• jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    The heart of the A.C.L.U.’s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.

    I was disheartened reading about this. I don’t know that the ACLU really had grounds to terminate her

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      She parroted a well known line about, “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” This is a not-uncommon way of saying that a situation sucks, especially as relates to power-dynamics. Complete bullshit to characterize that as anything else. I will think twice before donating to the ACLU again.

  • hypnotoad@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I read this expecting to be on the ACLUs side. As a pretty liberal guy… I don’t see it. Sounds like they don’t like her speaking up is all.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Tbh the ACLU is a pale shadow of its former self. The pivot took over a decade, but is no longer a an organization driven by the philosophy of defending all civil rights and is instead ruled by more specific politics of the day. I wish that FIRE was better, but because it’s not we’re stuck with the ACLU.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Also, the main solution to workplace concerns like this is to discuss it. Tell them that you feel uncomfortable with that kind of language and give them chances to use better language. You can’t fire someone with no notice for making minor mistakes when they have not been given the chance to improve. Escalating personal conflicts to legal conflicts is not the way to resolve them.

    • wagesj45@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is perfectly consistent to be liberal and fully in favor of Free Speech™.

      • hypnotoad@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Can your explain your comment? I’m unsure what the TM here is supposed to imply. Not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely unsure lol and trying to learn

        • wagesj45@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          I just add the ™ because people online seem to get so worked up over free speech issues. Usually because they believe in it except for the things they don’t like. Just poking fun of how contentious the concept is despite everyone saying they believe in it cause only their version of free speech counts.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well then you’ll like me, because I am in no way a free speech absolutist. Nazi glorification and other hate speech should be banned in the U.S. like it is in Germany because it is an implicit threat of violence. Confederate monuments should similarly be banned.

            A nation that allows glorification of such things is doing something majorly wrong. We have a cliff in Atlanta with portraits of Confederates on it for the whole fucking city to see. Black people in Atlanta have a constant reminder of their ancestors being in chains. That should not be legal and Stone Mountain should be sandblasted.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was “afraid” to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was “chastising.” And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses’ behavior to suffering “beatings.”

    These coded racist micro-aggressive verbal assaults must be stopped at all costs. ACLU should ban staff from speaking at all times. All communication will happen via a laminated sheet of 12 carefully vetted non-offensive emoji. Should staff want to communicate, they can point at the most appropriate emoji while gesturing to the other party.

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      On top of that, she was using beatings in the context of ‘beatings will continue until morale improves’, a well known idiom and obviously not to be taken literally. WTF happened to the ACLU? I would have expected them to be filling amicus curiae briefs on the other side, normally

      • thesilverpig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think the Trump presidency really warped them and their supporters to be more identarian stalwarts as opposed to the ideologically pillar able to defend the worst people for the right reasons.

  • solo@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I don’t trust the judicial system to handle systemic racism. Also, I can’t say I fully understand this case. Intersectionality is a great analysis tool to use in situations like this, no matter what the outcome of the trial will be.