WizardMarks wrote: > WM: I disagree. The answer is neither clear nor unequivocal. > Reporters work for editors and publishers, they are already > constrained from the first day of their employment. Those who > want to continue to work and get paid rein in their language.
Okay, now this is getting interesting. The issues we are now discussing relate to the boundaries between social mores and legal rights. I agree that an employer has the right to limit speech and other behaviors while an employee is on the clock (unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Count also believes that employers can limit speech when employees are off the clock, but I disagree). So can the Tribune fire this reporter for using "colored officers" in a work related email? I suppose that legally they could, if they had predefined the phrase as offensive or if they had an explicit code of behavior, but are they morally justified in doing so? I don't think so. What happens in academia (as well as other contexts), is that punishment is used selectively and not equitably. It is used to force conformity to a particular set of social values and norms, which is very bad thing in an institution in which divergent opinion is a critical element. I would argue the same is true in the news media. > Individuals do have the right to be entirely offensive in > their speech, though they also assume the burden of whatever > consequences are meted out for having been offensive. Brauer > can toss you off this list for limited or unlimited amounts > of time if you are repeatedly offensive. I think that the List is a different case. It's a essentially a private club and private clubs are free to set whatever silly restrictions they like. > Your friends and neighbors can shun you--and Minnesotans are > extremely good at shunning. No kidding. They're even very good at it with perfect strangers. > If you are offensive and it is reported in the media, those > who remember it can later decide not to hire you or to demote > you at work or refuse to vote for you. Or, if you are a rapper > and have CDs, people can refuse to buy your CDs. People can > denounce you in the media. AH HA! This is the crux of the problem I have with your position. I believe that a society should be careful in how it uses these types of sanctions. Shift perspective to the Southern United States in the late 1950's. If I stated that a Black person should be able to eat in the White section of restaurants, then it would have been very likely that my friends and neighbors would have shunned me. It is likely that it could have been reported in the media. People could have decided not to hire me or have demoted me or refused to vote for me. Are these reactions morally justified or valid? I don't think so, but they are legal. I believe that our "free" society should allow individuals to express "offensive" viewpoints, without punishing them. I believe that we should exhibit tolerance and respect towards individuals who hold opinions different, even radically different, from our own. Isn't that one of the key tenets of multiculturalism? > The question then becomes why would someone want to set the > consequences in motion just for the right to say "colored people." > Sort of like asking why you would lead your horse to step in a gopher hole > since you know that you'll get tossed when the horse goes down. Hell, I do similar things all the time to illustrate other people's bigotry and intolerance. > It's your right to say anything that comes into your head. > Why, then do you feel straight-jacketed when the issue is a constraint > against being egregiously impolite. I suppose we could all defend anyone's > right to be a jack ass, but I doubt I'll expend a lot of effort on it. That's where we differ. I feel that it's important to expend the energy to defend people's right to be jackasses. It's really what this country is all about. One person's jackass is another's person's Quaker. One person's outside agitator is another's civil rights worker. I know that it offends many people in Minneapolis, but the right to be Racist is Constitutionally protected, it's discriminatory behavior that's illegal. Really, I'd appreciate it if someone would explain why the phrase, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it," is now unfashionable. What has it been replaced with, "If you say something that offends me, I'll shun you"? Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
