Xref: utzoo misc.legal:3160 soc.men:2286 soc.women:8690 soc.motss:3256 alt.flame:1180
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!aurora!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Message-ID: <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 88 16:09:01 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 70

In article <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn (Vincent Manis) writes:
>Not reading any other Usenet group but soc.motss, I'm not cognisant of
>(or interested in) the issues involved.  However, I found the language
>so offensive that I sent a message to postmaster@killer....

>Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither
>the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>protects other people's right to puke on my shoes.

Canada must be a very nice country, Vincent.  Here's a ruling from
Anthony "Tony" Kennedy, Reagan's nominee to the United States
Supreme Court, in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case _Smith v Bowles_,
Docket Number 83-2727:

"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
federal or state court."

In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they
lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not
to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack
me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net.  But
since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit.
The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.

Judge Kennedy admitted that it was not an official federal duty,
being against both Navy and civil service rules, but found that
it had been properly removed on the basis stated above.  He illegally
ruled that the case was properly removed on grounds other than those
used to remove it. 

You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
Judge Kennedy's act.  The government can only remove a case to
federal court, if the act is entitled to federal immunity.  If
the act is not entitled to federal immunity, the case should be
remanded.  It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.

I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a
homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman
or emotionally disabled (I am), but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy
found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal
matter.  But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset
about the recent posting by the pseudo.  Is everybody emotionally
disabled like me?  Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and
Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to
eat fecal matter.  Obviously this is the way to treat people who
are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live
and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for
profits, and for profanity.  There is no protection for people or
for economic, human, and civil rights.  There are laws, but Judge
Kennedy, as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, will make sure
they are not enforced.

For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
with a different sexual preference.  You simply tell them to eat
fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint.  If
they quit, you've won.  If they need the job too badly, you just
keep it up until they file a complaint, and then call them
disruptive for filing the complaint and fire them.  Judge Kennedy
will take care of the legal matters, so you have nothing to worry
about.  Hire the disadvantaged, harass them intolerably, and then
either they quit, or they complain and you can fire them.  If they
try to talk back, you can accuse them of attacking people or
being disruptive, although why it is okay for others but not for
them is not something the court will ever discuss.

--Mark