1998-08-26 - Re: Is Hate Code Speech?

Header Data

From: Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu>
To: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@openpgp.net>
Message Hash: 3f11f76542d895c9d7a94130f00191e7cf123b9d3da993f0403b01469ef957b7
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980826132122.4771A-100000@baker>
Reply To: <199808261721.MAA014.73@geiger.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-08-26 18:40:49 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>
Subject: Re: Is Hate Code Speech?
In-Reply-To: <199808261721.MAA014.73@geiger.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980826132122.4771A-100000@baker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> Yes but should this "standard" be enforced by law? Last time I looked
> there was no Constitutional right not to be offended.

	Yet harassment is actionable.  Nutty, huh?  And it's just
	the tip of the iceberg:  apparently the law protects you
	from being severely beaten, despite the fact that there is
	no explicit constitutional right not to be severely beaten.

	Not trying to equate harassment with a severe beating, just
	pointing out that the lack of an explicit constitutional 
	right does not magically nullify the rest of the law.

> strong Constitutional right to freedom of speech and the courts have long
> ruled that it is not just popular speech that is protected.

	Indeed, "popular" speech is, almost by definition, the kind
	of speech that never really needs protection.  That first amendment
	wouldn't have much of a purpose if it only protected popular
> IMHO, this whole matter is an internal company matter. The courts and
> politicians should have no say in it.

	It WAS an internal company matter, apparently, but the 
	company didn't seem to do anything to remedy it.  That's 
	when you turn to law.