Path: utzoo!hoptoad!daisy!inna
From: inna@daisy.UUCP (Inna Lauris)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Message-ID: <793@daisy.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 88 17:48:13 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: inna@daisy.UUCP (Inna Lauris)
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca.
Lines: 40

In article <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:

>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."


>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. 
              ~~~~~
               
 Mark,

 I am a bit confused about the facts of the matter. According to Kennedy's
 ruling there was a 'single utterance' of profanity. If my English is good   
 enough, it means that one jerk uttered some profanity ONCE. 
 If this is the case, than I do agree with judge that there were no sufficient
 grounds for suing . Imagine, if someone at work told me the same thing and I
 would go ahead and file complaint with the company.

 However, if whoever was telling you profanities was doing so systematically
 with the knowledge if not support of higher level managers, then I am as
 outraged as you are. 
 But based on the facts that you presented, it seems that there was one only
 occurence.  Can you please clarify it.

			     Inna


-- 
*****************************************************************
All I ask is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy
             nsc!daisy!inna