NEW YORK (AP) — A union representing New York City firefighters is raising concerns about possible disciplinary action against its members after state Attorney General Letitia James was booed and a pro-Donald Trump chant broke out during a fire department ceremony last week.
The Democrat, whose office won a $355 million penalty against the Republican former president for lying about his wealth last month, faced a chorus of jeers as she addressed a department promotions ceremony Thursday in Brooklyn.
Disclaimer: I am not, nor will I ever be a T supporter. I’d rather not even spell the rest of the name.
However, I have to agree with the union here. If these ceremonies tend to have a certain carnivalesque nature, can these firefighters be charged with more than bad taste?
It’d be a different story if these people were standing and chanting on the ashes of somebody’s newly ex-residense.
It’s not explicit from the article one way or the other, but the “investigation” seems to refer to officials from the fire department, which doesn’t imply that charges are being considered but instead that questions about policy adherence have been raised.
It’s a poorly written article, with polarizing ambiguity.
I didn’t mean to imply that charges were being considered. That’s my bad.
This is the State Attorney General. You respect the position if not the person.
This is 100% unacceptable behavior.
I disagree, I’m as left as they get but to have my job threatened because I nonviolently disapproved of someone is a terrible precedent to set. Would it really be okay for someone to dig up all the negative comments about supreme court justices on here and fire anyone who posted them?
They’re not in danger for expressing their opinion. They’re in trouble for being disruptive rabble rousers on the clock.
You must be self employed if you think causing an aggressive, divisive, disturbance at a work event is acceptable behavior.
We are again trying to accept less from our public servants than from any standard private job
In a courtroom, sure. Anywhere else, she’s nothing more than a politician, and getting booed comes with the territory.
In fact it is part of the very first amendment of the Constitution. The right to freedom of religion. The right to freedom of speech. The right to public assembly. The freedom of the press. The freedom to redress our grievances with our government.
Personally I think it looks like a financial assassination attempt, and not a good precedent. I think it’s short-sighted and it’s going to come back around and bite some Democrats in the ass too.
That applies off the clock.
You may not be aware of this, but while wearing the uniform of a public employee such as firefighter or police, you do not have many of the same rights - including speech, privacy, etc.
This is not going to be a surprise to any of them, and in no way going to bite Democrats back over individual rights and freedoms which do not apply in this context (at least not in any sensible way).
America is an ouroboros of ass biting. It’s tit-for-tat all the way down.
Why the fuck would I respect some lawyer outside the courtroom?
Oh would you stop clutching your pearls? You mean to tell me that if Ken Paxton walked into the room you’d clap out of absolute deference?
Ah yes, “respect my authority and ignore the first amendment or I’ll ‘investigate’ you and put you in jail”… Where have I heard that before…?
Username checks out.
Not while in uniform.
Just like they lose their right to privacy and can be filmed, they are acting as the organization they represent while wearing the uniform, their individual rights do not have the same application.
This is not new, this is not illegal or a constitutional violation, and has been through the Supreme Court before.
No. It’s Sociology 101.
When I read the word “carnivalesque” I think “like a carnival.” Every carnival I’ve gone to has been about having good time. Never once have I been to a carnival and have it been about politically heckling people you don’t like.
So I’m not sure how that’s really an excuse. But ultimately, this comes down to what their policy says. I suspect, because they’ve been making a stink about it, the policy does say that they can’t be overtly political while in uniform.