peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (04/21/84)
>I have always been surprised by those who define 'liberty' as the freedom >to have OTHER PEOPLE BEHAVE IN THE WAY ONE PREFERS. My liberty is often achieved at the expense of yours. My continued well- being depends on your being constrained not to kill me, for example. A psychological question arises: can someone's liberty (i.e. freedom of action) be restricted simply by being called something? If I organize everyone around you to call you "stupid" at every possible opportunity, I will not have done any physical violence to you, but your self-image may well be damaged to the point of you being severely restricted in your ability to live your life. Advertising which depicts women in stereotyped situations (the infamous laundry detergent commercials, for example) is a milder example. Porno- graphy has begun to be treated in this manner, as a civil rights (i.e. liberty) issue (ref. the recent attempt at a city by-law in Minneapolis on this basis). The pen is mightier than the sword, right? The sword is much more controlled than the pen right now-- with the only exceptions being the slander, libel, and (in Canada) hate literature laws. These laws restrict freedom of expression, for good reason-- to preserve the liberty of others. I would expect to see a few more, very specific, laws much like the hate literature laws to tackle the worst sorts of pornography. This article is long enough. Words, including titles, can restrict someone's liberty. They can fight it, of course, but, like it or not, we are influenced by our dealings with others. Legal remedies would be hard to write and enforce, yes-- but the lack of a legal solution doesn't mean there isn't a problem. p. rowley, U. Toronto
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/23/84)
>My liberty is often achieved at the expense of yours. My continued well- >being depends on your being constrained not to kill me, for example. Not at all -- I wouldn't have the slightest interest in killing you even were I unconstrained. >A psychological question arises: can someone's liberty (i.e. freedom of >action) be restricted simply by being called something? If I organize >everyone around you to call you "stupid" at every possible opportunity, >I will not have done any physical violence to you, but your self-image >may well be damaged to the point of you being severely restricted in >your ability to live your life. If I am that vulnerable to irrational name calling, I would deserve to be called stupid. Rather than my being "restricted", I would probably be amused -- and come up with something considerably more spicy than "stupid" to call my detractors. >I would expect to see a few more, very specific, laws much like the hate >literature laws to tackle the worst sorts of pornography. I don't have any EXPECTATIONS either way, but I would hope not. I would like to see even laws about slander abolished. This would place the responsibility for correct judgement upon the "listener", which is where it belongs anyway. Slander has inherent punishment -- loss of credibility when it is shown false. And people who too quickly believe slander deserve as many bad experiences as possible to make them a little more sceptical. Gopal the Barber BTW, I perceived the "Milady" not as an insult but as an expression of annoyance, and not sexist at all -- it seemed analogous to the "Sir" used in rabbit!jj and tcwheeler arguments, "You, sir, are mistaken". -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf