Black Philadelphia police sue over message board, say it's racist

[proud2BlibKansan]

(CNN) -- A group of black Philadelphia police officers filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against their department, alleging an online forum geared toward city police is "infested with racist, white supremacist and anti-African-American content."

The suit alleges white officers post on and moderate the privately operated site, Domelights.com, both on and off the job.

Domelights' users "often joke about the racially offensive commentary on the site ... or will mention them in front of black police officers," thus creating "a racially hostile work environment," according to lawyers for the all-black Guardian Civic League, the lead plaintiff in the suit.

A look at the site's forums Friday for racist comments found several possibilities.

Reads one: "In urban areas, it seems living on welfare in paid for housing is ingrained in their culture as well as fighting. ... Kids, along with adults can't speak proper English or spell at a 3rd grade level, but they can sing among "theyselves" the lyrics to a rap song."

Said another Domelights user of an African-American woman: "She is a classic example of that exact non tax paying, no car insurance driving, bad weave wearing, all the whitey's are racist black women."

The site's tagline is "the voice of the good guys."

more . . . http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/police.racism.lawsuit/index.html

[rucky]

1. What's with Philadelphia lately?

City of brotherly love, eh?

[fujiyama]

45. I remember meeting someone from Philly

and he said it's very segregated and pretty rough. He basically said there are some areas you know not to go depending on your race.

My friend is going out with a girl whose folks live just outside Philly and he said they're pretty conservative and racist. He said he went to meet them and her brother was throwing out the word n*er.

I suppose it's not just Philly, but most major cities that have these issues...

[lilytea]

55. it's becoming more like birmingham

circa 1956

[SeattleGirl]

2. And I'll bet that those making those racist comments will claim they

were "just joking," and will be irritated that the "black folk just don't have a sense of humor." I've seen that kind of response too many times.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Don't forget "oversensitive".

[SeattleGirl]

5. Ah, yes.

Good catch.

[PCIntern]

13. I don't think so...

this is a pretty hard-core group. Even I sometimes don't believe what some police say to me about minorities. Sometimes, I have to remind them that I'm Jewish, and they say, and I'm not kidding, "that's OK, that's why we come here".

[BlooInBloo]

3. Sigh.

[PCIntern]

6. I've been awaiting this....

...knew it was coming...I can't say much, but the few times I've been to the site, I feel Freeped-out. Many professional/personal connections to people who post there...not great...

[BlooInBloo]

7. Why didn't you mention it earlier?

[PCIntern]

8. B/c I was told in confidence and the Dr./Pt. relationship

with this particular individual especially is SACROSANCT. Couldn't. Sorry.

On edit: I hear A LOT of what goes on here and years ago I posted a whole litany of reasons why I can't let this stuff out - some involve professional relationships where I've been entrusted with certain truths which I cannot speak of until they're public (if ever) and personal relationships wherein I won't do it out of respect for friendship and privacy and sometimes safety of the individuals involved.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Fair enough.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

34. Not quite sacrosanct, no -

there are firm exceptions to the confidentiality protected by the statutes (and by common law), and it is accepted that when a doctor learns something about a patient that could conceivably bring harm to other members of the community, those beyond the confidential relationship, the doctor has a duty to make that information known.

Friendship has nothing to do with privilege or confidentiality, and it's a poor excuse behind which to try to hide.

If those officers were making racist comments to you as you were treating them, then you were in a position to prevent harm to the people who were the targets of their bigotry.

I'm bound by confidentiality and privilege as well, in my professional life, but if I had clients dropping racist bombs in my presence, you bet I'd have gone to their superiors and the law would have been on my side..............................

[PCIntern]

40. Sure...

It's funny: people on this site attacked me for getting into it with RWers in my practice over the years and now you come after me for not.

Let's pretend, just for fun, that it's my practice and I'll do as I see fit. How's that?

why don't you come to Philly and go to the Roundhouse and complain...the higer-ups would be real impressed.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. It's very simple -

and my post to you was quite simple and polite. Just an amplification and clarification.

You are claiming something that does not, in fact, exist. That's not an attack - just a matter of correction of the facts. "Sacrosanct" is a laughable word there.

As I understand it, you're in the dental profession. That has no established privilege attached to it by statute, although there are ethical guidelines for dentists that are similar - although not nearly as comprehensive - as those established by statute for physicians, lawyers, clergymen.

So, your claim of "confidentiality" or "privilege" was specious. There has never been one case involving "dentist-patient confidentiality," and the alleged "privilege" has never been invoked.

What you have is a situation where your patients feel free to speak their racist filth to you, and you're comfortable with listening to it and not doing a thing about it.

For financial consideration, you may have to do that, but talking it up after the fact, and claiming how much of it you know just makes you look like the co-conspirator that those pigs see you to be, as the co-conspirator that you are................

[PCIntern]

46. you are absolutely mistaken about that...

HIPAA applies to me as strongly as it applies to MD's and if you don't think so, check that annals of fines and suspensions for dentists who are not complying with the rules. If you were to come to me as a patient I am absolutely not permitted to divulge ANYTHING about your visit without your express permission and this includes to your insurer, your spouse, your employer, you buddy in the waiting room. In fact, it is against regulation for me to post a list of my appointments or a sign-in book where patients or visitors may see it. But why let facts get in the way, when you're on a tirade.

And HOW DARE YOU say I did nothing about 'racist filth' you have no idea what my responses were to these folks, but I will give one to you. I for one am tired of your stalking me here and, yes, this is not the first time you have become argumentative with me and all yopur cutesy little avatars don't mean anything to me. AFAIC, you're a nuisance, and an unpleasant one at that.

You may have others fooled around here, but you don't fool me for one instant.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

47. Patients sign routine release forms,

and that's how you're then obligated to release their information to insurers, labs, medical practitioners, hospitals, all the places that might take part in the patients' treatment.

HIPPA is a governmental regulation, and has nothing to do with the time-honored legal tradition and legal obligation of privilege and confidentiality.

Now, find me a case of a dentist invoking "dentist-patient confidentiality" or "dentist-patient privilege."

There are none, because the privilege is mostly in the minds of dentists, the people who couldn't get into med school. And that "SACROSANCT" trust you of which you so plaintively and erroneously wrote doesn't ever extend, even among medical, legal, or religious professionals, the ones who are truly bound by their oaths, when the communication is illegal or bespeaks danger to others in the community.

As for "stalking" you, don't flatter yourself. I've called you - as have others - when you've posted offensive stuff. You may not have found it offensive - after all, you posted it - but "stalking" you? No, you're fooling yourself on that one. Just as you're fooling yourself on this "privilege" you claim to have invoked.

But, sure, try to make it about ME, instead of the nonsense you tried to cloak yourself with. You truly do a bad job of trying to change the subject.

As a dentist, you have no such "privilege" as do medical professionals, legal professionals, or members of the clergy.

So, as I leave the now, because it's all done, it would seem that hate speech is OK with you.

Interesting................................

[PCIntern]

48. routine Release forms do not permit discussion of

a case with anyone other than insurance companies unless there is a specific clause...which mine do not possess FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PATIENT...

It was my lifelong dream to be a dentist...you see, I have superb dexterity and was widely known as a youth for being able to maneuver small parts, paint tiny pictures on postage-stamp sized paper, sew stitches of almost exactly equal size and length as a 6 year old, could do a variety of things which many could not do...graduated a a 3.8 GPA from an excellent private University with three majors: English, Biology, and Psychology with published papers in dental research and an award with a stipend for further research from the ADA. Medical school would have been easy to achieve - I had no interest.

I worked tirelessly during my 30+ year career to see that Democrats might be elected, spent untold hours of chair time convincing people to register to vote, to have their families register and to ensure that they made it to the polls to vote for Obama especially...

But you see fit to attack me as a racist. You suffer under both a paranoid delusion of grandeur and a persecution complex so deep that you require a great deal of therapy to ameliorate your condition. Sad. High I.Q., low self-esteem.


On edit: I hereby demand your apology. You had no call to say those things about me and I consider them libelous - not actionable, of course, but libelous just the same. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

49. Gee -

that's an awful lot of self-defense when all I did was point out that dentists aren't obligated under the same confidentiality and privilege rules, statutes, and laws as are the medical, legal, and religious professions.

You're making it personal, and that's of no interest to me......................

[PCIntern]

50. You said something about medical school failures...

don't try to backtrack...you've exposed yourself...now just apologize and I'll accept it graciously.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

51. Kerfuffle and stuff,

but there is not one case of "dentist-patient privilege" or "dentist-patient confidentiality."

And now, on to things that matter....................

[PCIntern]

53. Oh, OK

You insult me personally, professionally, and racially, and then just say..."Never Mind"????

I was led to believe that you were legitimate years ago. How wrong I was.

[RobinA]

54. Yer Kiddin', Right?

What profession governed by any sort of confidentiality makes an exception for diming a client for making a racist comment? Insurance companies get excepted because they are - well, insurance companies and don't have to follow any known law or ethical standard they don't want to.

And even if this dentist decided to go against professional ethics and tell somebody that Joe Blow used the N word, who's he going to tell, and what is that person going to do about it? Most professionals hear all kinds of bilge every day of the week and can't/don't/wouldn't make a federal case out of it. It's a cost of doing business, if you consider it a cost. I'm in mental health, myself. The easily offended need not apply.

Futhermore, what I never understand about you thought crime people, how is telling some authority that Mr. Blow is a racist going to do anything to change the problem - Mr. Blow's ignorant racism? I live in Philadelphia and read that web site frequently. It is racist, and it is sexist. It reflects badly on the police and if I were a Philadelphia cop I would want it gone for that reason. Not that I would need a web site to tell me that Rush Limbaugh is probably a preset on more than a few private car radios owned by policemen. But a web site with stupid comments is a reflection, it isn't the problem.

[PCIntern]

60. Thank you for your intelligence...

your thoughtful viewpoint was sincerely appreciated.

Sometimes I can't believe what I read here...and the vituperative commentary directed against me personally and my profession!

PC

:hi:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

61. When someone makes statements

that could conceivably cause harm to another person or a group of other people, those confidentiality rules - which are beyond the scope of the privileged relationship - do not apply.

It's not about racism. It's about violence. Pay attention.

If those patients were making violent and racist statements about African-American police officers, that's grounds right there for something to have been done.

Otherwise, if it was just the regular, garden-variety bigotry, without any violent language, well, of course that's just part of doing business....................

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Do you have a link?

I wanted to add it to my OP

[PCIntern]

11. No...this was personal knowledge...

[varelse]

10. Yes, it's racist

how many more centuries of this garbage will the human race perpetrate - how many more generations will be steeped in this bullshit? :(

[Forkboy]

14. "all the whitey's are racist"

I can't imagine how they would get that idea.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Have to wonder why they are suing the city other than $$$

Its not a city run or sponsored site. It could reasonably be blocked under a department or city appropriate use policy, even null routed.

There are also federal protections for site operators. The plaintiffs should lose and pay legal fees.

[varelse]

16. "Ideally, Mildenberg said, his clients would like to see the site shut down. "

Failing that, they want Philadelphia police officers to be prohibited from posting comments on the site, particularly during working hours.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. They are also asking for unspecified damages, so there is a $$$ angle to this too.

Assuming the site lead has done his homework and made sure the accounts are not traceable there is nothing that can be done on a practical matter.

[varelse]

18. I disagree

on both counts. The primary goal (shutting the site down) is very clear, and the secondary goal (preventing police officers from posting to a racist site, especially during working hours) are both valid goals. I do not agree with your assertion that they are only after money, and in fact, I find it to be highly prejudicial and frankly, offensive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Umbrage is free, take all you want. If they were only asking for costs, I would go along with you

The refutation that you should have attempted is that unspecified damages is standard at this point, and it is, if you are after $$$. A more credible approach would have been a suit to force the city to block it on city computers and remind officers of the "Actions Unbecoming" clause in their contract. I believe the latter has been done by mid ranking offices, per posts on the site. The only $$$ should have been legal costs.

The city attorney is quite right, that the city does not support the site in anyway. However, since they are the only deep pocket, they get named. You still think there is not a $$$ angle to this?

As a practical matter, the plaintiffs can not legally force the site to shut down. They can make it more hassle than it is worth to the operator so he closes it down. Of course another one will open up with more selective screening of members and so nothing will have changed.

The solution to hate speech is more speech, not lawsuits. This is more a suppression of speech someone does it like with SLAP like qualities, no matter how noble the putative intent.

[RobinA]

57. I Suspect

that your "too much hassle for the operator" scenario will prevail in this case, hence the lawsuit will have been effective. Although I am of the opinion that this crap is better out in the open where all can see. Shutting the web site down does not accomplish anything in the hearts and minds of the people who post there. Plus, I'm still the kind of liberal who believes in free speech.

[TahitiNut]

20. Unless monetary damages are claimed, such suits are ignored or dismissed.

Furthermore, such suits are often taken on a contingency basis by lawyers/law-frims, and the monetary damages are the basis for their compensation. I wouldn't jump to such conclusions regarding the monetary damages ... since I've had some experience with such law suits, both as plaintiff and material witness. It takes more than a superficial review to come to such conclusions, even in a settlement. If there's a settlement (which is strongly encouraged by the courts) then the question is whether non-monetary agreements in the settlement achieve the behavioral corrections sought.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. They could ask for legal costs only instead and have a lot more credibility

[BlooInBloo]

24. They'll never have any credibility with you. No point in even trying.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I looked at the site...it clearly has racist postings...I disagree with its content

However, this lawsuit, which even the article describes as opportunistic, is not the right answer or approach.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Few lawyers or pols do. Occupational hazard they face

[BlooInBloo]

27. Cute goalpost move. From "the plaintiffs" to "lawyers or pols".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. They have been watching the site for 9+ years...why now?

[BlooInBloo]

29. And we're full circle. Back to #24.

[varelse]

31. Why not now?

"We've heard the same story over and over again, which is that (African-American officers) witness in the workplace Domelights being used and discussed (in a racial manner)," said Brian Mildenberg, whose firm is also representing several campers from a mostly black Philadelphia day camp that recently gained national attention when its members were turned away from a swim club.

He said it was "a gift from the heavens in a way that the two things happened at once."

While Mildenberg and Bilal said they had been monitoring the 10-year-old Web site for years, the pool incident did seem to play into the timing of the lawsuit.

"When they said something about our pretty, brown, young, innocent children and called them monkeys because they wanted to go swimming, that was enough," Bilal said.

She may have been referring to this comment posted on Domelights: "Maybe the people who work for a living didn't want to swim with a bunch of ghetto monkey faces."

[RobinA]

58. Two Reasons

Piggy backing on the swim club mess in the public opinion scramble. Using the swim club comments as Exhibit A.

[burning rain]

19. WTF?

Cops can visit a website that accepts racist content, and themselves make racist posts, ON THE JOB? I mean, WTF?

[varelse]

21. Exactly

:mad:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. Why would anyone be surprised at this?

Philadelphia - yeah, the City Of Brotherly Love, right - has always been an intensely racist place, and quite openly, quite unapologetically. They're proud of their racism, the bigots who live there.

Of course, not all Philadelphians are racists.

But, consider that Frank Rizzo was their police chief back in the sixties, and then served two terms as Mayor, and you extrapolate from that. They've never gone any further than Uncle Frank (he was my father's cousin).

This is like old news..............................

[BlooInBloo]

32. We have to *pretend* to be surprised, otherwise our "few bad apples" defense...

would get laughed at.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. Well, OK,

but I'm still laughing ............

[burning rain]

35. Wondered whether someone would recall Rizzo on this thread.

Piece of work and then some. The Lester Maddox of the North.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. I remember the race riots in Philadelphia

in the early sixties, before Frank became Chief. The streets of North Philly were really torn up, bloody - it was horrible.

And Frank Rizzo, who was in charge of something or other, had to be battled down from dropping German Shepherds from helicopters onto the rioters.

No, that's really true. I can't believe I just remembered that beautiful little piece of history...........................

[PCIntern]

41. yeah, Rizzo, the race riots, MOVE I, MOVE II,

and a lot of other horrors from those days.

Meanwhile, we're doing pretty well these days, for a big city with many many fiscal problems. We have a loyal populus, a business community encompassing people of ALL ethnic groups which is trying to keep an even keel in very rough financial waters, a Mayor who isn't all everyone hoped he'd be, but is probably only guilty of trying too hard, a vibrant cultural community, again encompassing all ethnic heritages, a whole lotta issues which will eventually resolve OK, and the Major League of Baseball World Series Champions and possible repeaters of same. We just hired the best curator in the US fro the Art Museum, the Barnes Foundation is building a huge museum on the Parkway to showcase its unparalleled collection of Impressionist art, the high-rise condos are multiplying quickly, albeit there's a 10 year city tax abatement for the rich who purchase them, and there are countless interesting and uplifting stories in this Naked City. We've come a long way since Frank Rizzo, Bill Green, and W. Wilson Goode, the last of whom was almost unbelievably incompetent, whereas Green was just lazy and stupid.

We're on the rise and will continue to be.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

44. Yes, the progress has been admirable,

and it's still a lovely city. I went to school there and have a warm place in my heart for it.

That said, the cops who filed that lawsuit probably don't see it as a perfectly wonderful place..................

[Iggo]

37. Yay, cops!

They're the best!

[-..__...]

38. Is "Domelights" a LEO only website?

I just checked and didn't see any verification process or requirement that only LEOS can register on the site...IOW, anyone can sign up.

Out of curiosity, I attempted to register and got this message...

"The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment".

I also checked on the Internet Archive website to see if there was anything from previous/cached pages that would show what the registration requirements were...

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.domelights.com

Didn't find anything there either.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Don't think it was

Saw a post there showing new user registrations...when from 4 a couple of days ago to 200 a couple of days later.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. OMG there is some bad shit posted there

Especially a picture. A very fat very unattractive naked woman. WTF?

[RobinA]

59. They Don't Like Women

on that board any more than they like African-Americans. Typical Rush Limbaugh stuff. Very common.

[Number23]

52. kicked and rec'd. This is shameful

[Wednesdays]

56. K&R

:kick: