Replies

I recommend a great read, "The Tempting of America," by Robert Bork.

I recommend a much, much better one: The Presumption of Liberty, by Randy Barnett.

While we're carrying on about those silly, silly judges, let's bear in mind that these two women are public employees, and all that's happened is that they've been denied access to a tax-supported bulletin board that a private employer wouldn't be required to provide in the first place.

I disagree with the judge's ruling in this case and I expect it will be overturned on appeal. But it doesn't shove anything down your throat; it merely limits what government employees are allowed to do while at work on the public dime.

If they don't like it, they can always get jobs in the private sector and see how many fliers they're allowed to post.

While we're carrying on about those silly, silly judges, let's bear in mind that these two women are public employees, and all that's happened is that they've been denied access to a tax-supported bulletin board that a private employer wouldn't be required to provide in the first place.
I disagree with the judge's ruling in this case and I expect it will be overturned on appeal. But it doesn't shove anything down your throat; it merely limits what government employees are allowed to do while at work on the public dime.

If they don't like it, they can always get jobs in the private sector and see how many fliers they're allowed to post.

I have the same general misgivings about these types of situations, as if employees expect they have a "right" to do whatever they want at work, except work! However, given the following, it seems pretty clear to me that these two women were treated unfairly: (from the article)

Employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association.

--snip--

The flier in question was posted Jan. 3, 2003, on an employee bulletin board where a variety of political and sexually oriented causes are promoted.

So, the gays not only get to distribute a "company wide" e-mail about their group, anyone else who forms an alternate group is disciplined? This is obviously a case of discrimination. I'm glad the women brought it to the courts.

What really should be done all across the country, especially in our "public offices", is less focus on all these "groups" and "special activities", and more focus on WORK (which is what you implied of course)

This was an important case to bring though.