“Another four years of this n—–, maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!”

After posting the above on Facebook, a California woman doesn’t understand why the Secret Service got involved.  The blacked out part is the n-word.

She also lost her job as a result.

The interview she did with the local news is priceless.  From the ModBee:

She told the Fox 40 reporter: “I didn’t think it would be that big of a deal. … The assassination part is kind of harsh. I’m not saying like I would go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen, I don’t think I’d care one bit.”

She added that she does in fact think the President is a n—–, but she doesn’t think that’s racist.

The ModBee reports that she lost her job as a result of this.  This case reminds me of the anti-gay bigots who lose their jobs after professing their hate.  Should people lose their jobs for being bigots?  Is bigotry, though vile, protected political speech?  Does it matter what kind of job you’re in – one that deals with the public, say, or one in which you work with children, maybe a teacher?

While it’s of course tempting to say “fire her,” it’s an interesting question as to what constitutes a firing offense when they’re comments made off-the-job about something not related to your work.  Just curious what you all think – feel free to weigh in in the comments. But first, watch the video – I had posted it, but the folks at the Modesto Bee haven’t figured out that auto-play videos are obnoxious, so you’ll need to go the site to see it.

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

114 Responses to ““Another four years of this n—–, maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!””

  1. Free speech? Yes, but if the company didn’t take action and fire her, I would boycott the company. It then becomes a business and financial question whether or not to fire her.

  2. Vinny Aboud says:

    I think this nut is to stupid and full of herself, just saying the word, in the context she did, qualifies as a threat to the president , and is a felony.

  3. Anonymous says:

    She added that she does in fact think the President is a n—–, but she doesn’t think that’s racist.

    Many Euro American gays were saying the exact same thing about African American Californians — and other African Americans — after 2008’s proposition 8 loss.

    I’m a leftist. What’s so cute about these episodes — which are increasing in frequency with the spread of almost entirely unregulated media via the web, and visible ascendency of African power in the person of the president, ala Reconstruction — is that Euro American democrats, liberals, and leftists trot them out each time, gleefully using episodes of anti-African and other hatespeech and racist violence as a toy bludgeon to dish on their Euro right-winger cousins, who they variously mock as idiots, poor, and crude.

    But the most gross, degenerate anti-African hatespeech by Euro gays? Oh, they were just angry! Emotions were high after the election! ‘Playing’ with anti-African racism at gay clubs, sex parties, and in gay media? Consenting adults! And they didn’t really mean it! Rampant use of anti-African hatespeech in gay adult media, not to mention the indulgent, disgusting, debased, and constant attempts to use African American figures as props? Well, it’s just sex! And anyway, it’s the BBC we want, not the men attached to them! Completely absurd. And we all know I could go on.

    More enlightened countries sanction these kinds of actions as propagating hate, based on recognition that widespread expressed hostility against identifiable groups minimizes, trivializes, and sows ground ripe for attempted violence. We see this happening constantly and increasingly here, from regular petty assaults, to outright murder of African American children, for instance. But acknowledging that this rank and degenerate xenophobia and backwardness is not near limited to Euro right-wingers, but endemic in European cultures and entrenched, and supporting the kinds of policy that would counter it? Euro American democrats, liberals, and leftists avoid that reality because it too easily implicates them, and run to the comfort of simplistic, fundamentalist ‘freepeech!’ zealotry.

    And this at the same time Euro American gays develop a growing theoretical rubric with which to define anti-gay hatespeech and hostility as the gay-bashing, anti-gay violence that they are.

    Completely ridiculous.

    But let’s go back to laughing at the redneck.

  4. Kelvin Mace says:

    Again, I may feel threatened, but I would have a hard time prosecuting the person for making a threat. I would report the discussion to the police, they would pay the person a visit and ask their intentions. The person would deny any desire to harm me, but they are now on notice that should something untoward happen to my family, the police will make a beeline right back to them.

    In the law, words matter, but so does demonstrable intent. When one contradicts the other, the benefit of a doubt rules..

    Unless this woman is dumb enough to tell a SS agent that she has actual plans beyond “hoping” someone will kill the president, she has not committed a crime.

    Now, this does not mean that in the course of talking to this woman, should the agent decide she is mentally unstable he can take her into custody and the court would subject her to a mental evaluation. These are the risks you take when you say stupid things on Twitter.

  5. Chathamization says:

    The problem is Facebook publicizes comments you make to friends to everyone your connected to (and you can’t stop this through any privacy setting). I’ve given up on using Facebook for any kind of political organizing (or, well, anything) because of that. What she said may be abhorrent, but the dismantling of privacy is much more disturbing.

  6. Vincent LaGuardia Gambini says:

    And as long as there aren’t any Latina hookers or unfinished booze bottles available, they will get right on the investigation. You betcha.

  7. I loved your reply and wouldn’t try to improve on it. 8 D

  8. Now she’ll get to take advantage of all the “Socialist” freebies the “Marxist” is giving away! (Who knew THOSE would be the nicer words used to describe our President?). My first thought was that people like this woman are just ignorant and it is easy to demonize someone or something you know so little about (which for her, would be, just about, everything in the world). I think the President should invite her to the White House and have a little sit-down and some moonshine with this “white trash”, “honky”, “cracker”! (It’s ok–I’m white). 8D She could bring her husband/cousin with her.

  9. FunMe says:

    Freaking Estupida IGNORANTE! She will get her karma for her racism. BAD karma. Thank goodness it has started fast.

  10. hollywoodstein says:

    Any relation to Count Rutherford? I need a fireplace.

  11. abbeysbooks says:

    Wrong Foucault unless you are making a pun.

  12. abbeysbooks says:

    Sorry. Foucault is not very esoteric. The most influential thinker of the last half of the 20th century. Mainstream in Europe. Cutting edge here. Perhaps you are right that most people here have never heard of him. A pity. He makes your mind dance.

  13. abbeysbooks says:

    Chomsky? Not familiar? A pity.

  14. Vinny Aboud says:

    does it seems this fat bitch is enjoying her 2 mins of fame? and is to stupid to know she could be in big trouble, and losing her job is the least of her problem

  15. hollywoodstein says:

    i guess the ratfucks on the Supreme Court didn’t like the Blacks, the Browns, the Reds, and the Yellers voting to put a Democrat back in the WHITE house.

  16. hollywoodstein says:

    By the By, Supreme Court just voted 5 (assholes) to 4( human beings) to take up a challenge to the voting rights act, enacted in 1965 and renewed 4 times. Specifically Section 5, which requires states with a history of voting discrimination to submit voting law changes for review to the Dept. of Justice or a 3 DC judge panel.
    Saclia and the other 4 criminals on the Roberts Court want to bookmark the corrupt Citizens United ruling with another one making voter suppression the like of which we haven’t seen in 40 years legal.

  17. hollywoodstein says:

    I have white privilege. Some people think we are past this. I cannot tell you how it is not the case. At the country club, at the American Legion, at the feed store, in the board room, whitey hates blackey, and browney. Many of the old, white guys literally think darkies are apes. Literally. That is why Fox throws goofy black guys up on the screen when they are against anything. The enlightened ones think darkey and brownie are sub-humans. Literally. A very few enlightened ones feel darkey and brownie are merely inferior humans. These people truly think darkey and brownie wants and NEEDS guvmint assistance to carry on. This may be a shock to insulated liberals, and centrists who just think there is a mild prejudice, and we just need to nibble around the corners, but I know cuz I’ve lived it.
    20-38 percent really believe this crap.

  18. Blair Kaye says:

    It is a hoax! The American people are being “punked” big time! It’s called divide and conquer. Get the racial tensions going strong and no one will see what’s REALLY going on in this country.

  19. Irish Girl says:

    yeah, it kinda does. But I’m really not going to debate the point. I stated an opinion and supported it with my knowledge. I’m not going to get into Foucault, his damn pendulum, or parse esoteric sources that frankly not many people are familiar enough with to reference. It’s pretentious and insulting, and I’m finding it rather tiresome.

    If you want to parse about the meat of the question — ie, did this girl have the right to say what she said? — then please try to do so by using your own words and ideas, rather than someone else’s. Otherwise I’m not going to engage with you.

  20. karmanot says:


  21. karmanot says:

    Not to worry, she’ll get a job at Chick Fillet.

  22. abbeysbooks says:

    Actually we are just communicating in two different orders. The discourse is the problem, not what we are saying.

  23. judybrowni says:

    I see: advocating women’s health insurance cover their healthcare, is equivalent to cheering on the assassination of the President of the United States, because he’s a “[email protected]

    Or rather, the equivalent in Wingnut Bizarro World, only.

  24. Darrell says:

    Your use of “retard” certainly shows your ignorance.

  25. abbeysbooks says:

    But that knowledge doesn’t have anything to do with it. The Order of Things – Michel Foucault

  26. Butch1 says:

    She’s an ignorant douch-bag and I wouldn’t want her working for me. If that was her attitude, I would want her out of my office. She would be reflecting upon my office and that would be enough to get her fired.

  27. PeteWa says:

    exactly. if she were spouting off in an “anonymous” sense, and somehow got “caught” I would probably feel differently, even though I think she’s an awful, ignorant person.

  28. Irish Girl says:

    Nope. I didn’t confuse anything,Abbey, and I’m very confident in my knowledge of Constitutional history and Tort law. How Rob and Kristen became part of this conversation is an unfortunate happenstance that I don’t even want to think about.

  29. GoBlue says:

    In northern California the employer is almost certain to have PLENTY of nonwhite customers.

  30. GoBlue says:

    I posted plenty of vitriolic comments about Bush and Cheney while they were serving as the worst Prez and the worst VP ever. The Secret Service never visited me because I never posted anything that sounded like an actual threat. This dingbat’s post does. As for Rove, he has never served in elective office. Even if anyone had made a specific threat against him, any resulting investigation might not necessarily have been the responsibility of the Secret Service.

  31. BeccaM says:

    This right here was the termination-worthy part of Helms’ behavior: She let it be known not only that she was a racist hater and ignorant of the laws against threatening the president, but also where she worked — and as a consequence attached her words to her employers’ reputation.

    I wouldn’t have hesitated to fire her either.

  32. BeccaM says:

    Kudos to the Sacramento Bee for this extra tidbit of journalism to help make this racist hater look even more ignorant and foolish.

  33. abbeysbooks says:

    You buy into the rhetoric I see. Guthrie came up to her position the way Chomsky outlines it in his book Manufacturing Consent. No one gets there who is going to make waves they don’t want made. And they weed out all those who display the mildest subversive streak in any direction. After all I am banned from robsessed for disrupting their dominating Discourse concerning the acceptability of papz pics and verbalizing against it.She would not ask that question if it would mean she would lose her job. she knew it was an accepted and even desired question from those above her, so she risked displeasing Rob for a moment and asked it.

    You have free speech confused with the Dominating Discourse. It is classical Hegelian with oppositional nodes built into the foundational structure of its language. This Discourse is now being challenged on many fronts. Rob just did it with his reply. Kristen did it with her parody of confession in her Vogue “armpits” reply. Both are doing it by keeping their relationship private and ambiguous enough to be perceived in a variety of ways. Murray is doing what Reagan did to the air controllers when he broke their union. Murray is breaking the union of coal miners, he hopes. He would like it to be like China with devestating lethal accidents. And NO HE IS NOT FREE TO DO THIS. tHIS IS PURE VIOLENCE AND I DO NOT CONDONE IT ON ANY GROUNDS. Free speech is just another “floating sign” masking what we would rather not look at. All this is addressed in The Dark Knight Rises.

  34. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Tell you what. Borrow some money and don’t pay it back, and when someone shows up at your house and says “I wouldn’t want to see one of your kids meet a tragic end,” tell me you don’t feel threatened. Because really, they were just saying how much they liked your family, right?

  35. Danalan says:

    The Sac Bee checked to see if she was even registered to vote. Nope. I guess that’s a good thing, but makes her anger kind of ironic.

  36. HolyMoly says:

    Exactly. It’s probably wishful thinking on her part, but if you analyze the sentence strictly, it’s just mere speculation. Maybe an earthquake will level Los Angeles 10 minutes from now. Maybe not. What I said either will or won’t happen, but we’ll know for sure in 10 minutes. There’s no way that can be construed to mean that I am threatening LA. I would like to visit the city someday!

  37. HolyMoly says:

    The FBI did ignore her threat; it’s the province of the Secret Service to look into it, which they did.

    Regardless, yours is a straw man argument. I never said the proper authorities shouldn’t investigate (see my original post, at the top of this long string of replies, for why I said they should).

    The question I raised is whether or not she should be convicted of a crime. Barring any additional evidence in the Secret Service investigation showing actual intent to harm the president, what she said is protected free speech. Her statement, by itself, was not a threat.

  38. karmanot says:

    Remember when Palin talked about opponents in the cross hairs? Giffords was then the focus of an assassination attack, and Palin was never investigated.

  39. karmanot says:

    As long as she wears a white hood so other employees can avoid her….

  40. PeteWa says:

    When [the store director] arrived Thursday at the store on Monte Vista Avenue, he said, there were more than 20 angry voice mails about Helms.

    “We made the decision because of her comments, but also the community feedback,” he said. “We are very into working with the community and doing community service. So when your community does not like you because of an employee, that’s bad. We have a business to run.”

    I’ve owned a business for twenty years. I’ve had to fire a couple of people over the years, and it’s always been a hard thing to do, even with employees who simply refused to do their job. However, I wouldn’t have thought twice about firing someone who brought a shit storm down on my business like Helms did to CSC.

  41. Naja pallida says:

    For people like that, being a racist is generally defined by calling them out on their racism. Being intolerant of intolerance makes you the bad guy.

  42. Naja pallida says:

    One thing about Nugent… having worked with him briefly, what you see is what you get. It really isn’t an act. In person, when the cameras are off and there’s no microphone for miles, he is exactly the same. Zero filter between brain and mouth. Sometimes that can be refreshing. Most of the time, it’s just embarrassing.

  43. Naja pallida says:

    Simply having to work along side a bigot with public outbursts of violent threats translates to hostile workplace environment to me. The company could actually be sued by their other employees for not firing her. She’s a PR disaster waiting to happen for any employer.

  44. Irish Girl says:

    Her free speech rights haven’t been violated. She can say whatever she wants, and no one can impugn her ability to say it. However, ‘freedom of speech’ does not translate to “freedom from responsibility for the hurtful, inflammatory, stupid, or dangerous things you say”. You and I can say what we want, but the right to say those things comes with accountability. It’s that way for everybody – not just ignorant blowhards and bigots.

    Her boss has a perfect right to fire her if he/she so chooses. That’s his/her exercise of free speech and expression. Same as that idiot Murray in Ohio is firing coal miners because he’s in a snit that the President was re-elected. I don’t much like what he’s doing, but he has the right to do it. I just take the philosophy that karma’s gonna come back and bite him on the arse for it sooner or later, just as it did for this eloquent and bilious young woman.

  45. Stratplayer says:

    If, as in this case, the employee’s utterances can clearly damage the employer’s legitimate business interests if she remains on the payroll, then yes, termination is justified. Simply not liking an employee’s politics is not enough, however. That’s a very slippery slope.

  46. Stratplayer says:

    I’m no fan of the employment at-will doctrine but public expression of violently racist sentiments is most assuredly just cause for termination.

  47. Stratplayer says:

    Sorry, but keeping her on the payroll could do incalculable damage to Cold Stone’s business good will, which is a valuable corporate asset. In this particular instance, the balance of interests tilts toward Cold Stone. They can’t be compelled to pay the costs of her big mouth. My position on this is highly case-specific, however. Employers should not be free to fire people for saying anything at all that they don’t like without a valid underlying business interest.

  48. Stratplayer says:

    Exactly. Ms. Helms has the right to spout off as much as she wants but she does not have the right to force a private business entity to pay what could end up being a substantial financial penalty resulting from her little indulgence. The price is hers to pay, not Cold Stone Creamery, its shareholders and employees who are better able to filter their ids for public consumption. They were absolutely right to fire her racist ass.

    That said, a special circumstance like this, in which legitimate, long-term business interests clearly outweigh anyone’s right to make vicious, violent and possibly criminal utterances, should not be seen as giving employers carte blanche to can employees for their political views. The government is not the only threat to individual liberty out there. It’s not a close call in this instance, however.

  49. mf_roe says:

    Forcing them to live in a just and rational world is a far harsher punishment.

  50. lardheppus says:

    Some conservatives have learned how to use spell check.

  51. Krusher says:

    Stupid cow. I suppose she’s not worth prosecuting, though.

  52. “But I don’t understand what I did wrong.”

    Will somebody tell this retard that in this case, ignorance is not bliss?

  53. karmanot says:

    Virulent bigots absolutely should not lose their jobs—-but should be assassinated instead.

  54. “I’d rather let them speak out so I know who and what they are, than to have them keep it to themselves”.

    Well… she did. So now the FBI should ignore her threats?

    After all, she never had a Cat Scratch Fever hit, now, did she?

  55. Good thing she wasn’t bitching about coverage for The pill.

  56. Lordwhorfin says:

    Maybe she’s the tip of some neo-nazi white supremacist sleeper cell?

    In Turlock, this could even be true. Also, her reaction to being called out on the racial slur on camera was really weird-like she knew she was busted, but didn’t really want to acknowledge it or care about it. Anyone who employs Ms. Helms in a PSR capacity is running a BIG risk.

  57. David Allen says:

    Precisely. The text is “congress shall make no law…” not “Cold Stone Creamery shall not fire your ass…”

  58. Lordwhorfin says:

    She’s from TURLOCK! Now, I know there are decent sorts there, but she is far more representative of that community than not.

  59. David Allen says:

    What the USSS “thinks” does not make something illegal. Someone has made a complaint about a threat to the president. They have (or will) investigate it. Unless she makes some other more direct statement on intent, or solicitation of harm, she has broken no law.

    Ted Nugent made a much more direct implication this past year:

    “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

    and he is still walking free.

  60. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I think what the layperson thinks constitutes a threat and what the secret service thinks are two different things. I agree that you can argue that it wasn’t a literal threat but people know you just don’t make that kind of, um, joke or observation.

  61. Max_1 says:

    Calling her a cracker…
    … ‘Cause she ain’t no Melba Toast.

  62. ComradeRutherford says:

    She says (paraphrasing): yeah, the prez is a n_____, how is that racist?

    Just … wow.

    What is her definition of racist?

  63. Blogvader says:


    What a fucking idiot.

  64. CSStrowbridge says:

    “Should people lose their jobs for being bigots?”

    Yes. Free speech does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. If your boss doesn’t like what you said or thinks it could hurt business, they should have the right to fire you.

  65. HolyMoly says:

    I was thinking of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) with regard to the First Amendment, where advocacy of violence does not necessarily equal incitement to violence. Like “I wouldn’t shed a tear if [fill in the blank] was killed” or “maybe [fill in the blank] will be assassinated this time” is not the same as “Take up arms, and go kill [fill in the blank].” In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the Ohio law that criminalized advocacy of violence, making a distinction between that and incitement violence or threatening violence.

    In the case of the Helms rant, her Facebook post doesn’t appear to be a threat to me. It looks more like wishful thinking than anything else. She appears to be advocating violence without inciting or threatening it, which is the very thing the Brandenburg court ruled on.

    I would prefer that language of the sort used by Clarence Brandenburg, Denise Helms, and others of their ilk didn’t exist, but making limitations to their speech could potentially lead to a very slippery slope. As another commenter said, I’d rather let them speak out so I know who and what they are, than to have them keep it to themselves.

  66. Doris Holmes says:

    It is sad that she is so stupid that she would post hate speech against the POTUS and not think she wouldn’t be called on it. It is against the law and her employer has the right to exercise his purogative and fire her. Tell your friends face to face you are an idiot, not the whole world.

  67. 2patricius2 says:

    What struck me most from the interview on the news is how clueless she appears to be. Either she doesn’t really understand the fuss about the content of her Facebook entry, or she does and is just lying to try to cover herself. Either way, if she were working for me, she would be out the door. I would not want her working with any of my customers, nor would I trust that she is not truly a danger.

  68. Quilla says:

    This foolish woman is exactly the kind of American who has – and will – benefit from progressive programs passed by Democratic Presidents. Just sayin’

  69. David Allen says:

    Speculating that “maybe he will get assassinated” is not solicitation, nor encouragement of assassination.

  70. jomicur says:

    Some fine day, a racist will surface who does NOT claim to have black friends. And on that day, the earth will tremble, volcanoes will erupt, tsunamis will ravage the coasts and fire will rain down from the skies. (It ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.)

  71. HolyMoly says:

    I agree with you that if she lists her employer on her Facebook page, or has any logos or comments that shows she works for that company, then yes, that would be a good reason to fire her. That sort of information would make her appear to be a representative of the company and, by extension, its views. But if she makes no mention of her place of employment or gives a vague description like “food service” or “healthcare” in her profile, then I’d be hesitant to agree to it. Don’t get me wrong…I’m not shedding any tears over her job loss, but I’m thinking of those who could lose their job because they advocate for a particular candidate or social issue or whatever else on their own personal time. I’d rather see one bigot keep her job than to see countless others lose their jobs for doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

  72. Shannon Stewart says:

    I never said the First Amendment applies, because it doesn’t. I never said what she did wasn’t potentially illegal. I was replying to the OP who said “the most controversial, vile, or unpopular speech” needed to be protected, and that he/she was wrestling with the fact that this moron lost her job and that he/she felt “like what you say and do in your off time as a private citizen is none of your employer’s business.”

  73. mtblaze says:

    It doesn’t matter what we think. It only matters what Cold Stone Creamery thinks.

  74. basenjilover says:

    Wonder how many “likes” she received?

  75. mnel says:

    This woman should be in jail. Remarks like this are dangerous. She says she wouldn’t do something like this, but she is putting it in the minds of nut jobs who might. These things should not be taken so lightly, and just get a “talking to” by the SS.

  76. EdHandy says:

    I’d rather have decent protection of employees here in California, even if it occasionally protects an ignorant bigot who deserves to be fired. That said, as long as we’re an at-will state, we might as well enjoy the fact that sometimes it works to let someone like that get what they deserve.

  77. Shannon Stewart says:

    Since Tuesday night??? The right has been pushing the hatred button for over four years.

  78. mf_roe says:

    Imagine what it was like to work under the “Management” of someone like her.

  79. Shannon Stewart says:

    This has nothing to do with the First Amendment or “freedom of speech.” She can stand on a street corner all day screaming “the president is a n*gger” and no local, state or federal authority can touch her…THAT’S what the First Amendment protects. Her employer is a private entity, and as such, can fire her for behavior (in this case, posting an appallingly stupid status update to Facebook) it finds incompatible with its values or as a liability.

  80. MyrddinWilt says:

    Except that it is a criminal act to solicit or encourage murder of anyone and there are specific laws about calling for the President to be murdered.

    Pretty clear that the 1st amendment does not apply as well.

  81. MyrddinWilt says:

    The Secret Service is not only right to investigate, it is obliged to investigate under federal law.

    There was a bill passed in the wake of the attempted Reagan assassination when a loony attempted to kill him after making death threats.

  82. mf_roe says:

    Hating something isn’t wrong and shouldn’t be a crime, else most Progressives should be in prison for their hatred of Cheney, Rove, Bush………. But who you hate defines who hates you and defines what will happen to you it’s known within the rational class as reality.

  83. Biggotry Is Ugly says:

    well it was reported via Mercury News – http://bit.ly/YYSHrP that she was fired Thursday from her manager job at a Cold Stone Creamy store; she was in public relations so yes, she did deserve to be fired by her employer.

  84. Shannon Stewart says:

    If she said it to her spouse in the privacy of her own home, then no, it’s none of her employer’s business. But she said it in a public forum, and if she has her employer’s name on her public profile, then it’s definitely her employer’s business.

  85. lynchie says:

    I was talking with a friend this morning regarding the results of the election and he mentioned the absolutely out of control hatred being expressed by people and said he felt it so bad that he feared for President Obama or a family member. After reading this I tend to agree with him. Fox News and Trump and Rush have been pushing the hatred button since Tuesday night and there are enough low intelligence Americans they might be just crazy enough to do something. As far as her right to express her opinion she certainly does no have to like him but these tirades are all about race and that is hate speech and can incite actions that can do great harm. Afterwards they can claim they didn’t want anyone to do anything and apologize and claim it was taken out of context but I believe people say exactly what they mean. Wow America you sure matured——NOT!

  86. mf_roe says:

    Romney lost his chance for a plum job because of stupid racist ideas so what’s the problem? True freedom means living with the consequences of your mistakes.

  87. Lois says:

    I wouldn’t let her work for me. She’s just not smart enough to be trusted. I can’t think what makes her feel its okay to say any of the things she said.

  88. HolyMoly says:

    The Secret Service were right in my opinion to investigate. You never know with people when they say someone “should” be assassinated whether that will translate into that person actually doing it, or if they’re just hopeful that someone else will do it.

    But in terms of freedom of speech, barring any additional evidence, such as stockpiled weapons at her apartment, maybe itineraries of Obama’s public appearances, or gathered intelligence about security patterns, she should get a severe reprimand, but no legal consequences. My hatred for what she said is too great to be measured, but that’s why the First Amendment exists: Not to protect “safe” and “acceptable” speech, because that type of speech needs no protection, but to protect the most controversial, vile, or unpopular speech.

    As far as her employer is concerned, here’s where I feel a bit hypocritical, and I’m trying to wrestle with it. (1) I’d say they’re making a sound business decision. If I know she continues to work at Company A, I’m spending my money at Company B instead. (2) But at the same time I feel like what you say and do in your off time as a private citizen is none of your employer’s business. I was shocked when I read stories about employers asking for job applicants’ Facebook information, for example. Maybe if she posted on company time, then I wouldn’t feel conflicted at all about it.

  89. Nylund says:

    People seem to confuse the notion of “freedom of speech” with “freedom from consequences from your speech.” If your job involves dealing with customers and the general public and your boss finds out you have a habit of saying very racist things, then they might feel inclined to believe you aren’t the best person for that position.

    The nuttiest part of the article is where she’s flabbergasted that anyone would ever think she’s racist just because she used what is probably the single most famously racist word in the English language.

  90. mf_roe says:

    She is the product of an educational system corrupted by religious zealots who hate rational thinking. Listen to her, she BELIEVES, she KNOWS, she refuses to QUESTION her own opinion. As for losing her job, unless she has a contract, tough shit, the JOB CREATORS will take care of her since she is exactly the kind of fool they like to actually employe.

  91. Jimmy says:

    This is an example of what an dumb-ass looks like. She wouldn’t go out and kill the Leader of the Free World herself, but wouldn’t be too upset if someone else would do that for her. Basically, encourage someone else to take care of the black guy for her. People should be more outrage by shit like this and this idiot should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  92. Ginger_FL says:


  93. Yes, she should lose her job because she was in the healthcare industry. Seeing her sentiments, would you feel comfortable that she would give me, a n__ger, the same quality of care as that of John Q. Public? Your answer and the answer of her former employer is “no.”

    Next question.

  94. freewayblogger says:

    I think it’s a hoax: it was spelled correctly.

  95. David Allen says:

    I was very amused by this tidbit:

    “She is not listed as a registered voter in the state registry database.”

    Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/11/08/2448491/obama-threat-gets-woman-fired.html#storylink=cpy

  96. slappymagoo says:

    Helms may not have made those statements at work/while working, but the fact that she expressed them publicly could result in a hostile work environment. She could work with black people, she could be serving black people (she worked as a server at a Cold Stone Creamery), she could one day be in a position to manage, which means black people could be working under her…if she’s ignorant enough to call the President of the United States n*gger, on Facebook and to a news crew, how could any manager think she’s got it together enough to NOT call a coworker or a customer n*gger if there wound being some sort of argument or altercation? You think the owners of that franchise want to bank on the possibility that well, black people don’t like ice cream so why cater to THAT crowd?

    And at the risk of playing Devil’s Advocate, it’s not like have access to her employee record, but it’s possible this may have been her third strike, so to speak. It just happened to be a very public third strike.

  97. Paul Dirks says:

    And Republicans wonder why they lose??????

  98. David Allen says:

    You will have to parse the sentence for me and explain how it constitutes a threat. Yes, warrants a visit from the Secret Service to ascertain whether she is a threat, but her statement on its face is NOT a threat. Sorry.

  99. mirror says:

    Publicly expressing crude racial bigotry and wishing the president dead for it? I’d say any company that deals with the public or needs to market itself to the public would be acting quite reasonably by severing their relationship with that person. Otherwise, it looks like they are condoning their beliefs.

  100. iamlegion says:

    Hey, guess what, Republicans? Being fired for whatever reason your boss wants to tell you is what “at will” employment is all about! It sucks when you have to sleep in the bed you made, don’t it?

  101. David Allen says:

    I must disagree. If I had an employee express such a view and they were publicly associated with my company, they would be gone next day.

  102. David Allen says:

    Open and shut case of what?

    While she deserves a visit from the Men in Black, she hasn’t actually violated the law. She speculated about what might happen, and unless she voiced an actual threat, or told them she was advocating assassination, she is well within her rights to be racist and stupid.

  103. Randy says:

    She can get fired because her statements could reflect bad on her place of work.
    At public functions and when publicly making declaritive statements you are always potentially representing your company. This is why people add that line of “Theses views are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of . . . ”
    If you interface with the public at your job, say something many of them will find offensive, you can end up tainting the view the public has of your employer. They absolutely have the right to fire her.

  104. Employment at will. She could have been fired because her boss didn’t like her hair cut or simply because he was in a bad mood and felt like being a jerk. Of course he had the right to fire her after she publicly made a fool of herself in a manner that led to complaints made against her at work.

  105. A_nonymoose says:

    The way I look at it, she’s got a right to air her racism, just as I have the right to think she’s a racist. And her employer has a right to fire her for it. And the Secret Service has the right to talk with her about it.

  106. donuts says:

    It’s an open and shut case. She should be in jail, awaiting a bail hearing right now.

  107. MikeinSanJose says:

    2 thoughts…

    Like it or not, she is a representative of the people she works for even on her own time. If the Secret Service are looking at her, they are probably looking at ALL aspects of her life. Maybe she’s the tip of some neo-nazi white supremacist sleeper cell?

    Does her former employer also employ black people? Do they have black customers? Keeping her would create a very disruptive work environment. SHE might not think the word is racist. There are people who would disagree.


  108. Stratplayer says:

    Stone Cold Creamery is a private business that serves people of all races and ethnicities and should not be expected to sacrifice its valuable good will to accommodate the free speech rights of a vile racist in their employ.

  109. Butch says:

    Go back and review Supreme Court cases such as Gertz v. Welch and New York Times v. Sullivan. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

  110. penpal says:

    Uh, yes. Any reputable company would view discriminatory language and racist epithets as a person’s inability to function in the workplace, where diversity among colleagues and the public is a basic norm. Facebook is a public forum, but even if this had been a discussion that was witnesses in a private forum, I tend to think that a company would still view it in the same light: as a lawsuit waiting to happen. Cleanse these people out of your organization before they say something that gets you sued. Hire someone who deserves the job and can do it without being a fucking asshole.

  111. John says:

    She should not lose her job for it. The statement was not a threat – it expresses an idea that I find abhorrent which is exactly why this type of speech needs to be protected.

  112. SkippyFlipjack says:

    What she did was illegal; it’s a crime to make threats like that. I think it’s unfortunate when people experience unintended consequences, and if she’d understood the equation of “post this opinion = lose your job” she probably wouldn’t have posted it. That said, bad behavior that’ll get you fired isn’t limited to 9-5. Post pictures on Facebook of yourself chugging beer out of someone’s buttcrack over the weekend if you want to test how irreplaceable you are at work on Monday. Her employer decided they didn’t want to employ someone who doesn’t have the common sense to resist her urge to threaten the life of the president of the United States. I think that’s reasonable.

  113. Ginger_FL says:

    Personally, I am glad she came out with it because all the angry white men in my area seem to have pent up rage because they can’t come out with it. I’d rather they come out with it so I KNOW what they are rather than listen to their “code talk”.
    Regarding her job loss…her racism doesn’t bother me as I stated above, I’d rather KNOW who you are…but the second part really bothers me and I think based on that statement….and the fact that Secret service had to come see her is enough to have her seek counsoling or some professional help. She is not alone in her remarks however and I’d rather have these people visited before they “act out” expecially since weapons are sooooo easy to get in this country.

  114. microdot says:

    well, you could say that stoopidity is it’s own reward, but obviously, reality has made that redundant….

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS