More ABUSE from the left in the name of the 1st admendment...

That's my thinking too. Just focusing on that aspect, I don't see how that should be protected at all.

I'll agree with ROXRAN's point, but others seem to just think it's another over the edge rant......I don't know much about ROXRAN's post history, but just looking at this one point, I'd have to agree.

So, what's this woman's address, so we can send her our thoughts?

 

Just a thought, I'm sure the package didn't have a warning label, identifying the contents as potentially hazardous.

There may be a counter-suite right there.

 

This is making mountains out of doggie doo doo.

It's in really bad taste to send someone poop. But whatever, it didn't do any harm and a wise judge would just through this out of court as a waste of taxspayer's money.

 

It doesn't do any harm to squeeze your hot coworkers ass, but it is still harassment and is still against the law. There should be some penalty for sending someone dog****, something along the lines of a fine plus community service.

 

Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, there is such a thing as "symbolic speech." These are actions which are so politically motivated, that they are protected.

These cases are predominantly those involving flag burning. The logic goes such that flag burning is Constitutionally protected because it is, in itself, a political statement.

To protect mailing dog crap as being the same thing is absurd. This isn't a left vs. right issue. This is about an individual who is enough of a wingnut to mail dog crap. There are enough wingnuts to go around. Neither side of the political aisle has a monopoly on it.

 

Totally agree this isn't a Left vs. Right argument as Rightwingers are free to mail dog crap to political oponents too. In fact Rightwingers (and Left) have been freely spewing all sorts of crap for a long time.

As far as protecting this as being absurd I wouldn't go that far. Political statements often offend and this would certainly apply. while this statement is juvenile and disgusting many would consider flag burning as juvenile and disgusting too. The best argument I can see against this is whether there is a potential health hazard to mailing dog poo. If it causes physical harm then that would overrule any free speech argument.

 

Actually, that does do harm. Squeezing a co-workers ass creates an uncomfortable hostile work place that prevents someone from doing their job without fear of intimidation or losing a job/promotion etc...I'm surprised that you would put sexual harassment on the same level and poop mail.

I think the only thing you could do is make the women clean up dog poop somewhere. That would be the just punishment. But let me ask you this, are you now saying you favor that people who commit sexual harrassment just get a fine and community service?

But really - this is just stupid and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

You think getting dog feces in the mail doesn't make you uncomfortable? And why would a woman on the same level as you have any fear of losing her job/promotion because you grabbed her ass? Also, when did I equate any two things in my post? I only said that they shared the no harm done quality. Your whole post makes no sense to me.

As for the penalties for sexual harassment, they ARE on the order of fines and community service. From my limited research (read:2 minutes of googling) typical penalties range from verbal admonition to dismissal.

 

I think getting fired from your job is more serious then a $50 fine.

I think there would be a lot of women who'd find your comments...errrr disturbing regarding equating dog poop in the mail to sexual harrassment.

Getting junk mail from people who know stuff about me makes me uncomfortable too, but that's not going to land someone in community service. It was a dumb joke but the reaction to take the women to court is just disrespecting our institutions.

You just throw it out and report what she did to the media. Show her to be the crass and uncivilized woman she is. But please, don't poop up our legal system anymore then it is. That's worse then sending dog doodoo to someone.

 

Who said anything about a $50 fine. Is getting fired from a job at McDonalds worse that a $100,000 fine? Besides, getting fired is the WORST of a RANGE of consequences for sexual harassment, getting told not to do it again is much more likely on a first offense.

Again I ask the question, where did I equate them? I said they shared one quality. You share the quality of being a member of the species homo sapiens with Albert Einstein, but I don't think anyone is equating the two of you.

You are the one that said the harm in sexual harassment is that it makes someone uncomfortable. Is making someone uncomfortable worth fighting in court or not?

People need to face consequences for unacceptable actions. Why would you be the arbiter of what offenses are worthy of being taken to court and which are not? That seems better left in the hands of the judge and the district attorney's office. The woman felt the desire to press charges, if the DA wants to move forward and the judge wants to hear the case, that is enough to make this case worthy of "pooping up our legal system".

 

There you go again, trying to equate sexual harassment with sending someone doggie doodoo. By saying that they are both equally worthy of similar punishments and being heard by a court of law, you are equating the two.

Anyway, I think you're making moutains out of nothing. There isn't a law against sending it in the mail, unless it's being done to intimidate or harass someone, which wasn't the case here.

No law was violated, it shoudn't even be in court.

 

I'm going to send some poop to you.

 

You are kidding, right? Did you know that it is illegal to mail a dead animal? You have to have a special container, notify the post office, etc. The reason is that there are health consequences.

Feces has been known to cause e-coli, etc. It poses a health hazard.

Protecting such a thing as free speech IS absurd. Completely absurd. Totally absurd. There is nothing about it that fails to be absurd.

 

You seem to have a big problem understanding the concept of equality. Having a common characteristic does not make two things equal. I have facial hair. Hitler and Stalin also had facial hair. I am not Hitler or Stalin. Squeezing a coworkers butt causes no real damage, at worst it make her uncomfortable. Sending someone dog poo likely causes no real damage (there is the potential for health consequences, but it isn't likely) and the primary effect is going to be discomfort for the recipient. That doesn't mean they are equal, they just share that characteristic. Dog feces mailing is not generally considered a sexual act. The person receiving the dog feces may not have to work with the sender (as was the case here). The intent behind the acts is probably the exact opposite (one designed to express attraction, the other revulsion, both in an unacceptable manner). There are many differences. None of the differences suggest that either act should go unpunished.

That was exactly the case here. Did you think she was sending her feces because she thought the recipient really needed some dog crap? She was sending it to harass because she received a mailer that she didn't want.

I'm not up on postal law, but I am pretty sure the DA and the judge will determine if it should be in court, not you.

 

I don't see how that disagrees with what I said. I said if there is a health hazard regarding it then that would overrule a free speech argument. Apparently the court in this case didn't consider it to be a health hazard or not enough of a hazard to merit that being a concern.

Your standard of absurdity though strikes me as highly subjective. Again many have said the same thing regarding protecting flag burning on the basis that flag burning is offensive to many and doesn't deserve free speech protections. Protecting free speech though doesn't mean protecting people from being offended or absurdity.

 

When you start saying that something that is illegal cause no real harm just like sending poop in the mail, there fore it should be illegal to send poop...you're trying to equate two things. If you are arguing semantics, then stop.

Dog poop isn't intimidating. Sending you a deal rat with a note saying you are next...that's intimidating.

Pinching someone on the ass all the time, calling an employee a hot ass that you'd want to lick...that's not harmless. Only from the perspective of a patriarcal good ole boy could someone say that sexual harrassment isn't a big deal. Really...making people uncomfortable is not illegal.

 

Do you want my address?

 

I didn't say mailing someone poop should be illegal because it causes no harm. That is asinine. Saying hello to someone causes no harm, but that does not mean it should be illegal. YOU said mailing poop to someone should be legal because it causes no harm. I provided you a counterexample of something that causes no harm (a person grabbing an equal co-workers butt one time) that is illegal. There was no attempt to equate the two, merely to point out that a lack of harm doesn't mean something cannot be illegal. There are many actions that are harmless but illegal. That was one that i thought illustrated the point well. If you like, replace butt grabbing with smoking a joint, or drinking a beer as a 20 year old. The point was that a lack of harm doesn't make an act inherently legal, and doesn't preclude an act being prosecuted.

Never said it was intimidating, I said it was harassing. If someone sends you back your mailer covered in dog crap, that is harassment or abuse.

I never mentioned any of those things, but if you would like, you can continue to argue against your straw man.

 

That would help, yes.

 

Send it too:

New Yorker,
Somewhere in NY
New York, NY 10005