From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.122704. Max Zener writes:
 
> MZ:   Our society is based on the principle that every member of society has
> certain rights, but that these rights will often come into conflict with each
> other.  Thus, laws are established to decide how different rights are to be
> weighed and balanced against each other.  Everyone has the right to freedom of
> speech, but no one has the right not to be offended.  Thus, no law should be
> established that says no one person can offend any other.  That law would be
> made even worse if it distinguished between kinds of insults (purple people
> have the right to poke fun at fuscha people, but not vice versa).
>    People have the right to act as they please, but people also have the right
> to not have life and property damaged by others.  Thus, I can wave my arms all
> over the place, so long as my fist doesn't run into your nose.
>    I think I've made my point, but I'll be clear about it:  peoplel have the
> right to insult other people on the basis of anything at all.  People don't
> have the right to beat up other people, no matter what the reason (self-defense 
> obvioulsy excluded).

SH:  Thanks for the lecture on US law.  What "is" and what "is not" a right
is a matter of opinion and not fact.
> 
>  SH:...I believe that I have a right to a "hostility free" workplace 
> > BEFORE he has the right to his freedom of speech.  If he makes 
> > the environment hostile, he should be fired.
> 
>MZ: What if, for example, everyone on the net was made angry by your statements. 
> By your own arguement, we should be able to kick you out, just because of what
> you have posted.  Now do you see why defenders of free speech put up with
> lunkheads from the KKK?

SH:  I don't see defenders of free speech challenging the fact that treasonary
speech is illegal.  From all that I have heard lately, the concept of free
speech in the US is an extremely exagerrated phenominon.  What about liability
of the press?  Is that free speech.  What about the "whistleblowers" of 
major corporations that are fired.  Are they protected by this so called
free speech defense?  I'm begining to find the free speech
defense to be a pretty bad excuse for most anti-PCers and right wingers.
Lets face it, anti PCers merely want to maintain power or its access
in traditional hands.  
As far as kicking me out goes, you have a choice of 
reading my posts or not.  I am not forcing you to read this.  However, if
I get harrassed at work, I do not have the choice of leaving (realistically
speaking since some of our conservative friends feel that I do have that
choice -- a pretty fascistic view).  Note:  Harrassment is different from
offend.  Also note that offensive behaviour can become harrassing.

> (deleted stuff on the Constitution since I'm not American and 
hold no value for it --  Sorry I brought it up)  

MZ:  Then learn that in the English language, the male form is the neutered form.
> Thus, "all men" can mean "all people."  Do not expect people to abuse the
> language in order to meet your sensibilities. 

SH:  Languages are merely tools of expression.  English is my third language
and in none of the others does "man" or "his" stand for the neutral or "all
people"(languages differ I know but I thought I would mention that).  
If it does in English, that merely stresses the chauvanistic nature
of the language.  Simple.  

 MZ: As I said earlier, people have
> the right to say whatever they like, and not the right not to be offended.

SH:  Once again thanks for the law lesson.  Maybe blacks and women would never
have gotten the right to vote if everyone viewed "law" as "unchangeable."
As Judy Tanuda (sp?) would say :"It could happen!!"

Power to the people 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct