Posted on 04/18/2011 4:35:14 AM PDT by nancyvideo
It's now official: The truth shall no longer set you free. In our new era of political correctness, the truth is more liable to get you penalized, demonized or fired. Last week, a female juror in a high-profile American mafia murder trial found this out the hard way.
When asked on a court questionnaire, "Name three people you least admire," this potential juror answered, "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians." Her answer enraged a federal court judge in New York, who promptly sentenced her to indefinite jury duty, for her "racist" answer. This woman was penalized for being truthful.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
I'd like to see what juries she'd be qualified to sit on.
Post it here.
Political Correctness = Poppy Cock
Wasn’t she supposed to name 3 individuals and not 3 nationalities/ethnic groups?
Why are the jurors given questionnaires? Screening juries is jury tampering.
Since your article was posted in full on American Thinker, I thought the readers here might enjoy the whole thing as well. So here it is -
It’s now official: The truth shall no longer set you free.. In our new era of political correctness, the truth is more liable to get you penalized, demonized or fired. Last week, a female juror in a high-profile American mafia murder trial found this out the hard way.
When asked on a court questionnaire, “Name three people you least admire,” this potential juror answered, “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” Her answer enraged a federal court judge in New York, who promptly sentenced her to indefinite jury duty, for her “racist” answer. This woman was penalized for being truthful.
Under the guise of being sensitive to “feelings,” political correctness has succeeded in effectively censoring any uncomfortable “truths” that do not comport with liberal orthodoxy.
Censoring inconvenient truths is not a new phenomenon. Starting in 1994, AEI fellow Charles Murray and fellow author Richard Herrnstein came under fire for their best-selling book The Bell Curve, in which they wrote about differences in race and intelligence and discussed implications of that difference.
Murray’s whole body of scholarly work was roundly denounced for daring to point out that the general IQ of African Americans was lower than those of white Americans. Of course, no one objected to the fact that their research also found that the general IQ of Asian Americans was many points higher than white Americans.
Murray and Hernstein found, to their dismay, that their fact-based research challenged the leftist notion of “equality.” Both authors were demonized as racists for daring to point out that differences do indeed exist among differing races. They weren’t supposed to say that, much less prove it scientifically.
Harvard’s former president, Lawrence Summers, also found out that voicing un-politically correct “truths” can exact severe consequences. In a 2005 speech, Summers dared to suggest that, the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a “different availability of aptitude at the high end,” and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization. Feminists took umbrage at the suggestion that the under-representation of females in the scientific community might be due to female preference rather than male oppression.
Summers was forced to resign. And to soothe the hysterical feminists who objected to his politically-incorrect yet fact based opinion, Harvard vested $50 million bucks in Harvard’s feminists studies program. Overlooked, or deliberately ignored, in this delicious fracas was the fact that Summers statement was a valid opinion. But he wasn’t supposed to say it.
Political correctness is an approved form of censorship. Based on emotional appeals at the expense of reason, political correctness mandates that inconvenient truths or facts be swept under the carpet. Or else.
Advertisement
Free speech, guaranteed to all Americans under the first amendment, is on it’s way to becoming moot. The political, media and intellectual elites who control the terms of national debate and the rules of civil society have succeeded in censoring opposing views, limiting debate and demonizing dissent. Perception is on its way to becoming our new reality.
The lady juror who answered truthfully to her court questionnaire is merely the latest example. Though many may express horror at her forthrightness, and are quick to label her a racist, she, like all of us, forms her opinions through an accumulation of her life experiences. She is no different from myself except for the fact that she, through either ignorance or courage, dared to be truthful. She hasn’t yet learned that in today’s America, there are more and more things that are just not allowed to be said.
Her case is important, because for the first time, the unwritten and ever changing rules of political correctness have taken on the force of law. She is being forced to perform indefinite jury duty, supposedly until she starts thinking the right way. Does this sound familiar?
No-one wants to be thought of as stupid or, in liberal parlance, “un-enlightened.” No-one wants to be publicly labeled a homophobe or a racist. Under this threat, more and more Americans are comfortable adopting the assumption that ‘if everyone thinks it is so, then it must be so.’ They are willing to suspend their very own, inexpert but common sense opinions in favor of a widely held perception. A perception based on expert media and political manipulation as opposed to factual conclusions.
Truth, common sense and reality are now routinely suspended. It is OK to publicly revere one’s vagina but acknowledging racial realities is verboten. Dangling a cross in a jar of urine is considered daring - but mentioning God as our savior means you’re a fringe kook.
Daring to suggest that AIDS sufferers share responsibility for their disease means you are mean spirited and lacking compassion. (Advocating the expenditure of other people’s money is the new “compassion.”) And blaming the poor for the life choices they made that contributed to their poverty is considered beyond the pale.
Censoring uncomfortable truths or opinions is the goal of the PC police. Acquiescing to these arbitrary rules enables and validates them. And though it is un-politically correct to say, I personally believe that those who are politically correct are weak people. Sheep who are either unable or unwilling to form their own opinions. Intellectually lazy sycophants who have so little confidence in themselves that they are willing to let others define them and determine their actions and opinions. Useful idiots, all. Can I say that?
The craziest thing is that she makes an answer that should reject her from 90% of all juries and she is now on permanent jury duty. And the taxpayers have to pay her.
I admit it isn’t much money, but it is a fee.
Context drives it. The question is singular not plural. Moreover, common usage is taken here and that would also be singular.
Doesn’t make what the Judge did right, however.
If she said, “white people”, Christians, and Jews. It wouldn’t be an issue.
Her problem was naming people not on the ‘right to hate’ list.
PC is a ‘one-way’ valve. Ok to hate Whites, not Ok to hate Blacks.
Ok to hate Christians, not Ok to hate Muslims.
PC is a topsy-turvey world where reality and common sense is turned on it’s head. Right is wrong and wrong is right is the imposed norm, to the point where you are forced to dismiss your normal human senses. [ultimate control]
If I put my hand in a fire, and get burned, I will not put my hand in a fire again.
Does that mean that I am “prejudice” against fire? YES! I’m not an idiot.
But the PC Marxist crowd would have you believe that this is wrong. Every fire must be judged on it’s own merits. So, I must put my hand in each fire to ensure that this particular fire is actually hot.
This is the dismissal of reason the Left would impose on us. Whether there is a Satan or not, the Left is a fine substitute. They want us, but more, they want our human soul.
I also know quite a few Americans whose forefathers came over on the Mayflower (and any period of our history you can think of up to the present).....who could not get the question straight...they would have to ‘ax’ somebody what it means, before it gets ‘acrosst’ to them.
being stupid is not a crime....otherwise 52% of Americans who voted in the the last Presidential Election would be felons....
No name of the woman. No name of the judge. No name of the court. No name of the date the incident occurred.
Does anyone else here smell “urban legend”?!?
Of course, #2 all depends on whether or not there is a complete and total idiot for a judge (like the one she had).
google it and you get many references to it...
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-06/local/29404820_1_jury-duty-basciano-vinny-gorgeous
The next day.......
“A Federal judge relented Wednesday and commuted the sentence of indefinite jury duty he had slapped on a Brooklyn woman who presented herself as wildly racist and anti-cop.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/07/2011-04-07_jury_duty_dodo_is_set_free_by_judge.html
Sounds like involuntary servitude to me...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.