Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910
Results 181 to 193 of 193
  1. #181
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebFire
    Well, I better get back to that Playboy before the next shift comes in.
    Glad to see you don't work for a department that micromanages what you can and can't read during your unregulated time. Sorry if I interrupted..

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED
    Just as one Fire Dept. (in theory) could ban ALL reading materials and probably be in their legal right to do so...(No content based censorship, everything regardless of content is banned, thus it is content neutral)...the weapons ban is also content neutral if it bans all firearms (with exceptions for Fire Marshals and such)and therefore is perfectly legal under the law.
    That's exactly right.. and that includes all weapons (guns, swords, large knives, etc.).
    Do it because you love it, not because you love being seen doing it.


  2. #182
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebFire
    Thank you for your very educational and intelligent contribution to the topic.

    You know what Fred, you're right. We must all be a bunch of dumb, uneducated, worthless firefighters because we didn't take the time to research, memorize and cite case law about a topic that really just takes common sense. The fact that there even is a case about it makes me roll my eyes.

    Well, I better get back to that Playboy before the next shift comes in. Have fun, I'm done with this. Got better things to do with my "unregulated" time.

    I didn't call you dumb, I called you ignorant...there is a difference, look it up while you are reading about the legal case you are attempting to argue about.

    FTM-PTB

  3. #183
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED
    I didn't call you dumb, I called you ignorant...there is a difference, look it up while you are reading about the legal case you are attempting to argue about.

    FTM-PTB
    I am not arguing any case? Where did I argue a case?

  4. #184
    Forum Member nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebFire
    I am not arguing any case? Where did I argue a case?

    I think that was the point Fred was trying to make.
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  5. #185
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl
    I think that was the point Fred was trying to make.
    I just want to be clear that I am not arguing against a case, and I'm not arguing that it isn't your right. I just think it is a little unnecessary and something that a mature adult would be able to reason about.

    That's all.

  6. #186
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    I just think it is a little unnecessary and something that a mature adult would be able to reason about.
    And I think other mature adults are telling you they think differently. And I think mature adults in a court of law agreed with us, not you.

    That's all.

    It's ok to disagree.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #187
    Forum Member spfdtruckman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    24

    Default

    FFFred.....BINGO....Right on the money.

    Apples to Apples

    Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified. Example=parents ignorant of modern mathematics.
    "Firefighters do not regard themselves as heroes because they do what the business requires.Ē

    Chief Edward F. Croker, FDNY

  8. #188
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    629

    Default

    "Mature adult" reasoning covers a broad range of opinions. This week a baby publication was in the news. I have not seen the issue but it is apparently available in doctor's offices and other medical facilities that deal with pregnancies.

    The controversy is the cover photo. The picture is of a baby nursing. It is supposedly a close up photo so there is no nipple visible. It has been pointed out that the area the baby is sucking on could well be an elbow. At least one woman has gone to the media and is shredding every copy she can get because she doesn't want children exposed to that kind of thing.

    Would you ban that magazine from the firehouse if one of your female firefighters was pregnant and brought it to work? How would you deal with a member of the public seeing it in the firehouse?

    Stay Safe
    IACOJ

  9. #189
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spfdtruckman
    FFFred.....BINGO....Right on the money.

    Apples to Apples

    Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified. Example=parents ignorant of modern mathematics.
    Oh ok. I get it now. To disagree with someone or something is to be ignorant. Thanks for the insight.

  10. #190
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    And I think other mature adults are telling you they think differently. And I think mature adults in a court of law agreed with us, not you.

    That's all.
    I can live with that. I am not saying you guys are wrong. I just have a different view of the subject. I am sure there are court case outcomes that you have not agreed with at some point or another, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    It's ok to disagree.
    Thank you Bones. Unfortunately, I think some others don't see it that way. They instead think we are ignorant (or worse, as I've seen numerous times here, and not necessarily by anyone in this thread).

  11. #191
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    No. They don't think you are ignorant. They just think you are ignorant on the court cases that have been discussed which answer most of the questions you are asking. Doesn't make you an ignorant person, just ignorant of that information. Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.


    It's hot out, can I wear shorts today?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #192
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42

    It's hot out, can I wear shorts today?
    Only if you want to look "unprofessional...."
    Do it because you love it, not because you love being seen doing it.

  13. #193

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sugar Springs (Gladwin), MIchigan
    Posts
    1

    Thumbs up My 'Infamous' Playboy Case!

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 0400 hours EDT

    From Steven W. "Firebat" Johnson, Plaintiff in Johnson v. County of Los Angeles Fire Dept., 9th District Court, 1994.

    "Hello" to all Firehouse Forum participants!

    About an hour ago, I literally stumbled into this forum while doing a Google search for "hits" regarding my 'infamous Playboy case' that took place in the mid-'90's. I've not had time, yet, to read all the discussion on this thread, nonetheless, I enjoyed what I did read. In fact, after reading your posts on the subject, I decided to join www.firehouse.com as a paid subscriber.

    It's now been over a decade since the case was heard in Los Angeles in front of 9th District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson. On occasion, I'm still contacted for information regarding the case.

    While it's been quite sometime since anyone has posted in this thread, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have about the case.

    I've been retired from LACoFD since July 1999, after putting 36 years into the retirement system. Thirty-two of those years were with the County of Los Angeles. Nearly a year was with the cities of Signal Hill and Huntington Park - two departments within Los Angeles County that eventually merged their departments with L.A. County FD. The remaining three years were retirement credit from my service with the U.S. Navy during the Viet Nam War era.


    UNION EMBEZZLEMENT - IAFF Local 1014

    In an unrelated matter, in the late '80's / early '90's, while serving on the IAFF Local 1014 Executive Board, I suspected that our Union treasury was being 'raided' by a crooked treasurer. Eventually, after digging into the matter further, and in a closed-door "executive session" during a regularly-scheduled board meeting, I submitted documentation to the entire 11-member board, outlining the basis for my suspicions.

    Not one, single board member believed my criminal accusations! After making my accusations known, I spent the next five months 'lobbying' the rest of my peers for support in trying to put a stop to the 'bleed' that was occurring from our dues monies.

    Finally, when no one would listen and take me seriously, I retained a San Diego attorney, initially at my own expense, and decided to go after the entire board, if necessary. In a second executive session, I literally pointed my finger at the entire board.

    The next day, my attorney served the Local with a demand letter, demanding all the financial books and records for the previous 10-year period. That finally got the board's attention; they knew I was serious and was coming afer them!

    In April 1991, the District Attorney's office announced it was investigating my allegations.

    In January 1992, the treasurer was formally charged with grand theft "in excess of $125,000", and tax fraud. The actual amount of theft was nearly $1,000,000, however, much of the theft was not placed into evidence.

    On Friday, July 30, 1993, the treasurer was sentenced to five years in prison for the embezzlement. He ended up doing two-and-one-half years behind bars due to time off for good behavior.

    Later in 1993, at a scheduled Union membership meeting, in a Motion from the floor, the membership voted unamimously to make me a Life Member of Local 1014. To this day, that has been the only Life Membership voted on by the membership-at-large.

    Did this 'event' that occurred prior to the so-called "Playboy case" influence my decision to enlist the help of Hugh Hefner and Playboy Enterprises, to challenge the infringment on our First Amendment Rights by the fire deparment administration? Perhaps, it 'made it easy' to decide to go forward with the case.

    Something I've never seen in print since the case got so much media attention, was the fact that I tried to put the matter to rest during an "in-house" grievance. I always wanted to be able to look back and say, "I tried to solve the problem within the department", BEFORE it got all the media attention I knew it would command.

    Like many others in the fire service, I suspected the case would portray all firefighters in a "bad light" in the eyes of the public - the same people who paid for our salaries.

    During the fourth and final step of the grievance process, I was represented by Hugh Hefner's own attorney, Burton Joesph of Chicago. He flew into LAX the morning of the hearing; I picked him up at the airport.

    Mr. Joseph brought numerous citings of case law that should have convinced the department would be in error of judgment if they chose to not grant relief through the grievance procedure. The fire department administration did not present a single document that would, or could, support their position on the issue.

    In essence, it was the fire department administration that chose to go forward and make it the public issue it became, once the news media got hold of the story. Clearly, no one is required to file an internal grievance if they believe their First Amendment Rights are being violated, however, I believed I had an obligation to attempt to keep the 'laundry bag' "in-house", if possible.

    Okay, the rest is history - on both stories! I'll do my best to respond to any questions that may be rekindled in this thread. Certainly, both issues will come up again..., and again..., and again.

    Thanks to all those who participated in the thread - on both sides of the issue!

    Very best to all,

    Steve Johnson
    AKA: 'Bat
    Firebat@aol.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fire in our firehouse...
    By 911brad in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 04:32 PM
  2. Will Bronx firehouse close?
    By FFFRED in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-03-2004, 10:00 AM
  3. Cleanest Vol. Firehouse Kitchen Awards
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2003, 01:38 PM
  4. Atlantic County Firehouse up in Flames!
    By mdoddsjffhnfc in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2003, 11:15 AM
  5. Atlantic County Firehouse destroyed
    By mdoddsjffhnfc in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2003, 10:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts