From: lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu (Lee C Brink)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
In-reply-to: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:55:51 GM
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center (NPAC)
	<1992Aug12.215730.15812@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug13.122704.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
	<1992Aug13.185551.27709@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 13:56:07 EDT

>In article <1992Aug13.185551.27709@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.122704. Max Zener writes:

[Formatting of previous posts edited for readability.  Content is not changed
   except where noted]

>> 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 beweighed and balanced against each other.  Everyone has the right to 
>> freedom of speech, but no one has the right not to be offended.  

  [Detailed explanation removed...snip]

>SH:  Thanks for the lecture on US law.  What "is" and what "is not" a right
>is a matter of opinion and not fact.

  True, but at this point in time we have some basis in LAW.  Facts in a case
such as this will always be someone's opinion; thus to assume that "facts"
will become prevalient over time is wishful thinking at best.
 
>>>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 state-
>>ments.  By your own arguement, we should be able to kick you out,just because
>>of whatyou 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.  

  Who decides what is treasonous speech?  If I say that the gov't should be
overthrown, is that treasonous?  Should I be put in jail for that type of 
statement?  

>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?  

  Tough to prove if I remember my libel & slander laws right (I work at a 
supercomputer facility, not a law office; ergo I cannot look them up at the
moment.  If I'm wrong, I apologize).  Both laws require the plaintiff to show
that the paper/person had "malicious intent" when the statement was made. 
That's why many of these tabloids stay in business.  Very few cases can show
"malicious intent," and the ones that do get fairly large monetary awards.  But
remember - If you can afford the fine, then you can print what you want.  
There is no jail time when you are charged with libel or slander laws (As far
as I can remember).  Look at the Naitonal Enquirer.  They have lost several
multi-million dollar lawsuits due to their bogus stories.  Yet they still
publish.

>Is that free speech.  What about the "whistleblowers" of 
>major corporations that are fired.  Are they protected by this so called
>free speech defense?

  Here is where I agree with Mr. Hasnain.  There are several cases where 
whistleblowers have not only lost their current job, but have been blackballed
from the profession.  While legislation cannot and should not be passed to stop
them from blowing the whistle, I do not see a way to stop companies from 
firing whistleblowers and blackballing them (Of course, the companies will 
deny such a list exists, so legislating the list out of existance will not be 
effective).

>I'm begining to find the free speech
>defense to be a pretty bad excuse for most anti-PCers and right wingers.

  And I find the excuse of "sensitivity" pathetic for the PCers so that
they can tell me what to say and how to say it. 

>Lets face it, anti PCers merely want to maintain power or its access
>in traditional hands.  

  And the PCers want it for themselves.  Giving up one evil for another.
What a bargain. :-(

>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).  

  I assume you meant to say "fascist."  See below on my problem with
harassment and the workplace.

>Note:  Harrassment is different from
>offend.  Also note that offensive behaviour can become harrassing.

  Can I see the legal definition of harassment?  I've seen some pretty
flimsy cases put up for harassment, which has led me to believe that there
is not legal definition of harassment, or that it is so broad that if I say
hello to the wrong person on the wrong day, I could be brought up on 
harassment charges.  Some definition of harassment should be hammered out
for the laws so that real harassment (Eg:Groping, constant verbal abuse)
is punished but silly things (Saying "Hello babe," Giving someone a leer for 
example) are not included.  Of course, who gets to make the definition?
Not an easy question to answer given our polarized society today. 

>>>(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.  

So we should switch to "it"?  That is the technical neuter form of the 
pronoun "he" & "she".  I refuse to go through life saying "he or she." "him
or her," etc.  simply because someone thinks I was refering only to the
male.

The single biggest problem with the English language today is that meanings
fluctuate between demographic areas.  When the Constitution was written, 
English was fairly precise (Not as much a Latin, but you get the idea).  Today
even simple words have many meanings.  Look up the meaning for the word "go"
sometime.  Over 57 different meanings (According to our old unabridged diction-
ary here at SU) and it can be used as a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb.  
If we cannot agree on the meaning of words, then arguments become moot.

George Orwell would be proud.

As for the Constitution and you not having any value for it, fine.  But
remember as long as you are on American soil, you are bound by it.  Just as
I am bound by another country's laws and Constitution (If one exists) if I
am on their soil.  And until it is changed, we're for better or for worse
stuck with it.  (As for the Gov't taking our rights away slowly but surely, 
bring that argument to talk.politics.misc)

>>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!!"

  If law was unchangeable, we could beat wives with sticks no thicker than our
thumb and it would be considered legal.  Laws are not made to be unchangeable,
but SLOW to change.  Therefore the law can not change quickly just by the 
fleeting thoughts of the current vocal mob (majority or minority).  What 
kind of land would this be if laws changed yearly?  One year abortion is legal,
and then the next year it wouldn't be?  Can we say chaos incarnate?

>Power to the people 

Power to ALL the people, and not just to any particular group professing
to be working for "the good of the people."

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+