catallaxy.net

… for silliness rising to unconstitutional levels.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defends the rights of students and faculty to practice their first amendment rights on America’s campuses. This right is shockingly in danger at our bastions of tolerance and communication of course, since we should only be tolerant of certain things…

This week Murray State’s sexual harassment definition was named FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month for its overly broad restrictions such as:

* “Calling a person a doll, babe, or honey”
* “Making sexual innuendoes”
* “Telling sexual jokes or stories”
* “Turning discussions to sexual topics”
* “Looking a person up and down (elevator eyes)”
* “Displaying sexual and/or derogatory comments about men/women on coffee mugs, hats, clothing, etc.”

You read that right. This poorly designed and unfunny coffee mug could potentially be a violation:

But does that mean it is necessarily unacceptable? Actually according to Murray’s website, it does:

UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIORS FALLS INTO 3 CATEGORIES:

1. Behavior that is clearly wrong any time it happens: grabbing someone’s genitals, forced kissing, nasty insults, blocking someone’s way, stalking.

2. Behavior that is offensive to some people and not to others: jokes, language, teasing.

3. Behavior that may or may not be offensive, depending on who is doing it or how it is done (the nature of the relationship) touching, compliments, asking someone out for a date.

So if the coffee mug is offensive to me, it’s unacceptable. Also, requesting dates is unacceptable.

Welcome to free speech on America’s campuses.

[via Will Wilkinson]

Before all the laudatory articles about Fidel Castro and Cuba die down… remember that Cuba is no place for an egalitarian socialist.  The Spectator’s Neil Clark writes:

Stay on the officially approved tourist trail round the newly renovated streets of ‘Old Havana’ and you’d get the impression that Cuba was a tropical version of Switzerland. There are smart restaurants, designer shops and modern hotels. Wander a few streets away, however, and you’ll witness scenes of incredible dereliction. Dilapidated buildings with wires hanging out, streets that haven’t been resurfaced for more than 50 years, balconies that look like they’re going to fall down at any minute. In my travels in the Middle East and Asia, I’ve certainly witnessed squalor, but nothing prepared me for the back streets of Havana.

The average wage in Cuba is a pitiful $17 a month. The monthly ration which includes 283g of fish, 226g of chicken, ten eggs and 1.8kg of potatoes is barely enough for a fortnight, meaning most Cubans need to work the black market to stay alive. Things that we in Britain take totally for granted — such as toilet paper, toothpaste and pens — are luxury goods in Cuba. I’ll never forget the look of joy from an old lady when I handed her a couple of old marker pens and a coloured pencil.

David Adams of the Bluegrass Institute, in opposing a bill to restore voting rights for ex-cons, says that “we hardly need to expand the base of voters electing themselves bigger entitlements from taxpayers.”

Skeptical Cat is fraught with skepticism. After all, if the main objection to restoring voting rights to folks who have done their time is that they might vote for candidates promising free goodies, then would David endorse repealing voting rights for Medicaid and food stamp recipients, state workers (retired and otherwise), public school teachers, members of the military, overtaxed entrepreneurs, mooching war widows or anyone else likely to vote for politicians promising taxpayer-funded freebies?

The problem is that wanting to deny ex-cons the right to vote because they might vote for free stuff doesn’t separate ex-cons from, well, anyone.

Currently, state workers may take a half day so that they have time to vote. I’ve been in favor of the following deal for them: Give state workers a full day off (which they may use at any time) and $500 … if they pledge not to vote.

“I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.” - John McCain

My friends Tom Firey and Jacob Grier had a piece in Sunday’s Washington Post on smoking:

Of course, people have a right to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, no matter what studies show. But they don’t have the right to force everyone else to live according to their preference. Fortunately, the world can accommodate their desires along with those of people who don’t mind tobacco smoke, just as it can accommodate people who like Chinese food and people who prefer hamburgers. Restaurant and bar owners want to make money, and they do so by catering to different market niches. In Northern Virginia, many restaurants and bars advertise that they are smoke-free, while others cater to a smoking crowd. This offering of many different choices is a virtue of open markets. So why would Kaine override the smoking choices of different people and instead impose his preference on all Virginians?

The governor noted his concern for the health of hospitality workers, who may have more exposure to secondhand smoke. But when bar and restaurant owners set their smoking policies, they must consider the preferences of their staff or else they’ll find themselves facing rapid turnover and paying higher wages. Why should all Virginia bar and restaurant workers be forced to work in a nonsmoking environment that only some of them demand?

Liberal societies allow people to make decisions that others don’t like. If some Virginians want to eat and drink in an establishment that allows smoking, and some workers want to work there, and some entrepreneur wants to finance that business, why does the governor think he should overrule them?