You will not be able to do and say the same things about Obama that the left did and said against George Bush.
The “thought police ” will be up your ass worse than a bad case of hemorrhoids.

I’ll go backwards in terms of responding to some of what you wrote. First off, there’s no need for “due process” in my opinion of the officers; as I wrote, I think whatever they wrote on the Web is freedom of speech, so there’s no legal process to consider. What I raised was the issue of how employers (in this case, the police department/legal infrastructure) should react — nothing at all to with the legality of the act. Glad you were able to throw in one of your “leftie tyranny” statements, though I must admit I wished it had been one of your “leftie liar” comments.

And also —

whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought

— sorry, flag burning isn’t an “actual crime” at all.

Now, the question is, what’s going to happen to the folks who partake in those tactics in terms of their professional lives? That’s what the story is really about, and it’s a legitimate question/concern. Just consider law enforcement officers, and go back to the O.J. case — and I grant you that we have no idea what their comments were in the above story, so what follows only holds true if the comments were racially derogatory. Do you think maybe police officers who publicly put negative comments toward African Americans out in the public on the Internet might get torn apart in criminal court cases, as Mark Furhman was? And therefore hurt their departments reputation, and the ability to prosecute criminals who happen to be African American? Sure seems likely to me —

So what are police departments to do? Allow this type of behavior by their officers even while they’re off duty with the knowledge that future criminal cases could be compromised by their off duty actions, or uphold certain standards of conduct (that officers agree to when they sign on) to ensure the integrity of the law enforcement process?

PLEASE!

Because they are critical of Barack Obama, the black community cannot count on these officers to protect them? That’s assinine.

I’m assuming the comments were racist. If not than their should be no disciplinary actions.

Probable cause isn’t necessary in an internal (administrative) investigation. Only in criminal cases. And like I explained above, Garrity covers due process under the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights unless the case turns criminal, and then Miranda applies.

Officers under internal investigation ARE given due process rights under the Garrity Act.

The use of a racial slur isn’t a crime (if there was one used in this case) but an administrative violation of departmental rules of conduct.

Under Garrity, any statement an officer makes in an internal investigation can’t be used against him criminally anyway. Why? Because the officer is compelled to make that statement or be fired. And no statement made under compulsion is criminally admissible.

For the record, I think both flag burning and what the officers said above should be allowed under the first amendment (as should burning in effigy, on either side). Not a fan of any of the tactics, but I believe they should be
protected.

Do you approve of “hate crime” laws? That is thought crime, whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought. I don’t think the First Amendment has a damn thing to do with destroying our flag or simulating the torture and death of a political opponent. Both are acts of intimidation, designed to suppress the free speech of others who disagree with the ideology of the perpetrator. They are, in fact, the opposite of free speech.