3 ms·

There's political organizations that advocate for police. It would be an infringement of speech rights to prevent people from donating to them, at least as the

There's political organizations that advocate for police. It would be an infringement of speech rights to prevent people from donating to them, at least as they are currently defined in the US.

avs733 5y ago
And it should be one that we tolerate. There are lots of infringements on speech, especially professional speech. The idea that somehow a group empowered by the state to commit violence in defense of the states policies have a more sacrosanct right to speech than doctors or teachers is absurd. These aren’t individuals speaking as individuals…this is effectively government speech and we ought not wrong our hands about restricting it. The government has no right to speech.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  There are equivalent groups for doctors and teachers, I don't follow your meaning. Like what is it that FOP¹ does that you think they should be prevented from doing? Should they not be allowed to exist? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police Please note that I don't give money to these organizations, I'm pointing out what a big chunk of donating money to the police consists of.
  - avs733 5y ago
    I’m aware of the other groups existing. When such a group represents police it is fundamentally different and should be treated with much greater suspicion.
oneplane 5y ago
So what is your solution to prevent law enforcement becoming influenced to do things other than realistic law enforcement for the betterment of society in a designated violence monopoly?
- maxerickson 5y ago
  You are apparently mistaking my description of the world as it is for an endorsement of the world as it is. I guess I don't think that police should be (somehow) specially prevented from any police related political activity, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the age old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

There's political organizations that advocate for police. It would be an infringement of speech rights to prevent people from donating to them, at least as they are currently defined in the US.

avs733 5y ago

And it should be one that we tolerate. There are lots of infringements on speech, especially professional speech. The idea that somehow a group empowered by the state to commit violence in defense of the states policies have a more sacrosanct right to speech than doctors or teachers is absurd. These aren’t individuals speaking as individuals…this is effectively government speech and we ought not wrong our hands about restricting it. The government has no right to speech.

maxerickson 5y ago
There are equivalent groups for doctors and teachers, I don't follow your meaning. Like what is it that FOP¹ does that you think they should be prevented from doing? Should they not be allowed to exist? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police Please note that I don't give money to these organizations, I'm pointing out what a big chunk of donating money to the police consists of.
- avs733 5y ago
  I’m aware of the other groups existing. When such a group represents police it is fundamentally different and should be treated with much greater suspicion.

oneplane 5y ago

So what is your solution to prevent law enforcement becoming influenced to do things other than realistic law enforcement for the betterment of society in a designated violence monopoly?

maxerickson 5y ago
You are apparently mistaking my description of the world as it is for an endorsement of the world as it is. I guess I don't think that police should be (somehow) specially prevented from any police related political activity, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the age old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?