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.)
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.
I will repeat. I am familiar with the case.
Clearly, you are not.
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?
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.