On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 07:37 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > 2) Moral Harassment, as Rui defines it, is not harassment under the law > in the US. We do not have the right to act indecently in situations > where it imposes on the rights of others to not view our acts. Put > another way, what you do in your bedroom is pretty much your business, > but you don't have the right to do "your business" where others would > have no choice but to watch you. When the morals or definitions of indecency of others are imposed on me, they're morally harassing me. I don't care that the law doesn't cover it _yet_. I an only hope it does one day. > 4) Free speech does *not* protect you from the willful display of > inappropriate conduct in the workplace - by anyone's definition of > inappropriate. Conduct is not speech. But including perfectly normal words on speech is, no matter what people like or not. And it is protected everywhere in the USA, even while wearing a t-shirt reading: Fuck This Court while on trial. > =============================== > "Our lives begin to end the day we > become silent about things that matter." hmms... > -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
