Offensive speech

[CO. Hoosier]

Hogan, Lovells is among the highest of A-list law firms. It represents clients world wide with hundreds of lawyers. Its lawyers assuredly have the highest skills of advocacy with confidence and sel-assurance. Skillful lawyers are not easily traumatized by speech, nor would they be easily offended. This is why I think the story below reported by John Turley is so surprising and strange.

Apparently at a meeting of the female members of HL, one attorney expressed agreement with the SCOTUS Dobbs (abortion) decision. long story short, some of the female attorneys were traumatized by that comment and as a result the attorney who expressed agreement was shown the door ending a long career.

I will never understand how anybody can be so offended by speech. I recognize the argument in terms of personal insults and the like, but this is about a legal opinion which carries weighty arguments on both sides. Good attorneys ought to take these issues in stride and move on.

Ya have to wonder how the female attorneys who became offended ever survived law school, or how they even survive contentious and heated client issues.

Yet, I shouldn’t be surprised. This is simply nothing more than an ignore button but in a different context. A while back I posed the question about whether this super-sensitivity is a result of what I called toxic femininity. Emotions and feelings are becoming too important throughout life and business.

“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingl…

jonathanturley.org

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

This is simply nothing more than an ignore button but in a different context.

I don't know what this means.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't know what this means.

I’ve always thought people use ignore buttons to save themselves from expression they don’t want to see or hear. Firing the HL partner for speech is like pushing the ignore button.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I’ve always thought people use ignore buttons to save themselves from expression they don’t want to see or hear. Firing the HL partner for speech is like pushing the ignore button.

Oh no. It's much, much worse.

Ignoring someone doesn't hurt the person being ignored. They fired her, for Chrissakes.

I ignore a lot of posters here who don't offer anything other than personal insults, or unthinking parroting, or insincerity. Life is too short to hear that drivel.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Hogan, Lovells is among the highest of A-list law firms. It represents clients world wide with hundreds of lawyers. Its lawyers assuredly have the highest skills of advocacy with confidence and sel-assurance. Skillful lawyers are not easily traumatized by speech, nor would they be easily offended. This is why I think the story below reported by John Turley is so surprising and strange.

Apparently at a meeting of the female members of HL, one attorney expressed agreement with the SCOTUS Dobbs (abortion) decision. long story short, some of the female attorneys were traumatized by that comment and as a result the attorney who expressed agreement was shown the door ending a long career.

I will never understand how anybody can be so offended by speech. I recognize the argument in terms of personal insults and the like, but this is about a legal opinion which carries weighty arguments on both sides. Good attorneys ought to take these issues in stride and move on.

Ya have to wonder how the female attorneys who became offended ever survived law school, or how they even survive contentious and heated client issues.

Yet, I shouldn’t be surprised. This is simply nothing more than an ignore button but in a different context. A while back I posed the question about whether this super-sensitivity is a result of what I called toxic femininity. Emotions and feelings are becoming too important throughout life and business.

“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingl…

jonathanturley.org

By the way, she went a little further than just expressing agreement with Dobbs; she went on to to cite the higher incidence of abortion among black women and then apparently called it genocide.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Hogan, Lovells is among the highest of A-list law firms. It represents clients world wide with hundreds of lawyers. Its lawyers assuredly have the highest skills of advocacy with confidence and sel-assurance. Skillful lawyers are not easily traumatized by speech, nor would they be easily offended. This is why I think the story below reported by John Turley is so surprising and strange.

Apparently at a meeting of the female members of HL, one attorney expressed agreement with the SCOTUS Dobbs (abortion) decision. long story short, some of the female attorneys were traumatized by that comment and as a result the attorney who expressed agreement was shown the door ending a long career.

I will never understand how anybody can be so offended by speech. I recognize the argument in terms of personal insults and the like, but this is about a legal opinion which carries weighty arguments on both sides. Good attorneys ought to take these issues in stride and move on.

Ya have to wonder how the female attorneys who became offended ever survived law school, or how they even survive contentious and heated client issues.

Yet, I shouldn’t be surprised. This is simply nothing more than an ignore button but in a different context. A while back I posed the question about whether this super-sensitivity is a result of what I called toxic femininity. Emotions and feelings are becoming too important throughout life and business.

“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingl…

jonathanturley.org

Sounds like she was fired not for her abortion opinion, but for her offensive comments about black women.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

By the way, she went a little further than just expressing agreement with Dobbs; she went on to to cite the higher incidence of abortion among black women and then apparently called it genocide.

Sounds like she was fired not for her abortion opinion, but for her offensive comments about black women.

She isn’t wrong about that. But I don’t think that is the point. Those present claimed they couldn’t breathe and were traumatized. This was a phone call. Not an in-person meeting.

This is either manufactured and dishonest outrage which is used to attract attention and exercise power, or if genuine outrage, reveals deep problems that are likely disabling.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Oh no. It's much, much worse.

Ignoring someone doesn't hurt the person being ignored. They fired her, for Chrissakes.

I ignore a lot of posters here who don't offer anything other than personal insults, or unthinking parroting, or insincerity. Life is too short to hear that drivel.

Fair point. Cancelling is worse than ignoring. But they are two paths to the same end.

 

[TomEric4756]

She May make a good congressional candidate some day soon.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Sounds like she was fired not for her abortion opinion, but for her offensive comments about black women.

So she got fired for telling a fact.

 

[larsIU]

I ignore a lot of posters here who don't offer anything other than personal insults

Well, f*ck you too then.

Also, I bet there's a whole lot more to this story than what Turley knows. She might just be a huge b*tch.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, f*ck you too then.

Also, I bet there's a whole lot more to this story than what Turley knows. She might just be a huge b*tch.

She was there 44 years. The obvious missing piece from Turley’s report is the race of all involved.

 

[Cortez88]

Well, f*ck you too then.

Also, I bet there's a whole lot more to this story than what Turley knows. She might just be a huge b*tch.

I was thinking that too. It takes a special kind to launch into controversial topics like that in the office. I’d guess that this isn’t an isolated incident.

 

[Lucy01]

An attack on offensive speech, is an attack on free-speech!

 

[UncleMark]

Also, I bet there's a whole lot more to this story than what Turley knows. She might just be a huge b*tch.

Yeah, I'm thinking there's a lot more to this. If not, I suspect she's gonna end up with a huge chunk of money.

 

[snarlcakes]

Well, f*ck you too then.

Also, I bet there's a whole lot more to this story than what Turley knows. She might just be a huge b*tch.

I can get on board with it's a bunch of b#itches acting like b#tches theory.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I was thinking that too. It takes a special kind to launch into controversial topics like that in the office. I’d guess that this isn’t an isolated incident.

Controversial topics among lawyers are as common as a coffee pot in the break room. These kinds of discussions should come under R & R, not be a cause to be expelled from a partnership.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can get on board with it's a bunch of b#itches acting like b#tches theory.

That theory is way off. Bitches give as good as they get. spoiled brat snowflake theory might work.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Hogan, Lovells is among the highest of A-list law firms. It represents clients world wide with hundreds of lawyers. Its lawyers assuredly have the highest skills of advocacy with confidence and sel-assurance. Skillful lawyers are not easily traumatized by speech, nor would they be easily offended. This is why I think the story below reported by John Turley is so surprising and strange.

Apparently at a meeting of the female members of HL, one attorney expressed agreement with the SCOTUS Dobbs (abortion) decision. long story short, some of the female attorneys were traumatized by that comment and as a result the attorney who expressed agreement was shown the door ending a long career.

I will never understand how anybody can be so offended by speech. I recognize the argument in terms of personal insults and the like, but this is about a legal opinion which carries weighty arguments on both sides. Good attorneys ought to take these issues in stride and move on.

Ya have to wonder how the female attorneys who became offended ever survived law school, or how they even survive contentious and heated client issues.

Yet, I shouldn’t be surprised. This is simply nothing more than an ignore button but in a different context. A while back I posed the question about whether this super-sensitivity is a result of what I called toxic femininity. Emotions and feelings are becoming too important throughout life and business.

“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingl…

jonathanturley.org

.
At times like this, I am always reminded of the Jewish lawyers who represented the Skokie Nazis.

You want to be a corrupt king? Chaos? Anarchy? Might making right? “The first we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

I guess Shakespeare never thought they might just kill themselves.

Emotion versus intellect.
Perceived subjective fairness versus equal process under law.

I wouldn’t hire that firm for a traffic ticket. They have lost their way. They are no longer reliably lawyers. They are social justice warriors - a mindless mob, a danger to every free person everywhere. The same mentality to which Atticus Finch lost.

 

[iuwclurker]

Fair point. Cancelling is worse than ignoring. But they are two paths to the same end.

Ignoring is about freedom of speech, canceling, freedom of belief. These women are not offended by the speech so much as the very notion that a woman could hold such a belief.

HL made a business decision to put the old cow out to pasture in favor of young, upcoming heifers. The old cow was causing too much dissension in the herd.

The young heifers were power-tripping to cancel the old cow for having an obscene belief.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I was thinking that too. It takes a special kind to launch into controversial topics like that in the office. I’d guess that this isn’t an isolated incident.

It was an employer sponsored discussion on Dobbs that wasn't intended to have any counterpoints apparently.