Can't provide links but I've heard of many lawsuits where they are based on a person suing a person, company or state for getting their feelings hurt. Is that the reason for consolation prizes and paying just for fun at sporting events?
2007-01-05 13:20:29 · 12 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes we are that politically correct but I couldn't find any links either. I did see something on defamation. You're not that far off base regarding sports events. It reminds me of the schools that don't post the honor roll or banner roll students as to not hurt the others feelings. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/10509779/detail.html
You can bank on it that I am NOT raising my children to be politically correct!!
2007-01-05 13:48:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, sure! Its the American Way. The overwhelming sense of entitlement many people carry around like a backpack is a real pain in the neck. Its a double-edged thing, too; most such issues are childish piffles unworthy of legal action and it takes easily 2-5 years to get ANYTHING resolved. The Law moves like a glacier. If any other business behaved like that, it would go under within 6 months, tops. You don't get the "justice" you pay for even if you HAVE the money and most of us don't. Asking "The Law" for real help is like asking a Klansman to help you set up a picnic for an NAACP rally. Even if it works out, the carrying fee turns your privates into goose live pate.
Threatening to sue someone is a massive joke. It generally resolves nothing until everyone involved has been dragged along for ages. By then, any "win" is a pale thing at best. Lawyers really ARE the only ones who win in the end, because they're the ones to whom the resolution matters the least personally. Worse yet, they'll almost never give you a genuine straight answer to anything, which really rubs salt into the proceedings over time.
If someone wants to sue you over their hurt widdle feelings, go ahead and whack the crap out of them. It'll drag along in court for years, their revenge will be a shriveled thing by then and you'll still have the fond memory of whacking them to keep you warm on cold nights. God Bless Numerica! Sorry, I have issues, heh heh.
2007-01-05 13:40:42 · answer #2 · answered by gamerathon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason that people can sue for hurt feelings is because precedents have been handed down on those subjects. And it is, after all, up to the jury and judge to decide whether the claims have merit.
There was a fascinating and funny episode of L.A. Law back about 16 years ago in which a man, who wears a toupee, suing the TV show that invited him to come on the air and give a brief speech about Russian policy and, while he was speaking, they yanked his toupee off his head in order to mock and humiliate him. He didn't sue just because his feelings were hurt, but also because the incident on TV also resulted in him getting fired from his position as a college instructor. ("The dean told me that they couldn't have a teacher whom the students didn't take seriously.") This L.A. Law episode was just fiction, of course, but it can remind us that these kinds of lawsuits aren't frivolous.
2007-01-05 13:27:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of balance. Society has to balance the competing individual rights of liberty and security (which have constitutional dimensions). I have the right to call someone a "poo poo head" and they have the right to be free from emotional attack.
My right wins out in that case because society recognizes that the harm done by allowing that kind of speech is minimal while the harm done by prohibiting it is large. (Imagine never being able to speak your mind out of fear of hurting someone's feelings).
In some cases, the balance shifts the other way, yelling "fire" in a theater is a popular example. Allowing this sort of speech can create a a lot of danger while prohibiting this kind of speech doesn't cause a lot of harm.
Rest assured however that the media's portrayal of legal events is often skewed (due in no small part to the difficulty of boiling down a complex legal issue to a headline and blurb). A lot of legal cases get passed from word of mouth and get twisted along the way until they seem ludicrous (Like the McDonald's hot-coffee case, which is more complicated than the media makes it seem).
2007-01-05 13:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a person at work is constantly offensive to other people beliefs or sexual orientation and the manager or HR does not intervene in a timely manner, then yes a lawsuit could be warranted.
2007-01-05 13:35:12 · answer #5 · answered by 6th Finger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Drew Carey had a great show on this. He'd posted a cartoon of a catepillar asking a french fry out on a date or something to that effect and a co-worker was suing him for emotional distress at having to see the cartoon.
2007-01-05 13:25:35 · answer #6 · answered by Shrieking Panda 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hurt feeling alone will not justify a lawsuit. However Many a hurt feeling has triggered off lawsuits.
2007-01-05 13:24:35 · answer #7 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a combination of PC and a tort law system gone awry.
I think we need a law that says, "it doesn't matter who gets hurt as long as it's funny". That would save a lot of court time currently being wasted on this stuff.
2007-01-05 13:37:26 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question, and yes your right. Stupid for people to do this. See why some courts are over loaded, the petty crap like this.
2007-01-05 13:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by m c 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your statement is offensive take it back or I'll sue you.
Ha Ha Ha
2007-01-05 13:29:53 · answer #10 · answered by sean e 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋