2
   

Stomping on free speech

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now, the rest of you--one simple question without derailing it here please: Do you think certain words should be illegal to use in the work place?
If so, why?


Of course!

"I'm gonna kill you"

"Give me a blow job or you are fired"

This type of thing should be illegal. the "why" is pretty obvious and I don't think I can explain it nicely.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:49 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well let's see. Since I explained my position on this thread I am accused, or it is by implication implied, that my opinion is ludicrous, I am not familiar with the case or I would agree with it, I may be a religious conservative, I think laws and amendments should not apply to every citizen, and this doesn't even consider a couple of lengthy non-related posts specifically to punish me for posting elsewhere something the member didn't like. (I am so popular here, I almost can't stand it sometimes.)

What?

Foxfyre wrote:
And not one of you has stated why my thesis here is wrong.

Well, with regard to the Aguilar case, I'm not sure that you even have a thesis: rather, you seem to have borrowed one from Nat Hentoff. At most, you asserted "the ACLU was willing to give a bit of free speech in order to further anti-discrimination in the work place." And that, I would imagine, is correct. Of course, framing the supervisor's racial and ethnic epithets as a "free speech" issue is, I would suggest, somewhat disingenuous.

Foxfyre wrote:
I will repeat. I am familiar with the case.

Clearly, you are not.

Foxfyre wrote:
I have no problem with the decision requiring an employer to cease and desist harrassment of workers because of their race, ethnicity, or whatever.

I do have a problem with the words themselves being made illegal to use in the work place.

Then you would also, I suppose, object to the monetary award that the company was forced to pay for its prior acts of employment discrimination?

Foxfyre wrote:
Now, the rest of you--one simple question without derailing it here please: Do you think certain words should be illegal to use in the work place?
If so, why?

That's sort of like a murder suspect accused of stabbing his colleagues asking "should it be illegal to use a letter opener in the work place."

The words themselves are not "illegal." But the words plus the context result in a violation of the law. And the words, if repeated in contravention of the injunction, would be actionable.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:51 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Now, the rest of you--one simple question without derailing it here please: Do you think certain words should be illegal to use in the work place?
If so, why?


Of course!

"I'm gonna kill you"

"Give me a blow job or you are fired"

This type of thing should be illegal. the "why" is pretty obvious and I don't think I can explain it nicely.


Well said Craven!

But I think Foxfyre is getting at a more subtle point - however I think her point is based on her misunderstanding of the case.

The ACLU and the court were not trying to ban certain words. Most of us including the ACLU would oppose this.

At this company, there was a superviser who was harassing employees. The court said that this must stop and if I understand correctly, asked the lower court to make their decision more specific. Nowhere in this decision are any words banned except in this specific company.

Foxfyre, I would ask you. What if you had a supervisor who called you and other female employees "bitch" and "whore"? What would you want the court to do in this case?

Wouldn't you think it was important for the court to protect you in this case?

I would want a very specific injuction against this supervisor and this employer.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:51 pm
Aha, Joe can explain it nicely. Thanks Joe.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:58 pm
Okay I give up. My thesis, that you all seem incapable of grasping, is that it is not the words themselves but how words are used that is the problem. Now all of you congratulate yourselves on managing to avoid the question entirely and I'll move on. Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 01:01 pm
I propose a new acronym...OEDNRA
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2004 01:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay I give up. My thesis, that you all seem incapable of grasping, is that it is not the words themselves but how words are used that is the problem. Now all of you congratulate yourselves on managing to avoid the question entirely and I'll move on. Smile


Joe did address it Foxfyre. You have a tendency to ignore sound rebuttals and beg off due to the less sound ones.

joefromchicago wrote:
The words themselves are not "illegal." But the words plus the context result in a violation of the law. And the words, if repeated in contravention of the injunction, would be actionable.


Before that I'd addressed it with two very clear contexts.

See, you are wrong about the words being illegal. They aren't. It's a certain context that's illegal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 06:46:30