaning.

[Harlowe]

That wasn't quoting part of a sentence, it was your full sentence after an abuse of ellipses.