California Court F***s Up: Sexual Harassment Allowed In Creative Process

Crass or Creative? Harassment Case Involving 'Friends' Sitcom Reaches Calif. Justices
Mike McKee - The Recorder: 02-16-2006

"On Tuesday, the justices of the California Supreme Court seemed inclined to keep their fingers -- and jurors' second-guessing -- out of the creative process that helped breathe life into his sex-obsessed character, and others, on the sitcom "Friends." The court, in a case televised live by the California Channel, had been asked to rule that writers' sexually crude comments and simulations while hashing out TV scripts could constitute sexual harassment serious enough to cause a hostile work environment, especially for women and minorities. But the six justices on hand for oral arguments appeared uncomfortable with the thought of forcing writers to curb their thoughts, words and actions even if they often push the boundaries of sexual harassment.

On the face of it, this would appear to be stand for free speech and a blow against the political correctness of the workplace. However, read on:

Tuesday's case was filed by Amaani Lyle, a former writer's assistant for "Friends," who claimed that the vulgar language and graphic antics used by the show's male writers during her four-month employment in 1999 subjected her to a hostile work environment. She argued that constant talk about ---- ---, **** jobs, "sch@@@gs" and degrading descriptions of women as "b#@$%es" and "c&^%s" had nothing to do with the show -- which was much tamer on air -- and was simply lewd, frat-boy entertainment for the writers.

The terms that are blocked out in this quote are clearly vulgar, sexual in nature and would in the minds of most reasonable persons rise to the level of creating a sexually charged hostile environment in the workplace.

I am a strong advocate of free speech and an antagonist to political correctness that would preclude most forms of free speech. I even oppose the sexual harassment statutes because they are overly broad, vague, arbitrary and limiting of most free speech in the owrkplace. But these words are just plain offensive, hateful and harmful. If they were merely offensive and hateful, they would be protected by the Constitution... and rightfully so. However, these words and behaviors crossed the constitutionally protected line when they became harmful and infringed upon the rights of others.

"This case is unique, is it not, in that it arises in the context of this creative environment," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said.

No, it is NOT unique. That statement, taken in any context, is nothing more than politically correct bovine excrement.

"The writers and Warner Brothers Television Productions, which produced "Friends," responded by claiming that dirty talk and lewd actions -- such as simulating masturbation -- were part of the free-rolling, creative process that made "Friends" one of the most popular shows ever on TV."
Part of the creative process in a pig's eye! Who the hell are they trying to kid?

"It was one of the tools of the trade," Adam Levin, a partner at Los Angeles' Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp who represented the writers and Warner Brothers, told the justices Tuesday.

Bovine excrement! As a writer of fiction and non-fiction, I do not need to harm others, behave in a socially inexplicable manner, or be that offensive to be funny, creative or effective. This is like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater with the intent of causing a rush for the door when there is no fire. It is not protected speech, not part of the creative process and not a tool of the trade.

On appeal, Warner Brothers and several amici curiae -- including the Motion Picture Association of America, Feminists for Free Expression and the University of California regents -- warned about the possible chilling effect the ruling could have were it to be upheld.

Chilling effect my a@@! There should be a chilling effect on speech that harms others, infringes the rights of others, or asserts reasonableness when all reason has been abandoned. I can defend the right to produce or watch pornography, shout epithets, or even advocate the overthrow of a government... But there are limits.