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.
