In Meritor v. Vinson in 1986, the SCOTUS created (discovered?) a "right" that had not existed in federal law or the US constitution previously. Specifically, when Congress and the President enacted Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1963, they had unwittingly created this new American "right", one that qualified the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Specifically, the Court's Meritor decision stated that
>"Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult."
In this way, an agency of the Federal government could punish some employees, and their employers, constitutionally for the "expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death" (in the words of Justice Holmes), if those loathsome opinions created an environment that some other employee(s) believed was NOT "free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult"
For example, if an employer permitted an employee to display a symbol of some kind in the workplace that one or more other employees found to sufficiently offensive as to create an environment that was NOT "free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult," perhaps a Nazi or Soviet or Confederate or Symbionese Liberation Army flag, or a portrait of Jefferson Davis or Pol Pot, the offended employee could now call upon an agency of the federal government to employ the force of law to compel its removal constitutionally.
Hence, the Meritor decision appears to conflict with or limit the "imminent lawless action" standard that the SCOTUS had created in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Is this correct?
Since the purpose of speech (or "verbal conduct" as the EEOC labels it [somewhat disingenuously, IMO]) is to create an environment for its audience inherently, doesn't the Meritor decision permit an agency of the federal government to enforce censorship in direct violation of the First Amendment?
Can the expression of opinions that create a discriminatory environment in the minds of some employees be a lawless action, ipso facto?
Are the words used to express discriminatory thoughts, even those that intimidate, ridicule, and insult their listeners, lawless actions?
Is discriminatory speech synonymous with discriminatory conduct, which permits the former to be punished constitutionally by a latter-day version of George Orwell's Thinkpol within the EEOC?
Applying the Brandenburg standard to the Me
... keep reading on reddit ➡Has anyone ever found the news story that showed the KKK meeting at issue in this case?
Essentially, to fall outside of the protective reach of the Brandenburg case, speech must expressly advocate law violation, not merely create a clear and present danger that such violation may occur, and it must likely produce effects imminently.
What do others think about this?
How can this be problematic?
Have thoughts about The Game? Post it here instead of making your own thread, please. Posts about The Game may be removed and redirected to this post.
Quellen:
https://www.facebook.com/afdfraktion/posts/2621905621425306
https://www.rbb-online.de/imparlament/brandenburg/2020/15-april-2020/15__april_2020_-_12__Sitzung_des_Brandenburger_Landtags1/gesetz-zur-sicherstellung-der-handlungsfaehigkeit-der-brandenbur.html (min 9:00 - min 14:00)
Via
https://www.facebook.com/janredmannwittstock/posts/2676772052566033
