As a result, one would anticipate that any efforts to hamper speech discussing the appropriate role of women in society would be seen as hampering religious and/or political speech.
However, it also seems to be a basic affront to the notion of equality to suggest that women should have to endure sexually harassing behavior in order to be in the workplace. Speech is, almost without fail, a component of sexual harassment claims. Those who engage in sexually harassing behavior use speech to convey their messages. Sometimes these messages are overt demands that establish cases of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Other times, the speech or symbolic speech is less overt, but, instead, may feature things like provocative pictures of women displayed in the work place.
This overtly sexual speech in the context of sexual harassment cases has not become a significant First Amendment issue is not a surprise. Not only have claimants been reluctant to suggest that such speech has First Amendment protections, but also the courts have dismissed those claims that the speech has been protected (Gerard, 1992-1993). There has been almost no consideration of the fact that any law regulating speech almost certainly has First Amendment implications. This is not a surprise because obscenity and sexually-oriented materials have never received the same degree of protection as other forms of speech.
However, it is possible that the modern political and religious environment might be changing the nature of sexual harassment in the workplace. It has never been necessary to prove quid-pro-quo sexual harassment in order for a claimant to prevail in a sexual harassment claim. On the contrary, all that has been necessary is for the claimant to demonstrate a hostile work environment. Surely a work environment where people are telling a woman that she should be home raising babies instead of in the workplace is as hostile as one where a woman is subjected to lewd photographs or jokes. However, if those statements...
The government has always been permitted to restrict the rights in the Bill of Rights if it can demonstrate a compelling government interest. Sexual harassment impacts not only its victims, but also the workplace, so that the government has a compelling interest in eliminating it, which justifies the First Amendment restrictions (Kent, 1994).
What the discussion of this position makes clear is that Bowie's assertion that basic ethical principles do not vary among cultures takes an oversimplified view of ethics. It does appear that basic ethical guidelines are the same in many cultures: almost all cultures prohibit murder, theft, some forms of sexual assault, and even less criminal forms of wrongdoing such as lying and adultery. However, how these terms are defined vary wildly by culture. Moreover, these cultural impacts on ethical guidelines can have a strong impact on what is perceived as justice by that culture (Shao et al., 2013). Viewed within the context of the United States, where so many people from different cultural and religious backgrounds interact on a daily basis, one would expect to find this conflict in the ideation of what justice means. Some are going to feel that justice in the workplace means that people can work without fear of harassment. Others are going to feel that depriving them of the opportunity to engage in behavior that is considered sexual harassment denies them of justice because it infringes on their rights. It seems that the most logical conclusion is to view rights as ending when they impact the ability of others to enjoy their freedoms. People who believe in the inferiority of women are welcome to speak about that all that they want outside of the context of the workplace, which means that, though limited, their rights are not destroyed by workplace limitations on harassing behavior.
Gerard, J. (1992-1993). The First Amendment in a hostile environment: A primer on free speech and sexual harassment. Notre Dame Law Review, 68, 1003.
Kent, a. (1994). First Amendment defense to hostile environment sexual…
The first type is known as "quid pro quo" harassment and it occurs when someone in power, such as a supervisor or a professor, promises or denies something in exchange for sexual favors. For example, if a boss tells his secretary he will give her a promotion if she sleeps with him, that would qualify as quid pro quo sexual harassment. or, if a professor tells a student that
Legal Brief McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, 375 F. 3 762 (8th Cir. 2004) Type of Action The case covered in this legal brief was the case of an employee of the Arkansas State Police, that being McCurdy, filing an action against the State of Arkansas in the form of the Arkansas State Police, that being her employer. Ms. McCurdy was trying to hold the Arkansas State Police liable for the sexual harassment
Sexual Assault on Universities and College Campuses Introduction to Sexual Assault Sexual assault refers to an involuntary sexual act where an individual is forced to engage in against his or her will (Hoffman, 1998). As the world evolves and becomes more politically correct and more culturally sensitive, certain injustices that might have been swept under the rug in the past are now no longer tolerated, but brought to the light of day
Commonwealth v. Johnson.. 1. List the facts relevant to whether Gail and/or William Johnson’s were protected by the First Amendment Gail and William Johnson were convicted for criminal harassment in the state of Massachusetts. State statutes outline specific prohibitions on spoken or behavioral harassment, including the types of cyberharassment techniques used by Gail and William Johnson. The Johnsons claimed that the statute violated First Amendment rights to free speech, claiming that their
Hate Speech Constitutionality of hate-speech laws and legislation College campus hate-speech codes, Fighting words; hate symbols State interest in regulating hate-speech, Arguments for and against such laws and codes, First Amendment protection of unpopular or offensive speech, Sentence enhancement for bias motivated crimes, Supreme Court handling of hate speech and hate crime issues Constitutionality of hate-speech laws and legislation The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and put into operation in 1789. The 10
Slippery Slope Law / Discrimination The definition of the slope and its legal implications are largely hypothetical. According to Eugene Volokh, an action that is voted in -- say a ban on guns provides with the curtailment of many other things -- like confiscation of guns, costs or data bases and many other legislations that flows into creating a system that was not envisaged in the first place or would have