Posted on 02/17/2005 2:42:11 AM PST by ViLaLuz
But my point is that even though we might know exactly what they meant, that doesn't make it against the law.
We can only judge the women's flier based on its content, not on other people's interpretations.
It's free speech. If we go through society and never see or hear something that "offends" us, then we do not live in a free society.
Thanks also for calling attention to the fact that the workplace maintained a bulletin board where all sorts of political and sexual-orientation stuff was posted. That point makes the two women's First Amendment case even stronger.
But my point is that even though we might know exactly what they meant, that doesn't make it against the law.
Right, but no one is claiming it does. The city claimed that the flier violated their internal policy against 'discrimination', which arguably does call for simple consideration of how a statement may make someone else 'feel'. It certainly would in a private-sector workplace (including mine), where failure to practice common courtesy can easily get you fired. (Not jailed; not fined; fired. This isn't a question of the legality of the speech.)
It's free speech. If we go through society and never see or hear something that "offends" us, then we do not live in a free society.
The exercise of free speech has consequences, and the First Amendment doesn't protect you from them. The only reason these women have a claim is that the First Amendment does bind public-sector employers.
That makes more sense, thanks.
The sad truth is that in situations like this, the only solution is to ban all non-work-related e-mails and bulletin board postings.
The sad truth is that in situations like this, the only solution is to ban all non-work-related e-mails and bulletin board postings.
I agree with you, both that it's the only solution and that it's sad. At any rate it's what private-sector employers generally do, precisely because there's almost no way to allow stuff like that to get posted without annoying somebody. And whether people are annoyed 'justifiably' or not, the main thing at work is work and there's no real reason to tolerate non-work-related disruptions.
On Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345317/posts.
The original article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42372.
It's not directly on point, and it's not binding precedent since it's in another district. Nevertheless I'll bet the attorneys on this case find a way to work it in.
Screw the ACLU. If I were in their shoes I would call the ACLJ.
Good for them. I back them 100%. I applaud their courage and strength.
AND CHRISTOPHOBIA!
Oh you are so right!
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.