Just how stupid does he think women are? And have you ever wondered why Joe is so concerned about the safety of rapists? False positive on forcible rape almost never happen, while getting raped (and often murdered in the bargain for lack of shooting back) does happen. Does Joe “follow people around” and thinks that someone might shoot him for stalking?
(PS: The model would like me to point out that she makes no political statement of her own, that being counter to her employer’s policy.)
Given he has publicly-financed armed personal security, Mr. Salazar obviously lives in an exclusive bubble populated by likeminded elitists. Perhaps the question should be: “just how stupid is Mr. Salazar?” “Very”- I would venture.
As I posted in a forum a few weeks ago:
“Because in the ‘really real world’ THIS DOESN’T REALLY HAPPEN*…but THIS* does.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAIFJH48Gxo&feature=player_detailpage#t=38s
**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adcc62-3e1I&feature=player_detailpage#t=106s
“Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.”
Right. If you get nervous for any reason, just start shooting everyone in sight. That’s what the second amendment protects. If you’re batshit insane, that is. But then if you’re batshit insane, what are you doing in public office?
Joe just doesn’t want the women that he is raping shooting back at him.
He’s just stupid.
I know of some sexual sadists, and they don’t hold such stupid views.
Reminds me of back in the 1980s, when I first started working with crisis agencies. There were still men preaching, “Don’t fight back, so you won’t get hurt.”
[hurl]
Re your PS: she works for a company that forbids free speech on your own time? That would make a very interesting lawsuit. An employer can certainly control what you say when you speak for the company, or on company time. They have no legal basis whatsoever about your speech at any other time. Or at least, clearly not if your speech doesn’t violate any laws — firing someone for getting convicted of blackmail or threats doesn’t bother me.
She work for US Army and they don’t treat their personnel with much consideration.
In the real world, particularly in a job market like today’s, your employer can “let you go” whenever, and you’ll have to prove it was beause of something you said.
Filing a lawsuit against a former employer will also be “interesting” to your prospective employers.
There’s legal, and there’s smart.
“she works for a company that forbids free speech on your own time? That would make a very interesting lawsuit. An employer can certainly control what you say when you speak for the company, or on company time. They have no legal basis whatsoever about your speech at any other time.”
Why not, if it’s in the employment contract?
Not so sure about that. While I think that a company that tries to control an employee’s political speech outside of the workplace is treading on thin ice, they can certainly take action if the employee is saying things (“MY COMPANY SUCKS! IT’S RUN BY A BUNCH OF CROOKS! OUR PRODUCT / SERVICES ARE TERRIBLE!”) that are harmful to the company.
That’s true. But I would hate to be a company lawyer, or company PR hack, trying to stand up in a court room or press conference trying to justify muzzling political speech by an employee.
That’s doubly true for branches of the government. While private companies may be able to argue that they aren’t subject to the Constitution (although Neil Smith has a good argument for why they are wrong), the Army clearly can’t make that claim.
“private companies may be able to argue that they aren’t subject to the Constitution (although Neil Smith has a good argument for why they are wrong)”
Link or citation, please?
I am genuinely interested in reading his position on this, because it seems contrarian to mainstream conservative/libertarian thought.
http://www.down-with-power.com/corps.html
The basic argument is that companies are granted immunity by the government (similar to the immunity the government grants itself). So since they are given government-like special treatment, they should be held to government-like restrictions.
“While I think that a company that tries to control an employee’s political speech outside of the workplace is treading on thin ice,”
Why do you hate capitalism?
If a corporation (employer, creditor, HOA, etc.) wants to put terms in their contracts that forfeit your free-speech rights 24 hours a day, who are you to tell them they can’t? If you dont like it, do business with another one — until they all have the same terms in their adhesion contracts.
(“Violation of these terms will result in a fine of $100,000 per day. We reserve the right to amend these terms at any time”).
If Oleg’s internet service provider (ISP), web hosting company, or Word Press, wants to prohibit pro-gun speech with their networks and devices and software, who are we to tell them they can’t? And if all ISPs and web hosting companies and software publishers prohibit pro-gun speech, well that’s just the market at work.
If camera manufacturers include terms of use that prohibit their products from being used to promote gun rights, then Oleg would be free to use another camera — until all camera manufacturers do this.
That’s an interesting argument. Freedom of contract, and all that. Current practice has certainly prohibited a lot of that — some contract terms are considered “contrary to public policy” and are not enforceable. For example, contracts limiting association with people of the wrong albedo.
From a libertarian point of view you certainly have a good case. The individual liberty response to such actions would be boycott — you’re free to make unreasonable restrictions, and go out of business as a result.
Currently, the regulatory barriers to market entry are also much higher than they would be in a more libertarian setup. More competition in the latter case.
To address your concerns, I am the model. As a model and a soldier, I do not involve myself with any political statements. This is due to my commitment as a soldier. I can be punished under article 88 or article 134 for making public statements against any representative of the government, or against the government. To be safe, I simply stay out of political sides all together, because it interferes with my duties. I simply like to model, and Oleg is a great photographer. That is it =)