Suit to decide workplace 'hate speech'

[michaels]

http://www.washingtontimes.com...70610-111445-6957r.htm

hate speech..what a nice and slippery slope. This is beyond ridiculous.

The words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" can be punished as "hate speech" in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Briefs for Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, which were filed June 5 with the nation's highest court, lists D.C. school board President Robert C. Bobb as one of two plaintiffs. The case originated five years ago in Oakland, Calif., during his tenure there as city manager.
The dispute began in January 2003, when the two Oakland employees created a subgroup at their workplace called the "Good News Employee Association." It was partly in response to a group of homosexual employees having formed their own group 10 months before and being given access to the city e-mail system. One e-mail, dated Oct. 11, 2002, invited city employees to participate in "National Coming-Out Day."
When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."
In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.
It said: "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."
Anyone who wanted to help preserve "integrity in the workplace" was invited to contact the two employees: Regina Rederford and Robin Christy.
A lesbian co-worker, Judith Jennings, spotted the flier and complained to the city attorney's office that it made her feel "targeted" and "excluded," according to a deposition. The flier was removed by a supervisor because it violated the city's anti-discrimination rules.
A U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling said the words "natural family" and "marriage" had "anti-homosexual import."
However, Miss Rederford was told she could announce the group's presence on the city's e-mail system if she removed "verbiage that could be offensive to gay people."
In late February 2003, Joyce Hicks, a city deputy executive director and the other defendant in the suit, sent out a memo to city employees. It cited recent incidents where "fliers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature" and warned employees they could be fired for posting such material.
Miss Rederford and Miss Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. According to court documents, employees had posted bulletin announcements on everything from terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to local sporting events, yet those had not been removed.

The district court disagreed, saying the women had other venues in which to proclaim their message. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said employees' freedom of speech takes a back seat to employers' "legitimate administrative interests." They were allowed to submit a new flier, subject to "certain editorial constraints."
"This incredible and devastating ruling has had the practical effect of silencing hundreds, if not thousands, of City of Oakland employees who simply wish to talk about marriage and family values," said a statement from the Pro-Family Law Center in Temecula, Calif., which represents the plaintiffs.
"To the extent that this ruling has been shared by Oakland with other cities, there is a huge risk that these rulings are being treated as precedent by other cities across the nation," the statement continued.

 

[palehorse]

ridiculous.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ridiculous.

..ridiculous rules these days. look how popular algore is.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ridiculous.

Insanity. Go figure that this happened in CA though.

 

[jrenz]

What happened to the saying, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? I guess real liberalism is dead.

Freedom of speech means having to hear things you don't like, too.

 

[wetech]

people will soon need protection from protected groups.

 

[dmcowen674]

When one plays with fire, cannot expect to not get burned.

 

[Rainsford]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but the workplace does not seem like the appropriate place to push your political views. Pro-homosexual groups don't really belong at work either, but at least they are focused on the actions and choices of the people who choose to belong to the group. The problem with anti-gay groups at work is that they are ridiculing and opposing personal choices made by fellow employees, while I wouldn't call it hate speech, I'd say it probably qualifies as harassment. Don't get me wrong, these people have every right to express their views, but companies shouldn't have any responsibility to employ people with such disruptive attitudes. I realize homophobia blinds people to this kind of thing, but imagine if a group of employees got together to start an anti-Jew group...how many people would support them then? Free speech does not mean everyone has to like your speech, and like it or not, part of working is being able to get along with your coworkers...there is a very real impact on how well you can do your job if you make it widely known that you hate certain coworkers because of their personal choices. I don't think people who do things like this should get fired because they believe certain things, or because they decided to express themselves...I think they should be fired because they are unprofessional. Work is where you work. If you are an anti-gay bigot, that's your business...but do it on your own time.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: jrenz
What happened to the saying, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? I guess real liberalism is dead.

Freedom of speech means having to hear things you don't like, too.

liberals are fine with free speech, provided it agrees with their thinking, otherwise its hate speech. hell most think a discussion on a topic is ended after they say "thats hate speech"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: jrenz
What happened to the saying, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? I guess real liberalism is dead.

Freedom of speech means having to hear things you don't like, too.

liberals are fine with free speech, provided it agrees with their thinking, otherwise its hate speech. hell most think a discussion on a topic is ended after they say "thats hate speech"

That's a pretty broad generalization. Bottom line, the work-place is not where you should be pushing your views, whether those views are "conservative" or "liberal". If you want to point fingers, "conservatives" also become offended easily when discussing topics such as these.

 

[Double Trouble]

Those rules should be consistent. Either everyone can use the space/resources to voice their views/groups/opinions etc, or noone should. To single out one group and not another is typical of both the right and left wing zealots. Both want "free" speech, but only as long as it agrees with their point of view.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tagej
Those rules should be consistent. Either everyone can use the space/resources to voice their views/groups/opinions etc, or noone should. To single out one group and not another is typical of both the right and left wing zealots. Both want "free" speech, but only as long as it agrees with their point of view.

Pretty much.

As distateful as I find the rabidly "pro-family" "pro-god" (also known as "we hate gays") groups they can say whatever they want provided the rules in the workplace allow it. Personally I don't think the workplace is an acceptable battlegound for either side.

 

[Genx87]

Heh the left using the old diversity line to surpress free speech again?

Color me surprise!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Liberals and conservatives are no different when it comes to censoring free speech...liberals do it in the name of ensuring that "protected" groups don't take offense to anything in their respective environments...conservatives do it in the name of "God"...both choose inappropriate situations and environments to draw their battle lines and push their causes.

 

[thraashman]

Actually, I can agree with how the one flier shouldn't be allowed on the bulletin board. It's all about language. The email promoting Coming Out Day was positive. Then the flier was opposing certain things. Now here the difference, the concept of opposing. To be in support of something does not mean you are in opposition of something else. But to specifically state you're in opposition of something is when you start trying to get confrontational. And I can see how the term "natural family" could offend, because that's indicating anything else is unnatural. I'd be offended if I were a single parent at that one.

If people want it in a different phrasing, on a different topic, but the exact same intent, I'll give it to you, and maybe you'll see how offensive this really is.

Next time anyone posts anything religious at work, respond with this. Put up a flyer about a work atheistic group you're forming. Make sure that the flyer says that it opposes anything that's night in line with intelligent discussion. Define intelligent discussion as that which favors science over religion in any case.

You see how it becomes offensive? Now I'm saying, in subtle terms, that the religious aren't intelligent. It's the same concept as that group's flier, but with different words and a different topic. They're just trying to offend, and the workplace has a right to prevent someone from doing that.


Edit: Now I'm not saying I don't think there needs to be open discussion. And I agree that it seems that certain groups offend too easily. But I also understand why. When was the last time you heard of someone being beaten and killed simply for being straight, white and protestant?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Actually, I can agree with how the one flier shouldn't be allowed on the bulletin board. It's all about language. The email promoting Coming Out Day was positive. Then the flier was opposing certain things. Now here the difference, the concept of opposing. To be in support of something does not mean you are in opposition of something else. But to specifically state you're in opposition of something is when you start trying to get confrontational. And I can see how the term "natural family" could offend, because that's indicating anything else is unnatural. I'd be offended if I were a single parent at that one.

If people want it in a different phrasing, on a different topic, but the exact same intent, I'll give it to you, and maybe you'll see how offensive this really is.

Next time anyone posts anything religious at work, respond with this. Put up a flyer about a work atheistic group you're forming. Make sure that the flyer says that it opposes anything that's night in line with intelligent discussion. Define intelligent discussion as that which favors science over religion in any case.

You see how it becomes offensive? Now I'm saying, in subtle terms, that the religious aren't intelligent. It's the same concept as that group's flier, but with different words and a different topic. They're just trying to offend, and the workplace has a right to prevent someone from doing that.

Edit: Now I'm not saying I don't think there needs to be open discussion. And I agree that it seems that certain groups offend too easily. But I also understand why. When was the last time you heard of someone being beaten and killed simply for being straight, white and protestant?

Thraashman hits the nail on the head here. The language used by the two groups is not the same. If the gay employees had invited people to a discussion that opposed "a Christian view," and that marriage between men and women was "unnatural," there would be a huge uproar. But they didn't. They invited people to a coming out celebration.

The homophobic response was not muted, despite trying to make the language as non-offensive as possible. Opposing "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," when defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law," illegitimizes gay families. It makes homosexuality unnatural, based on, that highest standard for morality, the state laws of California.

I don't care what you believe. If you believe homosexuality is unnatural, fine. But you don't (and this is the hugely important piece) call someone unnatural or attack their beliefs at work. That is amazingly unprofessional. If I started circulating flyers indicating that dark skin was unnatural, and that blacks were genetically inferior, that would be my right. If I did that at work, I'd be fired on the spot, and I would deserve it.

The bottom line is that it is up to the administrators to decide what is appropriate and what is not in the workplace. They decided that an invitation to a positive event was fine (if you didn't support the ideas, you didn't have to attend). They also decided that advertising a group which proclaimed homosexuality unnatural was not acceptable at work.

The first amendment is a lovely thing, but it is not universal. Employers can supercede your right to free speech, and do so all the time. I can wear a tee shirt and bermuda shorts in public, but not at work. I can swear in public, but not at work. I can call people's beliefs unnatural in public, but not at work. These individuals should have realized that the language they were using crossed the line into negativity, and that it would be shot down.

That said, I still think a lawsuit is frivolous. The postings should have been removed, but a lawsuit is a bit over the top. I suppose if they had continually posted advertisements even after being told to stop by the administration, but for one time? Pointless.

 

[ElFenix]

seems like a normal ruling consistent with what i know of first amendment law (which, admittedly, isn't tons).

 

[Moonbeam]

Look, if you have had the Bible shoved down your throat from the time you were born and an eternity of hellfire waved in your face for any nonconformity you are going to grow up rabidly anti homosexual and exude your fears and phobias onto everything you touch. And you will only be doing what you know to be absolutely right. You are going to be completely blind to the fact that you are infected with a terrible disease called bigotry. Every fanatic is only doing what he 'knows' is right in abidance with Gods will. The first casualty of every religion is the realization that God is Love.

 

[PokerGuy]

More of the politically correct cancer that is tearing up our society. Everyone thinks they have the right to not be offended. If you don't agree with the current PC thoughts, you must be hateful and your views don't deserve to be aired. Only PC views should be aired. Sheesh.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
More of the politically correct cancer that is tearing up our society. Everyone thinks they have the right to not be offended. If you don't agree with the current PC thoughts, you must be hateful and your views don't deserve to be aired. Only PC views should be aired. Sheesh.

Perhaps this is what you meant (although I doubt it), but conservatives are the most PC folks in the country...they get deeply offended by even the presence of things they disagree with in society. It's one thing for a gay person to get offended when some religious righty is calling for his behaviors to be banned as immoral and destructive to society, it's another when conservatives get up in arms just because gay people are being gay and conservatives don't like that. Who's more "PC" in that situation?

 

[PokerGuy]

Conservatives and Liberals are equally bad when it comes to being PC. They both seem to think free speech is wonderful as long as it doesn't offend them. They just disagree on what "non pc" stuff should be banished. Liberals whine about anything that might offend some group in some way. Conservatives try to legislate morality (their view of it) wherever possible. Both make me sick.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Conservatives and Liberals are equally bad when it comes to being PC. They both seem to think free speech is wonderful as long as it doesn't offend them. They just disagree on what "non pc" stuff should be banished. Liberals whine about anything that might offend some group in some way. Conservatives try to legislate morality (their view of it) wherever possible. Both make me sick.

Well yes, people on both sides need to grow a thinker skin...but I disagree that THIS is an example of too much political correctness. Even if your coworkers are understanding, there are a lot of good reasons not to start clubs with the main premise that many of the people you work with are evil sinners who are destroying the country. That seems more like common sense than anything else. Freedom of speech is not an imperative to act like a jackass.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Conservatives and Liberals are equally bad when it comes to being PC. They both seem to think free speech is wonderful as long as it doesn't offend them. They just disagree on what "non pc" stuff should be banished. Liberals whine about anything that might offend some group in some way. Conservatives try to legislate morality (their view of it) wherever possible. Both make me sick.

Well yes, people on both sides need to grow a thinker skin...but I disagree that THIS is an example of too much political correctness. Even if your coworkers are understanding, there are a lot of good reasons not to start clubs with the main premise that many of the people you work with are evil sinners who are destroying the country. That seems more like common sense than anything else. Freedom of speech is not an imperative to act like a jackass.

You are starting with the assumption that the homosexual agenda is itself not offensive to others. If the fundies find homosexuality offensive, then having a bunch of gay crap in the office is just as offensive to them as the other stuff is to other groups. Either allow it all or allow none of it, but I don't think it fair to say "gay stuff in the office is fine, but if you disagree with the gay stuff your view does not belong in the office". Typical PC crap.

 

[Butterbean]

It's just another example of a disordered and compulsive group trying to use courts to alter realities they find too harsh. This is like vampires banning mirrors.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Don't get me wrong, these people have every right to express their views, but companies shouldn't have any responsibility to employ people with such disruptive attitudes.

The same argument could be made as to why a company shouldn't hire outwardly homosexual employees. If most of your employees are conservative heterosexuals then the outwardly homosexual could be seen as "disruptive".

"Hate speech" is an absurd idea. Let employers decide what behavior they will allow from their employees and stop messing with the freedom of speech.