Xref: utzoo news.admin:3006 misc.legal:5216 soc.women:11943 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987 From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women Subject: Proposed lawsuit Summary: Making Usenet abide by EEO/AA laws. Message-ID: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 17 Jul 88 05:20:13 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 141 If you've been reading the net for any length of time, you've seen the same group of people violate my rights repeatedly. Several of them have made it plain that they will not stop unless I sue. It was foolish of me to ever hope otherwise. Sadists and bigots willl not stop torturing people and violating their rights unless they are forced to, and they themselves are the first to admit it. Some of the people violating my rights are untraceable. They use pseudos and post from sites that do not require verification. I have a feeling that upon discovery, their codefendants will name them, so as not to take the entire responsibility upon themselves. Most post from sites that have fewer than 15 employees and do not receive federal funds, and are therefore not subject to EEO laws. That would be fine so long as their postings were not carried by sites that *ARE* subject to EEO laws. Some post from sites with EEO/AA policies, but their employers do not know they are using company resources for personal, discriminatory reasons. Some post from sites that have defrauded the phone company by pretending to be hobbies, when they are actually businesses. Some of the people violating my rights are also defrauding the government by billing the government for time they spend violating my rights, or by using government computers and phone time to violate my rights. There is actually no legal way to discriminate against a person on the basis of sex, however they've gotten away with it *only* because I haven't sued. That was my mistake and I suffered greatly for it. I am tired of suffering. They often ask me not to take my rights seriously, but they seem to take their own rights very seriously indeed. They feel that it is okay for them treat me as a member of a class, female, on the basis of my sex, without regard to my emancipated status, the rights I have fought for and established in federal court, and my preferences. That's not how things work. If one woman prefers "Ms." it does not mean you can refer to all women that way. If an older woman specifically requests to be referred to as Mrs. that woman has a right to be addressed according to individual preference. Not only may a woman be referred to without regard to marital status, but also without regard to sex if he prefers. The fact that bigots have no respect for the Constitutional rights of emancipated women who prefer equal treatment without regard to sex and are accustomed to being treated the same way as men, does not mean that all women have to submit to traditional or stereotypical treatment based upon sex. The law is clear, and disparate treatment based on sex is something women submit to out of habit or socialization, but not something the law requires. The people who have been deliberately violating my rights hundreds and hundreds of times on Usenet, are going to act very indignant when I sue. It is okay for them to violate my rights, but not okay for me to defend my rights. They haven't been calling me slimeball or f*ckhead, or the usual epithets of flamers, they have been making pointed references to my sex. My sex is no different from my religion or ethnicity, except that it is, if anything, even more personal and private. Imagine if they had been making hundreds and hundreds of deliberate references to a person's color or religion. Would you tell that person not to take offense and not to sue? In addition to publishing every detail of my life they could get their hands on, they have mentioned many times that I am emotionally disabled. I have been the victim of much abuse from which I never fully recovered. It is grounds for a civil tort when somebody deliberately and knowingly inflicts emotional distress on someone who is emotionally disabled. Oleg mentions that I'm on disability and Bill Vajk has asked many times why I'm not rich. I'm not rich because I haven't sued the rich people who have been violating my rights hundreds of times publicly, and I intend to remedy that error. The only help I get is the right to sue in forma pauperis, without paying court fees, and to have subpoenas served without any cost to me. I will seek damages from those who can be traced and who have violated my rights repeatedly. I asked them not to, others asked them not to, many people explained the grammar of inclusive pronouns, and the legal issue is perfectly clear. I will also seek to have all sites not subject to EEO/AA laws, dropped from Usenet unless they sign a nondiscrimination pledge, so that other sites cannot be liable for discrimination by people at sites that do not require verification and do not recognize antidiscrimination laws. I will also seek to ensure that no site subject to EEO/AA laws devotes any resources whatsoever to Usenet while it remains a discriminatory activity. That means not one second of computer time, not one moment of phone time, and not one minute of paid employee time. If you feel that violates your rights, you might have spoken up when my rights were being violated. Turn about is fair play. I've endured as much as any human could be expected to, and it is time for the payback. Several of the bigots have stated clearly that unless I sue them and win, they will not stop violating my rights. That's how things stand. I appreciate the email from those who respect my rights and are concerned. I hope that my lawsuit will make Usenet a legal, nondiscriminatory activity that any citizen can participate in without having to fear defamation or discrimination. I had first thought of suing only for that purpose and not seeking monetary damages, but the repeated references to my poverty by Kiselev and Vajk have shown me that that would be a serious mistake. A large part of the reason they do not respect my rights is that I am poor. If defending my rights in court can also remedy my impoverished condition at the expense of those who have been attacking me both for being nontraditional and for being poor, the justice would be not merely righteous, it would be delightfully poetic. Because I have been through this before, I know how to represent myself in court. I also know how to prepare the necessary subpoenas and legal briefs. I know my rights and the law regarding my rights. And I know that unless I sue, the bigots will continue to violate my rights repeatedly. I wasn't born with equal rights--I had to fight for my rights, and they are precious to me. Telling me not to take my rights seriously, is also discriminatory. My legal rights are just as serious as anyone else's. As for the problem of proving the authenticity of postings, there have been sufficient numbers of them from the same people, and suffient known people who have read them and archived them, to resolve any doubts. Most of the bigots are proud that they treat women as members of a class, and not as unique individuals, and brag openly about treating women differently from men on the basis of sex, so there is no problem about proving discrimination. As for proving harm, I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and the emotional distress I sufferred whenever the bigots repeatedly violated my rights, has been documented. And if they try to countersue with their lies and distortions about what I've posted in the past, there are plenty of people who read the originals and will testify to the truth. The difference is that while they claim I said things I didn't, they admit openly that they have repeatedly violated my rights. They simply claim that they will not recognize or respect my rights unless I sue, so I have no choice in the matter. I think the benefits of making Usenet a legal, nondiscriminatory activity, which corporations, universities, and government agencies can legally participate without liability for discrimination, outweighs the inconvenience to those who fear losing their "right" to post articles that are discriminatory or defamatory in nature. The loss of a few outlaw sites and a handful of bigots will result in a lot better signal to noise ratio, more productive discussions, and a more democratic atmosphere. --Mark