I think I understand your objection that this is a private forum, but we (some Americans, and unfortunately inconsistently) hold our public law enforcement officials to a high standard of appearing impartial. The impartiality is important because law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law equally and fairly. Activities like this Facebook group suggest ulterior motives and loyalties to a particular party or ideology other than the oath they took to protect and serve, which undermines public trust and respect of LEO. It feeds into a harmful narrative of Us vs Them which harms all enforcement’s effectiveness.
It is absolutely in the public interest to understand the character of someone they are hiring for a public job that has community trust as a requirement.
Edit: This is also news because she effectively mislead the public about her involvement by condemning it and implying she only recently learned of it’s existence.
You're right about needing to hold law enforcement to a higher standard, but honestly these people should face consequences even by civilian standards. If you work at McDonald's, and you go on a forum for McDonald's employees and brag about screwing up customer's orders all the time for fun, there is nothing wrong with McDonald's firing you for that.
When an employer releases an employee, the rationale imposed upon the employer ought not be ones motivated by social punishment, but rather pure business pragmatism. It's not the employer's job to punish individuals that society doesn't like, such as firing them for racism at McDonalds.
These are people whose job duties are, in part, protecting the lives of immigrants, and they're laughing about the deaths of those same immigrants. Their specific bigotry clearly makes them unsuitable for this specific job.
I would think racism would affect their ability to do jobs that have interacting with the public and representing a brand as key responsibilities. So in the Mcdonald’s case, no I wouldn’t hire a racist for Mcdonald’s. I’m sure there are jobs that don’t require that, and then maybe it wouldn’t be relevant. In any case, racists aren’t a protected class, and I believe racism is a changeable set of beliefs and behaviors.
In this specific case, LEO interacts with the public and they represent the executive branch of the government of the United States of America. I’m pretty sure racism would be a problem.
It is absolutely in the public interest to understand the character of someone they are hiring for a public job that has community trust as a requirement.
Edit: This is also news because she effectively mislead the public about her involvement by condemning it and implying she only recently learned of it’s existence.