This is an outrage.

The Gadsen flag is a flag of rebellion.

If the Gadsen flag is illegal it IS time for rebellion.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/8110/eeoc-decides-gadsen-flag-
racist-hank-berrien?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=
email&utm_content=080516-news-title&utm_campaign=six



[image: Description:
http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/ap35317424590.jpg?itok=6ZR_ZGKC]
EEOC Decides Gadsen Flag Is Racist

Daily Wire
<http://www.dailywire.com/news/8110/eeoc-decides-gadsen-flag-racist-hank-berrien?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=080516-news-title&utm_campaign=six>
|

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has now taken the position
that displaying the Gadsden flag (AKA the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag)
constitutes racial harassment.

As UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh points out in , the EEOC decided the case
of *Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan*

What logic did “Sheldon D.” use to make his accusation? That the 18th
century designer of the flag, Christopher Gadsden, was a “slave trader &
owner of slaves.” He also contended that Gadsden Flag is a “historical
indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea
Party.”

At first, the EEOC seems rational, stating, “ … it is clear that the
Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context.
Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to
express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the
modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic
displays, and by the military.”

But with a chance to put the fear of government into the workplace, the
EEOC continues, “However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the
symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey
racially-tinged messages in some contexts. For example, in June 2014,
assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies
of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las
Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.”

Great. Two nutcases use the Gadsen flag, and suddenly the flag’s historic
meaning has no relevance any more?

Wait, it gets even more ridiculous. The EEOC asserts, “Additionally, in
2014, African-American New Haven firefighters complained about the presence
of the Gadsden flag in the workplace on the basis that the symbol was
racially insensitive.”

On what basis, pray tell? Because some people ascribe nefarious motives to
a symbol of revolution against tyranny we have to take them seriously?

Volokh cogently delineates how dangerous such a position is:

Let’s think about how this plays out in the workplace. Imagine that you are
a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more
than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal
liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.”
An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t
Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car
parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the
coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile
environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The
employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has
been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in
lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially
insensitive.”

Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into
suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope,
I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees
keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you *may* do as a matter of
your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the
question is whether *the government* is pressuring you to suppress speech
that conveys certain viewpoints.)

Then Volokh extrapolates from the decision at hand to the current political
climate:

Now let’s get to the 2016 election campaign. Say someone wears “Trump/Pence
2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on his car in the
work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle wall, or just says
on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t say any racial or
religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t even express any
anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such views, I think, should
be protected by the First Amendment against the threat of
government-imposed liability).

But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message
“tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously
“insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an
employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of
liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech?


------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>



__._,_.___
------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNnNhY3IwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NzA0OTk5MzA->


[image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbWZhaXU1BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3MDQ5OTkzMA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to