Is Hate Code Speech?
I've searched the web and newsgroups several times, and found no mention of "Willa Jackson". I find it unlikely that this is real. Despite my respect for Mr. Geiger, I must disagree - I don't find the suit frivolous at all. Briefly, I think that anyone who maintains software will agree that naming variables & functions by any standard other than that of their function is poor programming practice, and impedes maintenance. Clearly the authors of the code had some intent other than that of writing maintainable code. The fact that there were one or more coherent themes in the names chosen indicates that their agenda was probably coherent. The fact that management took no action when informed of this indicates a complicity. In essence, I believe that we are all entitled to a workplace free of hate, and full of respect for our professional abilities. For sheer economic reasons, I think that the management of any responsible firm will act to ensure that (respect is worth quite a few $$ in compensation). I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that code, it should be held to a standard of professionalism.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <9808261651.AA06929@atreus.noname>, on 08/26/98 at 11:51 AM, mcw@atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil said:
I've searched the web and newsgroups several times, and found no mention of "Willa Jackson". I find it unlikely that this is real.
Despite my respect for Mr. Geiger, I must disagree - I don't find the suit frivolous at all.
Briefly, I think that anyone who maintains software will agree that naming variables & functions by any standard other than that of their function is poor programming practice, and impedes maintenance. Clearly the authors of the code had some intent other than that of writing maintainable code. The fact that there were one or more coherent themes in the names chosen indicates that their agenda was probably coherent. The fact that management took no action when informed of this indicates a complicity.
In essence, I believe that we are all entitled to a workplace free of hate, and full of respect for our professional abilities. For sheer economic reasons, I think that the management of any responsible firm will act to ensure that (respect is worth quite a few $$ in compensation).
I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that code, it should be held to a standard of professionalism.
Yes but should this "standard" be enforced by law? Last time I looked there was no Constitutional right not to be offended. There is a very strong Constitutional right to freedom of speech and the courts have long ruled that it is not just popular speech that is protected. IMHO, this whole matter is an internal company matter. The courts and politicians should have no say in it. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Windows? WINDOWS?!? Hahahahahehehehehohohoho... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNeREH49Co1n+aLhhAQFOMAP/XfSLbwpHMjGhoAdRX/lVsO1o8Esu+Zzk xbTscHRO8Kw8pEHZkc3PJ9jX/sHy4sd5+LCul6sNjR1pK4s3zwkVAwd3/MbHuW4S JoFBr6k/myD675LAMgYFpkecntmCN6XPxNmsLFtawPURMAUmu0vAyCgmM9w7smTo VIcI3N6C3mU= =mJTj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Yes but should this "standard" be enforced by law? Last time I looked there was no Constitutional right not to be offended.
Yet harassment is actionable. Nutty, huh? And it's just the tip of the iceberg: apparently the law protects you from being severely beaten, despite the fact that there is no explicit constitutional right not to be severely beaten. Not trying to equate harassment with a severe beating, just pointing out that the lack of an explicit constitutional right does not magically nullify the rest of the law.
strong Constitutional right to freedom of speech and the courts have long ruled that it is not just popular speech that is protected.
Indeed, "popular" speech is, almost by definition, the kind of speech that never really needs protection. That first amendment wouldn't have much of a purpose if it only protected popular stuff.
IMHO, this whole matter is an internal company matter. The courts and politicians should have no say in it.
It WAS an internal company matter, apparently, but the company didn't seem to do anything to remedy it. That's when you turn to law. -Caj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.SUN.3.91.980826132122.4771A-100000@baker>, on 08/26/98 at 01:40 PM, Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu> said:
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Yes but should this "standard" be enforced by law? Last time I looked there was no Constitutional right not to be offended.
Yet harassment is actionable. Nutty, huh? And it's just the tip of the iceberg: apparently the law protects you from being severely beaten, despite the fact that there is no explicit constitutional right not to be severely beaten.
Not trying to equate harassment with a severe beating, just pointing out that the lack of an explicit constitutional right does not magically nullify the rest of the law.
No, it does not, but unlike beating I *do* have a Constitutional right to be objectionable as I want with my speech. A good example is the Nazi march in Skokie,IL. The SC ruled that they had a right to march despite the fact that the large Jewish community there was quite offended by it.
strong Constitutional right to freedom of speech and the courts have long ruled that it is not just popular speech that is protected.
Indeed, "popular" speech is, almost by definition, the kind of speech that never really needs protection. That first amendment wouldn't have much of a purpose if it only protected popular stuff.
IMHO, this whole matter is an internal company matter. The courts and politicians should have no say in it.
It WAS an internal company matter, apparently, but the company didn't seem to do anything to remedy it. That's when you turn to law.
I see, so if a company and it's employees exercise their Constitutionally protect right of free speech and does not stop exercising that right when someone complains then the courts should take over? How does this match with your agreement that the 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech? - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: DOS=HIGH? I knew it was on something... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNeRfzI9Co1n+aLhhAQESSQP+JLyUGOJImWZ8OU9fp2/HpLS89NGmznFN tTdy/fVBOJxZzj+WVaNgy1fIYpgv/4VvLl+PWGDfH3ZpItTn+bj368vAQnv+UcVc ywHHDtLANyAHQqqioz733Zz7D5/KoZ98pei6lGsHzB4kie+3uqaCT4XoSx/LnUpg z8N0s4gKtXE= =JuvM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Not trying to equate harassment with a severe beating, just pointing out that the lack of an explicit constitutional right does not magically nullify the rest of the law.
No, it does not, but unlike beating I *do* have a Constitutional right to be objectionable as I want with my speech.
Right. And other people have a legal recourse against you if your free speech does something tangibly damaging. Inciting a riot, for instance, or commiting slander, or committing mail fraud. Now, something not tangibly damaging, like harassment, is not so clear cut. But that's why a judge or jury of your peers has to agree before you're forced to pay damages.
A good example is the Nazi march in Skokie,IL. The SC ruled that they had a right to march despite the fact that the large Jewish community there was quite offended by it.
Yes. And those same courts would consider it harassment if a manager in a company, which has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis, started cc-mailing anti-Jewish diatribe where Jewish employees would see it.
I see, so if a company and it's employees exercise their Constitutionally protect right of free speech and does not stop exercising that right when someone complains then the courts should take over?
You seem to be painting this as the government "stepping in," rather than one of the parties involved going TO the gov't (i.e., taking it to the courts) for help. The answer to your question is YES: the whole reason civil law exists is so you can resolve disputes that can't get resolved otherwise.
How does this match with your agreement that the 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech?
The same way libel laws coexist with the 1st Amendment. It's a gross oversimplification to believe that the 1st amendment absolves you of all legal consequences of the things you say. Do you consider libel law unconstitutional? how about copyright law? Do you think it's wrong that you can get in trouble for sending people death threats? Obscene phone calls? Publishing _Jurassic Park_ in your name? Telling people that you can cure their cancer for $100 cash? Hey, it's all speech. Maybe in an alternate universe where the constitution is scribbled in crayon on 1-inch ruled paper, you can say anything you want and neener-neener to anyone who gets hurt. But here in objective reality it's much more complex. -Caj
participants (3)
-
mcw＠atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil -
William H. Geiger III -
Xcott Craver