Tim May wrote:

You seem to fundammentally misunderstand the situation. The reason the Personnel Commissar is ordering sensitivity training, workshops, and is requiring that posters of Brittny Spears be removed from office walls is because government and lawyers have made companies liable in various ways for "discriminatory" or "sexist" or suchlike behaviors.

I may have killed my point in editing. Laws are the result of people using their property to advance their agenda. When harassment laws were proposed, companies chose not to use their property to fight these laws. Today when they give into these laws rather than fight them, they are again making a decision about how they use their property. Companies tend to value their property more than they value the free expression of their employees. Is this surprising? Is it wrong? Should companies be compelled to value the free expression of their employees higher? I don't like the current situation with zero-tolerance policies and all that any more than you do, but it's not the result of living in an unfree society. It's the result of living in a society with different values than our own. In other words, to get the freedoms we want, we have to take away other freedoms.

You're really missing the point, aren't you? Go back and think about the issues more deeply.

I'll always miss the point of people complaining they don't live in a free society when they use reasoning that indicates they don't really want to live in a free society. In a previous incarnation of this message, which appears to have gone into the darkness, I made a rushed point about free societies either being impossible or being a truth. I'll skip that this time and just ask this: do you mean to be complaining about not living in a free society or are you really complaining about not living in a society with a higher value on personal freedoms?