And it should be one that we tolerate. There are lots of infringements on speech, especially professional speech.

The idea that somehow a group empowered by the state to commit violence in defense of the states policies have a more sacrosanct right to speech than doctors or teachers is absurd. These aren’t individuals speaking as individuals…this is effectively government speech and we ought not wrong our hands about restricting it. The government has no right to speech.

There are equivalent groups for doctors and teachers, I don't follow your meaning.

Like what is it that FOP¹ does that you think they should be prevented from doing? Should they not be allowed to exist?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police

Please note that I don't give money to these organizations, I'm pointing out what a big chunk of donating money to the police consists of.

I’m aware of the other groups existing.

When such a group represents police it is fundamentally different and should be treated with much greater suspicion.

So what is your solution to prevent law enforcement becoming influenced to do things other than realistic law enforcement for the betterment of society in a designated violence monopoly?

You are apparently mistaking my description of the world as it is for an endorsement of the world as it is.

I guess I don't think that police should be (somehow) specially prevented from any police related political activity, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the age old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?