At 04:01 PM 5/29/96 -0700, Rich Graves, who lives in a parallel universe where political correctness is no threat to liberty, and the FBI and BATF no threat to law abiding people wrote:
any such law would be invalidated by R.A.V. v. St. Paul. The only exceptions are restrictions on "fighting words" that meet the tests in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and "hostile working environment" discrimination, which I assume is what you're talking about, in some elliptical way.
When I was looking for a house in Oregon, I pointed at the map and asked the real estate lady "Why are houses in this area cheap". She did not give a straight answer I pressed her, and then she then started asking me questions that indicated she suspected I was an agent provocateur from the government trying to entrap her into revealing forbidden information. I eventually discovered that the area in question was occupied predominantly by people of a particular ethnic group, but she was forbidden to tell me this information. This explanation of the price disparity did not occur to me until she started feeling me out to see if I was a cop. But Rich Graves does not regard that sort of thing as any violation on freedom of speech. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com