🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2782@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> gbarnet@uswnvg.com (Gary Barnette) writes:
>
[asking about legal problems with offensive sexist and racist material
in news]

>Our company has a policy for plurlism and against racism and sexism. 
>Some people think that to allow sexist and racist news articles
>of this type on our systems is therefore against company policy
>and should not be allowed. Has anyone else out there run into
>the append contradiction?
>
[...]

>I am NOT for censorship of any kind. I'm just trying to learn 
>what others have done so that I may be better informed to deal with
>the problem.

   I think that if you are considering banning an entire method of
communication because someone _may_ be offended by some small individual
unit, then you have worse problems than racism and sexism.
  
   Given that your company is a private organization, and not an academic
institution, you are free to do what you will without complaint from
outsiders. There isn't a free speech issue or an academic freedom issue.

   I can't imagine any legal problems comming from getting news. Certainly
it would be absurd to suggest that sexist remarks in alt.feminism could
create a hostile work environment, or some such thing.

   From your article, you suggest that there has already been complaints.
What are they about? What groups in particular?

   Personally, I will look for news access as a perk in whatever jobs I 
try to get. And I certainly wouldn't want the 'company' to go out of it's
way to protect me from such evils as sexism or free expression.

DanZ

-- 
    "I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
     foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
                                                     -Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.