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