Re: ACLU Accuses Asian Attorney of Using 'Coded' Racism; Fires Her; ACLU Sued by Government

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.