era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (07/27/88)
Anyone old enough to remember the days when some men referred to all women in friendly, familiar, nondefamatory ways, like, "honey," "sweetheart," "gal," etc.? Remember when such guys ran into their first feminist or professional busineswoman who objected? And the guys indignantly explained, "But I've always referred to *ALL* women that way, and none of them have ever objected." Here's the logic set: We always refer to all women as X. This individual is a woman. Therefore, we can refer to this individual as X. The "truth" that you think (and all your friends agree) that somebody is, in truth, a real sweetheart, is perhaps a defense in a defamation suit, but not in a suit for discrimination andor harassment if you persist in calling them sweetheart andor referring to them as sweetheart, and they object. Let's take another example. Suppose I have always referred to all lawyers as prigs. And suppose further, that one particular individual lawyer, really is, in deed and in truth, a prig, and I have 100 other lawyers eager to testify to that fact in court. Now suppose that I decide to have some fun, and I post several articles referring to that lawyer as a prig, and I encourage all my friends to do so, telling them that since the lawyer really is a prig, they don't have to worry about libel suits, and the poor lawyer finds that six to twenty articles a day are being posted to the net, each one referring to that lawyer as a prig as many times as possible in each paragraph. Suppose the lawyer has no sense of humor, being a real prig, and sues me. Do you think that the truth that she or he is, in reality and in fact, a prig, will serve me as an absolute defense in a harassment suit? If so, you might consider suing your law school for providing you with an inadequate education. :-) --Mark
cs3551ad@geinah.unm.edu (David Schnedar) (07/27/88)
Mark, I have the solution to your problem. Anyone who wants to be
refered to by a certain set of words and not by others need only
to run usenet through a filter. Here is one for consideration.
%%
" "she" " printf("he");
" "hers" " printf("his");
" "she$ printf("he");
" "hers$ printf("his");
^she printf("he");
^hers printf("his");
David printf("The Grand PUBA Master Of The Entire Universe");
If you don't have a lex compiler or don't know how to use it or don't
know how to pipe through a text filter or I made a mistake
, write me for more information.
I can write this in another language or change the replacement set.
If anyone else is interested in this tool feel free to use it or write
me for any requests.
This is an over simplified program and I can write a better one given
a minute or two.
The Grand PUBA Master Of The Entire Universeguillory@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (guillory stanford s) (07/28/88)
In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > >no sense of humor, being a real prig, and sues me. Do you >think that the truth that she or he is, in reality and in fact, a prig, >will serve me as an absolute defense in a harassment suit? If so, >you might consider suing your law school for providing you >with an inadequate education. :-) >--Mark WRONG again Mark. A prig is some subjective term that applies to only a subset of human beings. Calling a person a prig means that you think they are a prig and nothing more. Calling a person a female when they are female means they are half of the world, or as John Lennon sang, "Woman is the other half of the sky." You know, Mark, I don't care what you call yourself, and I don't care what other people call you. What bothers me is that you are getting more and more irrational with each posting. Why don't you take a break from the net, get together with your shrink, and work some things out. If I was as messed up as you, and had the intelligence that you seem to have in your more lucid moments, I would be doing every thing in my power to get my head screwed on straight. I understand that it is hard for you to get a grip on reality when you are drifting so, but hey, give it your best shot! You know, Mark, you should really try to find something to be thankful for in your life. I mean, trained lawyers have viewed your complaints and virtually laughed their heads off on misc.legal, so obviously there are more *IMPORTANT* issues on the legal front. Let me tell you a story, Mark, if I may. I am a young black man. There are places in this country where I cannot go, where I do not DARE tread. The KKK is ever present, awaiting their opportunity to violate my rights in a big way. How do I deal with this!? I am an American, I should not have to deal with this! Welcome to reality, my fellow poster. The world presents adverse conditions, and we have to adapt. If I worried about every person who said something about me, or held a deep hatred for me, I soon be a worried old man! Our time here on Earth is too short to cry about our problems. Do you think you have it worse than the children starving in Africa!? I thank God that I don't. Or maybe it is harder for you to get up in the morning that it is for a quadraplegic? I thank God it isn't for me. Or maybe, just maybe, your life is more of a living hell than it is for an American hostage in Iran? Gee, I really feel for you. I am called a nigger about once a month, on average. I don't get upset, and I don't file lawsuits. You know why, Mark? Because the fools who engage in these cruelties don't define me. *I* define me. Every white person in America could call me nigger until the cows come home. Their name-calling is not going to take my BS in electrical engineering away from me. Nor will it take my M.S.EE away. I am talented, successful, healthy, and so many other good things. And I suspect that you are too, Mark. So, just say to hell with the people who you feel do you wrong. They don't define you, you do! Get on with your life. You know what would be really sad? You wasting the rest of your life bickering on this net, and me sitting here reading every word. Stanford S. Guillory guillory%vdsvax.tcpip@ge-crd.arpa "I am someone! I am everyone! and I will have some fun!"
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (07/28/88)
Mark Ethan Smith (era1987@violet.berkeley.edu) writes: > Let's take another example. Suppose I have always > referred to all lawyers as prigs. [...] > Do you > think that the truth that she or he is, in reality and in fact, a prig, > will serve me as an absolute defense in a harassment suit? Interesting example. Doesn't quite hit the mark, but is interesting never-the-less. The point at which it falls down is that whether a given individual is or is not a prig is a matter of opinion, open to debate, and subject to interpretation. If you can find 100 lawyers that agree on something (neat trick!), you could also find an equal number who believe the opposite. This is not proof of "priggishness", just a bunch of people with the same opinion. Since there is no "truth", there is no "truth defense". Other matters aren't so much matters of opinion. The statement, "My body is made up primarily of H2O molecules." is something which could be verified analytically. It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of demonstratable fact. Likewise, the statement, "John Q. Public has two X chromosomes in each cell of her body." is something which can be analytically determined by taking a representative sample of cells from John. These examples *can* have the word "truth" applied to them. They are not subjects of opinion. BTW, My copy of the "Oxford American Dictionary" defines the word "prig" as: prig (prig) n. a self-righteous person, one who displays or demands exaggerated correctness, especially in behavior. I wonder if this term might apply to anyone around here? ;-) -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
mag1@whutt.UUCP (GIDEN) (07/28/88)
In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > Anyone old enough to remember the days when some men referred to > all women in friendly, familiar, nondefamatory ways, like, "honey," > "sweetheart," "gal," etc.? Remember when such guys ran into their > first feminist or professional busineswoman who objected? And the > guys indignantly explained, "But I've always referred to *ALL* women > that way, and none of them have ever objected." > > --Mark What you are talking about in the above example is sexual harassment. If this is taking place at work, in school, etc. it is actionable. This is very different from following the conventions of the English languague and using she/her when talking about someone who is biologically a female. This is just not actionable in a court of law. As I've stated before, not going along with your wishes is rude but not illegal. The best way to deal with people who do not respect your wishes is to ignore their postings. Since you have the option of NOT READING a particular article, you can't claim that reading the comments that rude people post is harassment. If they stood outside your house yelling these things it might be a different story. But they aren't doing this. You have named the people you are mad at, so just don't read their postings if they bother you. If you voluntarily read them you can not claim injury when you have a simple method of avoiding this hurt. A lot of the laws you talk about require that the people involved have a specific relationship (supervisor/employee) in order for the behavior to be illegal. Behavior that is illegal when done by a supervisor to an employee is perfectly legal if the two people don't know each other. Calling one of your subordinates "sweetheart" is actionable, calling a women that in a checkout line at the store is not (not that I propose calling women this [other than my wife of course]). I really think it is time for Mark to just use 'n' when she sees a posting from those she doesn't like/don't like her, and we can all go on to other topics. Mike Giden AT&T Bell Labs Whippany, NJ
davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) (07/29/88)
In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >[...] >The "truth" that you think (and all your friends agree) that >somebody is, in truth, a real sweetheart, is perhaps a defense >in a defamation suit, but not in a suit for discrimination andor >harassment if you persist in calling them sweetheart andor referring >to them as sweetheart, and they object. >[...] The difference is that a person being a "sweatheart" is a *VALUE* judgement. The fact that you are a female is not a value judgement (at least not with me). It is a fact. The "fact" that a person is or is not a "sweatheart" can be argued based on an individual's values. It is a fact that you are a female, and when referring to you the word "her" is a fact. I agree that is IS impolite and rude not to abide by your wishes (no matter what a person thinks of them), but it is not "discriminating". -- David Schmidt UUCP: davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM ISC Systems Corporation (uunet!iscuva!davids) East 22425 Appleway Phone: +1 509 927-5479 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
learn@chinet.chi.il.us (bill vajk) (07/29/88)
In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
* Now suppose that I decide to have some fun, and I post
* several articles referring to that lawyer as a prig, and I
* encourage all my friends to do so, telling them that since the
* lawyer really is a prig, they don't have to worry about libel suits,
* and the poor lawyer finds that six to twenty articles a day are being
* posted to the net, each one referring to that lawyer as a prig as
* many times as possible in each paragraph. Suppose the lawyer has
* no sense of humor, being a real prig, and sues me. Do you
* think that the truth that she or he is, in reality and in fact, a prig,
* will serve me as an absolute defense in a harassment suit?
By the text "I encourage all my friends to do so " you create a conspiracy
scenario, another entity altogether. If the encouragement consists of
example only, then the resultant postings eminate from individuals
exercising their rights.
The best defense is the truth. Why not use truth in your examples as well.
Bill Vajk learn@chinetbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/29/88)
Look, I told you people not to talk about lawsuit plans in this newsgroup. I don't want to have to tell you again! Stop. If you have something to say, MAIL it to the people involved. STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (07/29/88)
In article <1809@iscuva.ISCS.COM> davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) writes: > >I agree that is IS impolite and rude not to abide by your wishes (no >matter what a person thinks of them), but it is not "discriminating". If the ONLY reason for being impolite and rude to someone in a certain way involving their religion, race, color, age, handicap, or sex, *IS* their religion, race, color, age, handicap, or sex, then it *IS** discriminatory. If the only reason you can give for referring to someone repeatedly, against their wishes, in a rude and impolite way that refers to what they are, rather than what they said, that is, to their race, religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, is that they ARE that particular race, religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, then you have a case of discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, handicap or sex. If you do it from a site of which you are am employee, and I happen to be a customer, such as, for example, AT&T, you could be reprimanded or penalized if I file a complaint. One person has done that several times, and I had hoped not to have to file a complaint, but they do not wish to stop putting their company in a position of liability, so I may have to file a complaint in order to get that person's harassment to stop. Suing me for threatening to sue or file a complaint unless the harassment against me stops, by alleging that my threat to sue or file a commplaint after repeated harassment, is itself a form of harassment, is akin to kicking somebody in the face in front of witnesses, and then filing a harassment complaint if they call the cops, because you feel that calling the cops is an infringement on your "right" to kick them in the face. Libertarians make the argument that private businesses should have the right to discriminate, and that federal nondiscrimination laws are an infringement on their right to discriminate. That right stops when they leave the private and enter the public sphere. They are free to discriminate against Blacks and Jews by not inviting Blacks or Jews to their home, but if they have a public restaurant, or an apartment building, they forfeit their right to private discrimination by engaging in public business. --Mark
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/29/88)
In article <11017@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >BTW, My copy of the "Oxford American Dictionary" defines the word "prig" >as: > prig (prig) n. a self-righteous person, one who > displays or demands exaggerated correctness, > especially in behavior. > >I wonder if this term might apply to anyone around here? ;-) The part about "demands exaggerated correctness" does apply; the part about "displays ...." obviously does not. The whole thing sounds very much like a one-way-street to me. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
rsk@staff.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (07/29/88)
In article <12729@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >If the only reason you can give for referring to someone repeatedly, >against their wishes, in a rude and impolite way that refers >to what they are, rather than what they said, that is, to their race, >religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, is that they ARE that >particular race, religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, then >you have a case of discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, >handicap or sex. This is not the law, in my opinion. Let me put that a bit more strongly: this is clearly not the law, and it is a wild and dangerous misconstruction of constitutional provisions and case law. I hesitated to dignify such a ridiculous assertion with a response; but I felt that the possibility existed that someone else might possibly be convinced of the truth of the above-quoted statement, and I wanted to forestall that, if possible. Simply put, anti-discrimination amendments, statutes, and case law do not involve speech; they involve such practices as hiring, admission to the bar, access to schools, use of public transport, membership in civic organizations, and so on. Further, discrimination based on age, handicap, or sex has not been given the same strict scrutiny that discrimination based on race or religion has. In particular, the Supreme Court has not determined that women are a "suspect class"; this means that the standards of judicial review applied in sex discrimination cases are not as rigorous as in some other situations. (See Craig v. Boren, Rostker v. Goldberg, Gelduldig v. Aiello, all modern gender-based discrimination cases.) Please note as well that freedom of speech admits only minor and (hopefully) limited restrictions: the so-called "fighting words", although that doesn't appear much anymore; "obscene speech"; certain forms of symbolic speech which might involve conduct; issues of "national security"; and certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions. I am aware of no Supreme Court cases which render certain forms of speech subject to restriction on the grounds that such speech is "discriminatory". (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Roth v. United States, United States v. O'Brien, New York Times Co. v. United States, and other cases.) I strongly urge that no one base their concept of legal rights and duties on what has been appearing in this forum; that includes this article as well. I am not an attorney. Rich Kulawiec
mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) (07/30/88)
> In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > >[...] > >The "truth" that you think (and all your friends agree) that > >somebody is, in truth, a real sweetheart, is perhaps a defense > >in a defamation suit, but not in a suit for discrimination andor > >harassment if you persist in calling them sweetheart andor referring > >to them as sweetheart, and they object. > >[...] > Common sense says to me: 1) mark is mark's correct name and should be referred to thus 2) the pronoun issue is valid in that I don't go around saying: yellow catholic heterosexual thai chen said recently ... meet Mr. black thick nosed short protestant Andy Sharp ... It's too personal and unnecessary to know somebodies sex, sexual orientation, race religion or any number of these qualities to transact business, have a conversation, or virtully anything. And in today's world it should be a matter of private concern. 3) however, calling somebody him when they are a her should not be a punishable offense, because her/him are pronouns and refer to facts. I imagine the only legal claim might be made if somebody suffered damages after somebody else referred to them as the wrong sex. mark is a he and cannot participate in the beauty pageant next week. when mark is actually a she.
allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (07/30/88)
In article <1881@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > Look, I told you people not to talk about lawsuit plans in this newsgroup. > I don't want to have to tell you again! > > STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!! (multiple times, down) EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! EITHER USE YOUR KILL FILE OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!! -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen allen@sulaco.UUCP Disclaimer: I speak for myself only (thanks Oleg)
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/30/88)
In article <343@tekbspa.UUCP> mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) writes: > 3) however, calling somebody him when they are a her should not > be a punishable offense, because her/him are pronouns and > refer to facts. I imagine the only legal claim might be made > if somebody suffered damages after somebody else referred to > them as the wrong sex. > > mark is a he and cannot participate in the beauty pageant > next week. when mark is actually a she. I don't think Mark would suffer damages from this -- Mark wants to be considered a man (otherwise, why would Mark wish to be referred to by a masculine pronoun), and thus would presumably not be interested in participating in a beauty pageant which would reveal to all the world the unpleasant fact that Mark is indeed not a man but a woman. The more I read of this discussion, the more it seems to me that the simplest thing would be to avoid the use of pronouns altogether when referring to Mark -- we would not bend our proper use of the English language by referring to a female (if not feminine) person with a masculine pronoun, but neither would we have to offend Mark by referring to Mark by the pronoun Mark so dislikes. The use of the neuter pronoun when referring to Mark is of course just as wrong gramatically as the use of the femal pronoun, so that the avoidance of all pronouns when referring to Mark is the most correct solution, even though it makes for rather clumsy-sounding sentences. with a male pronoun, but neither would I -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (07/31/88)
In article <343@tekbspa.UUCP> mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) writes: |> In article <12624@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: |> >[...] |> >The "truth" that you think (and all your friends agree) that |> >somebody is, in truth, a real sweetheart, is perhaps a defense |> >in a defamation suit, but not in a suit for discrimination andor |> >harassment if you persist in calling them sweetheart andor referring |> >to them as sweetheart, and they object. |> >[...] |> (sorry I couldn't find the origional article to get a better quote, so I used this.) You complained that men calling women sweetheart and calling blacks boy is like our referring to you as she. Now, we have a problem here. The first two are second person. Hey, sweetheart! You, boy, come here! I can agree that you have *some* right to ask not to be called by something you don't like in the second person. She is third person. You don't say "Hey, she!" or "You, she, come here!" (well, you do if you're really weird, but that's beside the point.) And you can also say "She's a really nice person" but you can't say "Sweetheart's a really nice person" and have it mean the same. There is nothing wrong with being called she. Are you really that ashamed of your sex that you have to hide it behind masculine pronouns? And do you really think it will make a difference? Every time someone writes 'he' in reference to you, they're lying.