Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: ACLU Accuses Asian Attorney of Using 'Coded' Racism; Fires Her; ACLU Sued by Government
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:22:07 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <lvd80jlp21shsc9p9bgkhtu05q3rafp8t3@4ax.com>
References: <Z7adnT2Sdef_TJz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <jrr30j926orq1m3o5c8h8p3t5pbetcl8hb@4ax.com> <3ik70jhvuoqa1gprhmr40l260eenl744ri@4ax.com> <kiu70jp5alf4m1e8hgu7c5bq1dumt79h26@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:22:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d9f4cc4fc1eefb0314cb9a3eb375ab5d";
	logging-data="3074252"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7evBAjhOrAVRVAOf8O8E/4goJLGhB0Lc="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:swd2NPv5ehN8dANGoN+3iq6Jm/Y=
Bytes: 5385

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:04:15 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 01:05:55 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:59:52 -0400, shawn
>><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And there is the major issue. It does not matter what she thought but
>>>only what others thought or at least said they thought. Been there
>>>done that where I was accused of something similar by someone who
>>>remained nameless but who I'm sure I know because she was known to be
>>>a troublemaker. Luckily in my case it wasn't taken as seriously given
>>>that there was no evidence I did anything, but in Ms Oh's case it
>>>doesn't matter that she did nothing wrong, but that her complaints
>>>ended up bothering her colleagues enough that they finally complained.
>>
>>So if that's to be the new "standard" I could be in trouble for having
>>some 8-10 years ago trolled a newly re-elected school board trustee
>>(at an election night part) by CORRECTLY (and I made darned sure I
>>did!) using the word 'niggardly' then when she reacted said "Marcy you
>>and I have known each other for 10+ years and I'm pretty sure you know
>>me well enough to know I would NEVER use that rather nasty word that
>>sounds a lot like the word I actually used and more importantly used
>>correctly. And if part of the job of being a school trustee does not
>>involve supporting correct use of the language I surely don't know
>>what it might be?!?"
>>
>>Under THIS doctrine I could be in trouble even if the trustee was as
>>in this case white.
>>
>>Which is a very very sad day for America.
>
>Luckily it's not the new standard but it is what some people desire to
>see a standard. It's no different than what we see in some other
>countries like the UK with their hate speech rules where calling some
>one a name can be enough to get you in trouble with the law. That can
>even fall to calling someone by the wrong gender name.
>
>Then there is the case of Tasmania where they apparently have the rule
>that you are not allowed to use the image of a politician without
>prior approval from that politician. The specific rule is:
>
> 196. Candidate names can not be used without authority
> A person must not between the issue of the writ for an election
> and the close of poll at that election point print, publish or
> distribute any advertisement, "how to vote" card, handbill, pamphlet,
> poster or notice which contains the name, photograph or a likeness
> of a candidate or intending candidate at that election without the 
> written consent of the candidate.
>
>This rule was used to have a video from the Juice Media making fun of
>the Tasmanian government removed due to their use of an image of the
>Premier. Of course they responded in typical fashion with a new video
>that puts the situation in proper light. 
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K64JNg4Nwqk
>
>The point being there are always going to be some people who go
>overboard in trying to control others. Some times it's just about
>having that control, some times it's to be able to protect themselves
>and their position. The latter seemingly being what was going on with
>Ms. Oh where in she was being too annoying to the management so they
>found a way to get rid of her as I find it hard to believe they felt
>the cases mentioned where really justification for her firing.


Wow, so Scotland has very much bought into this idea. Before now you
could say what ever you wanted in your own home but if you made a
racial slur intended (?) to stir up hatred then you fell afoul of the
law.  

"A person commits an offence if the person behaves in a manner that a
reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or
insulting."  Now if you commit the offence against someone by race,
age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trangender identity and
variations in sex characteristics you've broken the law. In addition
you can commit the offence in a conversation within your own home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwILW3RohV0

So Ms Oh should be glad she's not working in Scotland or else the
police might have been paying her a visit.