Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

Rate this topic


DarkWaters
 Share

Recommended Posts

But I don't see how this follows from why rights are necessary. I agree that many forms of bodily contact can be violations of rights, but I am not sure if you can say that they all are.

Yes, they all are, if they are without permission.

Why? Well, your answer has been laid out perfectly, here:

Because it's mine. My survival requires that I have ownership over what I earned and will be able to determine how it will be used.

So I don't care that walking on my grass does not cause any change or damage at all: that grass is mine and I get to say who uses it and who doesn't.

In the same way, a person is not allowed to use my body without my permission as well (whether or not it causes damage/change). They can influence my body (by slightly bumping into me on the street, or breath next to me etc'), but not to use it.

(extra super emphasis mine)

I'm surprised this has to be argued; it's a concept that is deeply. deeply ingrained in my innermost self: the concept of mine, sitting at the right hand of the concept of "I." Is it the same way with you, Maarten? I'm curious to know, and I wonder if it points to the answers of any other puzzles.

Ah, but I'm thinking out loud now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised this has to be argued; it's a concept that is deeply. deeply ingrained in my innermost self: the concept of mine, sitting at the right hand of the concept of "I." Is it the same way with you, Maarten? I'm curious to know, and I wonder if it points to the answers of any other puzzles.

Ah, but I'm thinking out loud now.

Well, the thing is, in Ifat's quote she mentions that a person cannot use it without permission but they can influence it without permission. That is the distinction I am making, as well. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that. Why is a touch necessarily using your body (thus being bad) and never influencing your body (making it acceptable)?

I do greatly value my body. But the fact that I value it is not by itself a justification for giving me the right to determine what happens to it. The fact that you don't want that is not in itself an argument. So, it doesn't help to say that it should be obvious and that it is self-evident. Surely you can see that the concept of rights is anything but self-evident? I am not content with just knowing based on a gut feeling* whether or not something is a right violation, and I want to continue to investigate this until I can prove to myself why X is a violation of my rights and Y isn't.

*I'm not saying that you advocate that, but that is what it would come down to if you cannot give a principled answer in these situations.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Inspector and Ifatart on this issue. If it is unwanted bodily contact, it is a violation of my rights. That presupposes that my wants are based on reason. It goes without saying that I am saying, "If it is rationally unwanted bodily contact..."

Also, it presupposes a rational view of consent. If someone grants permission for bodily contact, say to a surgeon for surgery, but then complains after the surgery that the operation was unwanted, his complaint is unfounded.

Can you think of an example where unwanted bodily contact is not a violation of rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you think of an example where unwanted bodily contact is not a violation of rights?

(I assume you mean deliberate contact, because if you trip and touch someone I don't think that would be a violation of their rights ;))

Well, when you're out in public I don't think it is a violation of your rights if someone touches your arm or hands. It depends on the touch, of course. Grabbing someone's hand is not okay, but lightly tapping their hand or arm to get their attention would not be a violation of rights. It in no way affects the person's body significantly, so in my view it's not very different from someone breathing in your direction.

The very reason why certain actions are violations of rights necessarily excludes other actions from being violations of rights. Now, I assume you all agree that breathing in someone's general direction and deflecting photons is not a violation of anyone's rights? Why not? Don't those things also impact their person in some way?

My main point now is that I think not all ways in which one person can influence another person are instances of physical force. Even when the person in question didn't consent to that. Does everyone agree that there are things like this, that affect a person but do not violate his rights?

Furthermore, you have to show what the essential difference is between someone influencing you (non-forcefully) and someone, umm, impacting you in a forceful way that violates your rights. It's not acceptable to just do that on a case by case basis.

My problem is mainly that so far, the principles that have been advanced suffer from the problem that they would apply equally to trivial situations that should not be violations of your rights. In other words, those principles are not precise enough to properly tell the difference between actual rights violations and non-rights violations.

(Bolded the most important part of my post)

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That presupposes that my wants are based on reason. It goes without saying that I am saying, "If it is rationally unwanted bodily contact..."

No, not at all! If a crazy Christian doesn't want a doctor to touch him to heal him, it is still a violation of his rights if the doctor touches him. Your right to your body includes the right to do irrational things to it - to irrationally touch things you ought not and to irrationally avoid touching things that you ought. You can't argue away someone's right to their body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main point now is that I think not all ways in which one person can influence another person are instances of physical force. Even when the person in question didn't consent to that. Does everyone agree that there are things like this?

Yes, but there is a context here that you are not stating. Bodily contact is always a contextual matter. If my thigh touches a seatmate next to me on a crowded subway car, I am not violating his or her rights. Why? Because that person has consented to being in an environment where such touching may occur by choosing to ride the subway during rush hour. Now, in an empty car if I sit right next down to someone and touch my thigh to that person, I am violating that person's rights.

If a dentist puts his hand in my mouth, he is not violating my rights. If a stranger does, he is.

Etc.

I think my prior post covers this issue. One's rights are violated if there is rationally unwanted contact. Rational means contextual. I cannot be upset if someone (not excessively) touches my thigh with his thigh on a crowded train. I can in the other example I gave.

Connecting this to the issue of manners, manners are simply the "rules of engagement" for social situations. Because these rules are not expressly stated in each encounter does not mean that these rules do not exist nor that they are not important as a way for everyone to respect everyone else's rights in a social setting. In fact, that is the purpose of manners. Manners exist as a set of rules that allow everyone's rights to be respected in social encounters. They are the de facto standard of civilized behavior.

Of course, one can choose to ignore manners on one's own property, but he would have to give notice to people entering his property that the normal rules of manners are suspended. E.g., on his property you can kiss strangers, sneeze on people, talk one inch from someone's face, etc.

To bring this back to the issue of public decency, I can better understand now Ayn Rand's use of the term "etiquette". People are offended by public displays of sexual behavior and other behavior that becomes disgusting when publicly displayed. Because of the nature of sex, which is private, I think it is understandable and rational for people not to want to see that in public. So, if you want to engage in public sex, you have to give notice. That is why people have nudist colonies and why nude beaches are in private locations.

Public nudity is similar to manners because different, equally rational, social standards can exist. For example, in European newspapers, it is not a big deal to show women's naked breasts (at least in the U.K.), whereas it is here. Topless and nude beaches are common in Europe, and uncommon in the United States. Of course, once all beaches become private, it will be up to the owner of the beach to establish the clothing policy. Furthermore, if the social standard in his area is a little more prude, he may have to erect a fence or somehow make it less easy for random strangers to see the nude bathers.

(As an aside, I personally do think American standards are a little too prude when it comes to nude bathing, etc. This probably does result from Puritanism. Nevertheless, I think there is an optional range on what is legally permissible ranges of public nudity or near-nudity. Oddly enough, these things often work themselves out just fine. For example, red light districts form precisely because they become known as areas where prostitutes and nudity could be seen in public. People are "on notice" through custom that if they enter the red light district, they may subject themselves to such sights.)

Several topics, one post. Whew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it doesn't help to say that it should be obvious and that it is self-evident. Surely you can see that the concept of rights is anything but self-evident? I am not content with just knowing based on a gut feeling* whether or not something is a right violation, and I want to continue to investigate this until I can prove to myself why X is a violation of my rights and Y isn't.

Maarten wants to understand the relationship between "mine" and rights violations.

I think we've finally come to that point in the discussion when someone has to recommend some book. This is Blackdiamond's law: a point will come in a long debate at OO.net when someone has to say "read OPAR" or something like that.

So...who's going to say it to Maarten? What's the book? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when you're out in public I don't think it is a violation of your rights if someone touches your arm or hands. It depends on the touch, of course. Grabbing someone's hand is not okay, but lightly tapping their hand or arm to get their attention would not be a violation of rights. It in no way affects the person's body significantly, so in my view it's not very different from someone breathing in your direction.

Yes, touching a stranger on the arm in public is a violation of his rights if he does not consent to it. It's just that our rules of etiquette assume that we consent to be tapped on the shoulder should it be absolutely and unavoidably necessary. What's confusing you is that accidents happen, and most people are very benevolent about excusing minor violations when we're in crowded spaces. But if it isn't a violation, then why do you suppose we say "excuse me," or "I am sorry" when we accidentally contact another person. Excuse me for what? I'm sorry for what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not at all! If a crazy Christian doesn't want a doctor to touch him to heal him, it is still a violation of his rights if the doctor touches him. Your right to your body includes the right to do irrational things to it - to irrationally touch things you ought not and to irrationally avoid touching things that you ought. You can't argue away someone's right to their body.

Yes, you are right, although there are limits to an irrational person's ability to prevent someone touching his body. For example, if you are wielding a knife in a menacing manner on a public street, you may not want a policeman to touch you in order to arrest you, but that would be irrelevant. He can touch you, and hopefully will.

People can be irrational as long as they are only hurting themselves and not others. So, of course someone can refuse a doctor's touch even if that doctor will heal him, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...who's going to say it to Maarten? What's the book? ;)

If you don't grasp "mine," (and I am not convinced that Maarten does) then I don't think any book can help you.

Yes, you are right, although there are limits to an irrational person's ability to prevent someone touching his body. For example, if you are wielding a knife in a menacing manner on a public street, you may not want a policeman to touch you in order to arrest you, but that would be irrelevant. He can touch you, and hopefully will.

No, sorry. There are not limits to an irrational person's right to prevent someone from touching his body; it is simply that when you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would it be correct to say that every instance of a person affecting another person's body or property would be an initiation of force against that person, except that they give consent to certain actions that affect them that makes these actions okay? So, we all agree that breathing against you in public is fine, etc. Is that a good way to state this? I can agree with the principle being stated like this.

That brings us to another issue, however. How do we determine what a rational person would find acceptable in public situations? Certain people are more sensitive towards certain every day issues than others are. Should the law reflect that? Seeing how there can be a range of rational positions to take on these issues of etiquette, how do you determine what should be reflected in the laws of the country as being the standard situation? Whatever the majority of rational people thinks is acceptable? And furthermore, how do you determine this in practice?

I guess my main point is: by reducing it to consent you need a way to shut out what the crazies don't consent to. If someone can say that they don't want to be subjected to any contact with other people, then you could hardly say that that's their right and everyone should respect their decision. So, this means that we need a way to determine what a rational person finds acceptable in such situations. How do you do that?

*About the unconsenting person: I mean that he walks down the street while explicitly stating that he doesn't give consent to any sort of interaction with him. In certain circumstances that would definitely create problems because it's unavoidable to come into contact with him. Does that violate the guy's rights, or can you say that in certain situations even explicitly removing consent is not enough, because by going out of your house you have already given consent to come into contact with other people (within reason) and you cannot remove that once given?*

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's a question of principle.

It certainly is, although the question I have in mind is probably not the one you do. I think the reason people get so upset about this is because Miss Rand's position implies that sex matters--that it matters so much that it warrants legal protection, which puts it on par with life, liberty, and property. This is the principle these threads are really about. People have very strong feelings about sex, and many of those who disagree with Miss Rand on the subject had been content to think "Well all right, that's just her personal opinion, which is obviously rooted in her Victorian upbringing, but the times they're a-changin', the world has moved on, and as a personal opinion it has nothing to do with the law." It must have been quite a shock for them to discover that Miss Rand did not consider this to be a "you pick your opinion and I pick mine, one is as legitimate as the other" subject, but even held it necessary to have her "opinion" (which is to say: the right principle) enshrined in law.

As far as I can tell nobody has articulate a principle that would act as an objective razor.

Given the name of this forum and the amount of time we both have spent here, this may be a peculiar time and place to ask this question, but ... What do you mean by "objective" ? :lol:

Are you looking for an "easy answer," like David? I.e. one that would allow you to look at any random situation and automatically tell whether a violation of rights is involved, with 100% accuracy and with no potential for disagreements? Something like the quadratic formula, where you only have to put in the right variables and poof, you've got the answer, and no one can possibly object?

I'm not one of those folks who always complain about "life not being simple," but this time I have to point out that life is slightly more complex than a quadratic equation. And life is what individual rights are based on. You can only have a general formula if you have a fixed number of variables with a well-known range of values--but the various situations that can arise in life are so diverse in nature, so vast in scope, and so dependent on their contexts that even the number of the variables is unlimited, let alone their potential values. And as technology progresses and new kinds of products and new types of places become parts of life, lawyers will have to apply the principle of individual rights to new kinds of contexts, many of which we cannot even imagine today. (Times are changing, but the basic principles are not, only their scope of application.)

This does not mean that we have to throw our hands up and say "It's all too complex, we can't deal with it," but it does mean that the answer can necessarily only be in the form of a general principle that does not automatically provide specific answers for each situation. To get the specific answers, you need to identify the essentials of your specific situation and find how you can apply the principle to them.

Without that, such a law is more dangerous than its absence.

What dangers do you think it would pose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nappy headed hos" is sexual, racist, sexist and rude. So, is it really okay that someone listening to Imus over the public airwaves can be unwittingly exposed to listen to such a racist, sexist, and sexual comment without being given any notice? :)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when you're out in public I don't think it is a violation of your rights if someone touches your arm or hands. It depends on the touch, of course. Grabbing someone's hand is not okay, but lightly tapping their hand or arm to get their attention would not be a violation of rights.

Bring it back to force, and disallowing somone the right to use their mind and body. Grabbing someone's hand in a restrictive manner is a violation of their rights because it restricts their application of their right to live. Tapping someone's arm to get their attention is engaging their mind in the task of living(in perceiving you and judging you.) Think of it in terms of theft and trade. If I forceably take your property, I have negated your mind, I have taken it out of the equation. If I offer you a dollar bill instead, I have engaged your mind and appealed to your reason, the same as tapping you on the shoulder and allowing you to either listen to me or disregard me. If you disregard me and tell me that you don't want to give me your attention and I insist on tapping you on the shoulder then I have negated your mind from the relationship and its a violation.

It certainly is, although the question I have in mind is probably not the one you do. I think the reason people get so upset about this is because Miss Rand's position implies that sex matters--that it matters so much that it warrants legal protection, which puts it on par with life, liberty, and property. This is the principle these threads are really about. People have very strong feelings about sex, and many of those who disagree with Miss Rand on the subject had been content to think "Well all right, that's just her personal opinion, which is obviously rooted in her Victorian upbringing, but the times they're a-changin', the world has moved on, and as a personal opinion it has nothing to do with the law." It must have been quite a shock for them to discover that Miss Rand did not consider this to be a "you pick your opinion and I pick mine, one is as legitimate as the other" subject, but even held it necessary to have her "opinion" (which is to say: the right principle) enshrined in law.

This is total psychological ad hominem and irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would it be correct to say that every instance of a person affecting another person's body or property would be an initiation of force against that person, except that they give consent to certain actions that affect them that makes these actions okay? So, we all agree that breathing against you in public is fine, etc. Is that a good way to state this? I can agree with the principle being stated like this.

I've been thinking about this some more at work, and I'm not sure anymore if this is an acceptable position to take. I need to do some thinking to see if this principle you have come up with is really a proper one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following post is going to be loosly connected to present line of discussion. After making this note, here goes:

This aspect of the issue is wider than religious influences: civilized men do not tolerate public displays of sub-animal sex. Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting - not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy. Censorship, however, is not the solution: resorting to censorship is like cutting a man's head off in order to cure a cold.

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.

Someone told me that this paragraph seems to have contradictions in it. I wish to offer my own understanding of this, because I don't see contradictions.

Here is one thing that might appear as a contradiction:

  • "Censorship, however, is not the solution: resorting to censorship is like cutting a man's head off in order to cure a cold."
  • "Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome."

The problem is in "the need to protect..." part, which implies censorship, which is condemned in earlier paragraph.

Solution: Ayn Rand meant protection from long term exposure, against one's will and not protection from the very first encounter.

It's not a coincidence that the case of "rape" appears right before the case of protection from unwanted sights: She meant it in the same way: as a continuous, "mind-penetrating" action, done against one's will.

In the case of minors she didn't add the "unconsenting" part: The reason must be the same as why sex with a minor is illegal - the assumption is that they are not yet capable of understanding the meaning and implications of such a decision (to have sex/to agree to view sub-human material), and therefor exposing them to it intentionally (as opposed to accidentally) and for a long period of time, with or without their consent should be illegal.

She is making an interesting point that a person should have the right to not be forcefully exposed (long term) to sights they find loathsome. Not just Objectively bad sights, but it's enough that they would consider it damaging (psychologically damaging).

Then she says "Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.".

The meaning "legal restraints" here, are restraints that come from having a private contract, and not legal restraints of a government law. Which means she is against censorship - and thinks that matters of environment free of "loathsome" sights should be achieved by rules set by local owner/s of places.

For example - there is a city in Israel full of religious people. If someone wants to enter their stores - they require one covers their legs and arms. This is their way to protect themselves from loathsome sights - you can clearly see that these rules are irrational ("naked body is bad", "sexual desire is bad"), but nonetheless they still have the right to decide what will be done on their property, and thus defend themselves from loathsome sights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then she says "Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.".

The meaning "legal restraints" here, are restraints that come from having a private contract, and not legal restraints of a government law.

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation..."

(bold mine)

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation..." (bold mine)

No, look again at what she says. The "legislation" that you emphasized was about something else, not about those legal restraints that she is talking about later on.

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults."

"the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.)"

This means that someone has the right to choose not to be confronted with a sight they find bad. It doesn't mean "have the right to have a street free of sights which are objectively loathsome", but simply that people have the freedom not to look or listen. I think that the words "freedom not to look or listen" explain quite well what she means - and it's not the right to have the environment shaped by their taste (whether it's objective or not).

Later she says "Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality." - now this is another matter which she is addressing. In fact, I think there should be an "however" between those two parts of the paragraph, saying: "There is only one aspect of sex that is legitimate for legislation, however, there is another way to control unwanted sights - which is by rules set by local owner (procedures, which have nothing to do with morality, ethics, or government law)".

I think she is also quite clear that the way to deal with those posters and window displays has nothing to do with morality - which means has nothing to do with rights, which means "stay out of this government".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is total psychological ad hominem

An argumentum ad hominem is an argument that seeks justification for a given conclusion in the attributes of those arguing against it. If you believe the paragraph you quoted was meant as an argument--i.e. if you believe I was implying that the justification for the proposed legal restraints was the fact that some people were shocked by Miss Rand's proposing such restraints--then I would suggest you raise your threshold for believing things that absurd on their face. By the time I wrote that post, I had made what I consider a sufficiently convincing argument in favor of the restraints, and I had no intention of belaboring the point any further (other than responding to objections raised). The paragraph you quoted was an observation, not an argument.

and irrelevant.

It may not be relevant for you, but I think it is for those who have been wondering about the causes of the severe and obstinate disagreements we've been having on this subject. Feel free to post your alternate explanation if you don't like mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, look again at what she says. The "legislation" that you emphasized was about something else, not about those legal restraints that she is talking about later on.

"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults."

"the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.)"

This means that someone has the right to choose not to be confronted with a sight they find bad. It doesn't mean "have the right to have a street free of sights which are objectively loathsome", but simply that people have the freedom not to look or listen. I think that the words "freedom not to look or listen" explain quite well what she means - and it's not the right to have the environment shaped by their taste (whether it's objective or not).

Later she says "Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality." - now this is another matter which she is addressing. In fact, I think there should be an "however" between those two parts of the paragraph, saying: "There is only one aspect of sex that is legitimate for legislation, however, there is another way to control unwanted sights - which is by rules set by local owner (procedures, which have nothing to do with morality, ethics, or government law)".

I think she is also quite clear that the way to deal with those posters and window displays has nothing to do with morality - which means has nothing to do with rights, which means "stay out of this government".

In her writing, Rand was very particular when it comes to her choice of words. She ment exactly what she said. So in this case she would not have used word legislation by accident.

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome

(bold mine)

In the first sentance she makes a positive statement. In the second she specifically lists what things are included, what things she considers as legitimate.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she is also quite clear that the way to deal with those posters and window displays has nothing to do with morality - which means has nothing to do with rights, which means "stay out of this government".

No, Ifatart. Sophia (and CapForever) are right: it is about government legislation.

Without even getting into how your interpretation of that text clearly involves attributing some massive equivocations to Rand, I think what you need to understand is that matters of etiquette and procedure can rightly be legislated (by government).

An example I can think of is driving. In all countries of the world, governments have decided which side of the road you must drive on. This is not directly a matter of morals, of course, and yet we accept that government should rightly dictate which side of these roads we must drive on. In America it’s on the right side, in Zambia it’s on the left side. I believe that even when roads are privatized, government should still be able to dictate this aspect.

Driving on the wrong side of the road is not a moral wrong as it is not directly or intentionally an initiation of force: it is a procedural wrong, although the purpose of the law is indeed ultimately to protect people from harming each other. If government allowed everyone to decide which side of the road they want to drive on, in the name of individual freedom, physical harm will be the inevitable result, intentionally or not.

So, the legislation itself is strictly a matter of procedure, not morals, but it’s still rightly accepted by all civilised people, because it functions to protect their rational values.

(edit: made one sentence clearer. Also: just noticed the last two posts by CapForever and Sophia after posting this; they are right again ;)).

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nappy headed hos" is sexual

In what way is it sexual? Because of the word "hos" ? Come on, there is a world of a difference between a one-word, non-graphic verbal reference to prostitutes and actually taking off your clothes and having sex on a sidewalk. If you refuse to see that difference, it's no wonder you're worried about the potential dangerous consequences of the law.

By the same token, one could worry about the dangers of a law protecting business trademarks, since "what if somebody trademarks the word 'is' and we'll get sued for saying simple English sentences." IMO, there is at least as much difference between saying "ho" and having sex as between saying a sentence with "is" and labeling a product. If you don't recognize these essential differences, you are not equipped with the means to apply the principle of individual rights to particular situations. If you don't trust the courts to be epistemologically sophisticated enough, it may appear as a tempting idea to reduce the law to a few simple and universal rules, so that the judges can render their decisions without having to do things like form concepts and make identifications and keep context. But you don't know what a dangerous law is until you have seen all the errors and injustices that are bound to result from the misapplication of such "simple, universal rules" !

I'd much rather live in a culture that recognizes the value of sex and trusts its courts to be able to correctly apply a law designed to protect it than in a culture where judges cannot be trusted to use reason.

"Nappy headed hos" is [...] racist, sexist and rude.

I don't think anybody has argued for laws against racism, sexism, or rudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In her writing, Rand was very particular when it comes to her choice of words. She meant exactly what she said. So in this case she would not have used word legislationn by accident.

(bold mine)

No, of course she did not use the word legislation by accident. (I think you still don't understand what I was saying).

She said that people have the right not to look or listen to things they do not wish to be confronted with. And therefor, a law that protects people's right to not be forced to see or hear something is in place. A government law, that is.

This is not just about sex, or loathsome sights, but this is about a man's right not to be confronted with sights they consider loathsome - whether they are objectively loathsome or not, whether they are sexual or not.

Next, She talks about something which is a matter of procedure, etiquette, not of morality: which is an option of having an environment free of unwanted sights by local rules set by owners on private property. She actually says "procedure" there - "procedure" means the opposite of law. She also adds that this has nothing to do with morality. Meaning, this is about etiquette, or the local culture, or just whatever the owner of the local pub wants to permit on his place.

(As oppose to the right not to look or listen, which is a matter of morality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...