Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Fair enough. By that reasoning, would a poster of James Bond firing a gun at someone be involving the passer-by, against their will, in a violent act?

A fair question, but before we continue I would like to know where you stand on a few things. Do you see how projecting videos of beheadings into my living room without my consent is a violation of my rights? (i.e. do you accept this kind of law but question the sex connection? Or do you accept the sex connection but question the nudity connection to sex?) Do you accept that if a man walks up to your wife, drops his pants, and starts masturbating while leering at her, (and I don't have to say without her consent because of course it would be) that a violation of rights has occurred?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 437
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will fin

I disagree with this in part; positive emotions (or any emotions, for that matter) are not the standard of value, but they are values.

I already addressed this with the beheading videos, but I didn't get to hear your full thoughts on the matter. The key is to go far enough out into an extreme and ask yourself if you could see how that is a violation of your property rights. How about if he set up a projector and beamed them into your living room?

I'm tempted to say that such things are not violations of your rights. I think what you should do in such cases is close your curtains, and actively ostracize the individual responsible for it in order to get him to stop. Similar as to how you should deal with racist individuals.

What if the choice which makes it non-effective requires me to stifle my reason?

What sort of situations do you have in mind where this would be the case? I don't understand how seeing something can force your mind (i.e. require you to shut it down in order to deal with the situation). If you can show how something bypasses your volition and leaves you no choice in how to respond to it, you have a case. Otherwise, I think you're just out of luck, and should seek different neighbors, or a different community that is more in line with your own values.

When he does it on his front lawn, how exactly can I avoid seeing it? Assume that I have a picture window in my living room, and watch television just slightly to the left of said picture window. Are you suggesting that I must close my blinds? What if I have to go outside and mow my lawn? Do I have to close my eyes whenever I turn in his direction? As property owner, don't I have some say at all on what I must be subject to? Don't his property rights end at his property line? How would your argument even stop perceptual-level disgusting things, if you see fit to require the property owner to plug up his senses on his own property?

But the same argument can be applied to cover just about anything that someone finds offensive. Seeing a parade of communists moving through my street is also not something I wish to see, but that doesn't mean that I can stop them from doing it. I'd say that advocating communism is objectively disgusting, so wouldn't it then be proper to ban subjecting others to these ideas when they are on their private property? I don't think you can just draw the line at the things you find to be disgusting, without opening the door to all-out censorship.

*edited to reply to all paragraphs*

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
What sort of situations do you have in mind where this would be the case? I don't understand how seeing something can force your mind (i.e. require you to shut it down in order to deal with the situation).

What I mean is that it would require me to shut my mind down to not be disgusted. You're suggesting it's my fault and my responsibility if I happen to be disgusted; that it is a man-made choice on my part, and I could have chosen otherwise, so it's on me to do so if I don't want to be disgusted. I'm saying the only way I could not be disgusted would be to annihilate my reason.

But the same argument can be applied to cover just about anything that someone finds offensive.

No, but I do agree we need to make more clear what the distinction is. However, I would like first for you to acknowledge that the behavior in question is unacceptable from a rights standpoint, then we can hash out how to create a law that restricts it without restricting other behaviors which don't violate rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is that it would require me to shut my mind down to not be disgusted. You're suggesting it's my fault and my responsibility if I happen to be disgusted; that it is a man-made choice on my part, and I could have chosen otherwise, so it's on me to do so if I don't want to be disgusted. I'm saying the only way I could not be disgusted would be to annihilate my reason.

But that still presupposes that being disgusted is a violation of your rights. Or, at least, that being disgusted makes your life objectively worse. I mean, there is nothing inherently bad about being disgusted, and I dare say that in other situations where your rights are being violated and the act is disgusting, the legal issue is with the rights violation, not with your emotional responses to it.

(edit: added a sentence to clarify)

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against his own judgement, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force.

Can you agree with this statement? If we have a common understanding of what it means to violate someone's rights, then that will at least make further discussion possible without talking past each other the whole time.

Subjecting you to sights you find disgusting can do neither of these things without your permission. It can neither compel you to act against your own judgement, or expropriate your values. That is because there is absolutely no force involved in the scenarios we have discussed. And if there is force involved, then they are bad because of the physical force involved, not because the percept is (objectively) offensive or disgusting.

As an example of why things such as this cannot force your mind, consider the following. In today's world it is virtually impossible for a person not to be subjected to altruist bromides. In fact, you are bombarded with them every second of the day, for the duration of your entire life. But, for someone who is certain altruism is bad, that doesn't suddenly make them start believing these things. Now, the availability of altruistic ideas no more causes you to make you change your value system or force your mind when it is offered to you in the privacy of your home than it is in public. If you want to block out certain sights you find offensive, and would rather avoid, then you are responsible for doing so. It is no more possible to completely avoid altruistic ideas than it is to avoid public displays of sex (in a society where that is permissible), yet I don't see anyone advocating that altruistic ideas somehow cause you to abandon your reason and surrender your mind.

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
But that still presupposes that being disgusted is a violation of your rights. Or, at least, that being disgusted makes your life objectively worse. I mean, there is nothing inherently bad about being disgusted, and I dare say that in other situations where your rights are being violated and the act is disgusting, the legal issue is with the rights violation, not with your emotional responses to it.

I'm somewhat perplexed by your answer; I thought we were past this point, from this:

It does exist, but it cannot include anything that first needs to be processed on the conceptual level.

(bold mine)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply that such a thing is only a problem if it bypasses your conceptual faculty; if it is directly perceptual in nature and doesn't depend on your mind drawing conclusions about it.

Being presented with a view of animalistic sex no more forces your mind than does hearing someone advocate socialism. If someone, through his actions, physically restrains you or hurts you then that's a clear initiation of force. Seeing someone having sex is not an initiation of force, nor is seeing a video of a beheading an initiation of force (except that it might constitute a threat: then it would be prohibited for that reason, not because of the act itself).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you agree with this statement?

Yes, but remember that the issue here is property rights, as in the property of the victim of the exposure. In the case of a horrible smell, for example, the smelly guy is creating a condition on the property of others. He is forcing their property to smell a way they do not consent for it to smell. It would be the same way with a horrific sound, such as a continuous loop of a room full of crying infants played 24/7, or if he lit cats on fire (I imagine that would smell, too): he would be forcing people to experience horrific things on their own property. From this, you should be able to see that such offenses can be committed with sight, as well.

Can you not see how, shall we say, "polluting" a man's property with horrible things against his consent is not expropriating his values (the value of his right to property), and forcing him to act against his judgment (of not consenting to exposure to said things).

It is no more possible to completely avoid altruistic ideas than it is to avoid public displays of sex (in a society where that is permissible), yet I don't see anyone advocating that altruistic ideas somehow cause you to abandon your reason and surrender your mind.

The answer you are looking for is in the nature of what sex is; of what intimacy is. In other words, the line of reasoning presented by Capitalism Forever. As I said, though, do please put that can of worms away at least for the moment and focus on the other issues. If sub-animal sex makes no sense to you as an offense, then feel free to substitute some other visual offense that is the equivalent of a horrific smell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply that such a thing is only a problem if it bypasses your conceptual faculty; if it is directly perceptual in nature and doesn't depend on your mind drawing conclusions about it.

Here is the problem:

But that still presupposes that being disgusted is a violation of your rights.

How could you say my argument is invalid if it presupposes that, when you yourself admitted that it is valid to presuppose that, in the case of perceptual-level offenses:

It does exist, but it cannot include anything that first needs to be processed on the conceptual level.

(bold mine)

You said, if I may paraphrase, that you accept that some conceptual-level offenses are valid, but I still must prove that having disgusting things foisted onto your property violates your rights. The trouble is that you previously admitted that perceptual-level offenses do violate your rights. So I'm just scratching my head here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but remember that the issue here is property rights, as in the property of the victim of the exposure. In the case of a horrible smell, for example, the smelly guy is creating a condition on the property of others. He is forcing their property to smell a way they do not consent for it to smell. It would be the same way with a horrific sound, such as a continuous loop of a room full of crying infants played 24/7, or if he lit cats on fire (I imagine that would smell, too): he would be forcing people to experience horrific things on their own property. From this, you should be able to see that such offenses can be committed with sight, as well.

Can you not see how, shall we say, "polluting" a man's property with horrible things against his consent is not expropriating his values (the value of his right to property), and forcing him to act against his judgment (of not consenting to exposure to said things).

And I'm saying that there is no such right (to not be subjected to things you don't consent to). Consent is irrelevant, unless the act itself is already determined to be harmful (it doesn't make sense to complain that someone gave you money, without any strings attached, without your consent). So, we should focus on why the act itself is harmful to your life. The only way in which it could be harmful to your life is if it violates your rights. Perceiving something is not an instance of physical force, unless it bypasses your volition entirely.

It is clear to see why being shot with a bullet is an initiation of force. That definitely interferes with your ability to act on your judgement. The same holds true for a lesser extent with toxic fumes that make you sick. However, these are all situations that are outside the conceptual realm, which is why you treat them differently. As long as someone leaves you free to use your mind, then it doesn't matter what percepts are presented to you. You are free to disregard these things as being irrelevant and disgusting, and you are left completely free to pursue your life in any way you see fit. Seeing public displays of sex, or seeing videos of beheadings doesn't cause a breach in your rationality.

You said, if I may paraphrase, that you accept that some conceptual-level offenses are valid, but I still must prove that having disgusting things foisted onto your property violates your rights. The trouble is that you previously admitted that perceptual-level offenses do violate your rights. So I'm just scratching my head here.

Sorry that I was unclear there. I meant that situations where your rights are violated by perceiving certain things do exist, but only if they are not subject to volition.

You are free to disregard such sights (like sex) in the context of your life, and to assign to them the importance that you find proper. You are not free to decide whether or not you will be physically ill because of smelling something toxic.

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm saying that there is no such right (to not be subjected to things you don't consent to) [even on your own property]... As long as someone leaves you free to use your mind, then it doesn't matter what percepts are presented to you. You are free to disregard these things as being irrelevant and disgusting, and you are left completely free to pursue your life in any way you see fit. Seeing public displays of sex, or seeing videos of beheadings doesn't cause a breach in your rationality.
[brackets mine]

In the case of a neighbor projecting a beheading video* into my living room, I would not be completely free to pursue my life in any way I see fit. I would be forced by my neighbor to be disgusted while sitting in my living room, on my own property. As surely and unavoidably as if he had pumped noxious gas into the room. Because the only way to not be disgusted by a beheading video would be to shut off my reason. If you have never seen a beheading video, then I think you may have to see one. David gave you a link. Watch some and tell me you could just disregard them, if it were projected onto the wall in front of you.

Sorry that I was unclear there. I meant that situations where your rights are violated by perceiving certain things do exist, but only if they are not subject to volition.

Right, I know. How do you reconcile that with:

But that still presupposes that being disgusted is a violation of your rights. Or, at least, that being disgusted makes your life objectively worse. I mean, there is nothing inherently bad about being disgusted, and I dare say that in other situations where your rights are being violated and the act is disgusting, the legal issue is with the rights violation, not with your emotional responses to it.
(bold mine)

You're saying (with the word "But") that you would agree with my example that the only volitional option to not be disgusted would be to shut down my reason proves that some conceptual things count, but for the fact that being subjected to disgusting things on my property cannot be a violation my rights. But you have admitted that being subjected to disgusting things on my property can be a violation of my rights in the case of perceptual things. So you can't use "disgust in general isn't a violation" as an argument.

*(let's keep sex out of it for now; remember the can of worms. We can always come back to it if need be)

Edited by Inspector
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is clear to see why being shot with a bullet is an initiation of force. That definitely interferes with your ability to act on your judgement. The same holds true for a lesser extent with toxic fumes that make you sick. However, these are all situations that are outside the conceptual realm, which is why you treat them differently.

Emphasis mine.

I disagree. It takes a conceptual evaluation in every instance of the use of force to determine that it is harmful. A bullet shot at me by my neighbor for no reason is an unacceptable use of force because it violates my right to to life. The bullet is perceptual; my evaluation of it is conceptual. In contrast, a bullet fired by a homeowner at a robber who is approaching him with a weapon is a justifiable use of force. The bullet is perceptual; his evaluation of it is conceptual. Similar bullet, different evaluation.

The same applies for smells, to use another example. The smell of burning wood in my fireplace does not signify harm to me. The smell of burning wood from a nearby arsonist who has set a house on fire does signify harm to me. Same perception (smell of fire), different conceptual evaluation.

Now let's examine an "intangible" harm. I detect a burglar in my house in the middle of the night. I scream at him that I have a gun and I am going to blow him away unless he gets the hell out of my house. Now consider a maniac neighbor screaming at me that he is going to get his gun and blow me away unless I trim my shrubs. Same perception (threatening words spoken in anger), different conceptual evaluation. The former instance is a justifiable stated threat made in self-defense against a burglar. The latter threat from my neighbor is unjustifiable. Threats to use force, threatening behavior, etc., are all punishable under the law, as they should be. Threats to harm are part of the broader concept of force (as is fraud, etc.).

One could go on with these examples. To bring this analogy back to the issue of indecent behavior, sex with one's partner in one's bedroom is one thing, or looking at videos of sex acts in the privacy of one's home is one thing. Being forced to watch the sexual acts of other people because of their ostentatious public sexual behavior is another thing. Similar perceptions, different conceptual evaluations.

I cannot fully defend laws against public indecency (because I do not have a firm grasp of the philosophical issues involved), but I do believe that properly crafted laws against public indecency are justified. Speaking personally, I would not want to be subject to ostentatious and unwanted sexual displays from a neighbor. (As an aside, this actually did happen to me in New York. A rather unattractive couple across the courtyard from me deliberately had sex in front of their picture window almost every night with the lights on; they deliberately timed their sex acts as some sort of prime time deviant entertainment. I found it enormously distracting; it was hard not to look, kind of like a flashing billboard in your face. Their behavior stole my time from me. Eventually, enough people complained about it that they stopped doing it.)

My point here is that the argument against public indecency laws is not that it is a "non-perceptual" harm or that there is no direct bodily contact with an instrument of force. What is an improper use of force is solely conceptually determined in all situations, upon evaluation of the perceptions. Those perceptions can involve any or all of the senses of sight, taste, hearing, touch, smell. They can be words (threats), sights (unwanted sexual displays), actions (physical harm), etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of a neighbor projecting a beheading video* into my living room, I would not be completely free to pursue my life in any way I see fit. I would be forced by my neighbor to be disgusted while sitting in my living room, on my own property. As surely and unavoidably as if he had pumped noxious gas into the room. Because the only way to not be disgusted by a beheading video would be to shut off my reason. If you have never seen a beheading video, then I think you may have to see one. David gave you a link. Watch some and tell me you could just disregard them, if it were projected onto the wall in front of you.

Now, I will grant you that some work does need to be done in fleshing out the principled reasons why a beheading video does this, and a sign that says "the holocaust was a good thing" does not. And purple house certainly does not. (although... just how ugly are we talking? I mean, face-melted-off deformity ugly? And a 50 foot picture of said face on his front lawn?) But before we put the effort into finding the distinctions, I'd like you to first admit that rights-violating visual-conceptual things do in fact exist.

Hmm, maybe this is the key:

"I meant that situations where your rights are violated by perceiving certain things do exist, but only if they are not subject to volition."

Could you name some and are you sure that no volitional/conceptual though process is required for the disgust?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I will grant you that some work does need to be done in fleshing out the principled reasons why a beheading video does this, and a sign that says "the holocaust was a good thing" does not. ....

But before we put the effort into finding the distinctions, I'd like you to first admit that rights-violating visual-conceptual things do in fact exist.

How on earth do you suggest anyone admits to this without first defining the terms and logically showing how this is a right violation? It sounds like you're asking them to agree with you based on some "gut feeling".

That it just "feels right". Since when is this an argument? How about you start by clearly defining the terms you use (like right, force etc') and then show how this case fits the definitions or concepts you described, like a human being (an Objectivist), eh?

Looks like Maarten here is trying to pull the discussion in the right direction with going back to definitions. For crying out loud - somebody cooperate with him!

Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's not my responsibility when making an argument such as these to explain the difference.

I find it as ridiculous to have to provide an answer to such question. There is an obvious, self-evident difference in content and intimacy level both physical and emotional between the two activities. There is a different meaning to each and difference in restriction level.

If there is such a good, objective case to be made for sex having a specific nature, and that nature necessitates laws such as these, then why don't you simply post that proof? That would solve the whole discussion.

It is self evident that sex has a specific, deeply intimate nature. It is not the same as shaking hands. It has a meaning of being a special kind of bonding experience, of being an emotionally and physically intimate expression of affection - a response to values. For it to be allowed to exists as a response to values - by nature it must be allowed to be restrictive.

Further argument for why every person should be free to treat the sexual aspect of their life as they choose, as restrictive and as private as they choose, has been already presented to you. When one is made to watch someone else having sex one is being made a part of another's sexual life and a person has a right to have a control over their sexual realm - a control over whom they allow to be part of that realm based on their choosen values/criteria. It is because sex is such an important value to a human being. It is because sex is not only a physical act but also has a strong emotional component. It is because a human being is not just a body but also a mind. That is why consent is required.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, I know. How do you reconcile that with:

(bold mine)

You're saying (with the word "But") that you would agree with my example that the only volitional option to not be disgusted would be to shut down my reason proves that some conceptual things count, but for the fact that being subjected to disgusting things on my property cannot be a violation my rights. But you have admitted that being subjected to disgusting things on my property can be a violation of my rights in the case of perceptual things. So you can't use "disgust in general isn't a violation" as an argument.

*(let's keep sex out of it for now; remember the can of worms. We can always come back to it if need be)

But those perceptual things are not violations of rights because they are disgusting! That's my whole point. Whether it's disgusting or not is entirely irrelevant. Since when do emotional states make a difference in matters of law? This whole focus on the acts being disgusting is focusing on the non-essentials in the situation. Something can only be a violation of your rights if it forces your mind. Actions such as these cannot do that. Nor does it interfere with your freedom to act in any way you please, any more than lots of other events do that are not initiations of force against you. The freedom to follow your own judgement doesn't mean that you should be able to do anything you want, or that you can demand that society is like you want it to be. You are free to shield yourself from the world as much as you want to, but there is no good reason why others should be prevented from exercising their rights just because you don't like what they are doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How on earth do you suggest anyone admits to this without first defining the terms and logically showing how this is a right violation?

Induction.

It sounds like you're asking them to agree with you based on some "gut feeling".

No, I am asking to first establish whether "x" is even possible in the most extreme and clear-cut case before muddying the waters with borderline cases and the issue of how to separate in principle rights-violating actions from non-rights-violating actions, and conflicts of interest (if any). Yes, the latter are entirely necessary and I agree with a lot of his concerns, which if you read my posts you will see. But first things first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of a neighbor projecting a beheading video* into my living room, I would not be completely free to pursue my life in any way I see fit. I would be forced by my neighbor to be disgusted while sitting in my living room, on my own property. As surely and unavoidably as if he had pumped noxious gas into the room. Because the only way to not be disgusted by a beheading video would be to shut off my reason. If you have never seen a beheading video, then I think you may have to see one. David gave you a link. Watch some and tell me you could just disregard them, if it were projected onto the wall in front of you.

Close the curtains? ;)

Again, without proving why seeing this is objectively harmful, it is no different than saying that you are not completely free to pursue your life in any way you see fit because you have to see ugly people every day. In other words, you should focus on what is harmful about a certain situation, and why it violates your right to life, not on any of the higher level identifications that come after that. I agree with you completely that if something is objectively harmful to you, and if it violates your rights, then someone can't force that upon you. I am challenging the view that these views here constitute such harm. So please, can we focus on that, rather than on the conclusions that follow from your premises? As long as we don't agree on the premises involved, any further discussion is utterly pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When one is made to watch someone else having sex one is being made a part of another's sexual life and a person has a right to have a control over their sexual realm - a control over whom they allow to be part of that realm.

Seeing someone else having sex doesn't automatically make them part of your sexual life. You choose whether or not you allow that to happen. Seeing a sexual image or scene is not the same as actually having sex with that person. My sex life isn't being intruded upon by a sex scene in a movie, and that's definitely a real person who is (pretending to) having sex there. But even if they actually had sex during the making of the movie, that doesn't impact my sexual realm in any way, unless I want that to happen.

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
Something can only be a violation of your rights if it forces your mind.

...forces it to do what? In this particular case, to be disgusted.

Actions such as these cannot do that.

Yes, they can. The trouble is that unlike smell, vision is a mainly if not wholly conceptual medium. Human beings are born tabula rasa, so any reaction that one has to any visual stimulus at all must be a conceptual, learned reaction. Your argument so far seems to be that since this is a matter of volition, that men could have chosen otherwise and thus are responsible for their own disgust. But this does not answer for the times when it is reason which demands one's disgust, and the only volitional choice that would allow someone not to be disgusted would be the abandonment of reason. You are saying, "no, they don't have to stop; it is your responsibility to either abandon reason or allow them to force you to be disgusted on your own property." It is correct, in these cases, to say that the one responsible for the disgust is not the man feeling it, but the man stimulating it.

Again, I must re-emphasize how important property rights are to understanding this. You are not merely creating an emotional state in a man; you are creating a condition, on a man's property, which causes a negative consequence to him.

If this were, for example, taking place in outer space, where nobody had any claim to property, then I would agree that your only recourse would be to turn away. You have no more claim to space than he does. But since the context is that you are on your own property, then you cannot be reasonably expected to shut off your senses or your reason on your own property to avoid the stimuli that your neighbors are beaming onto it. If you don't see how, by beaming things onto your property, that someone may possibly be violating property rights, then we may have a deeper gap in our understandings of this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...forces it to do what? In this particular case, to be disgusted.

Umm, no. That's not what forcing someone's mind means. An emotional response lies by its very nature outside the realm of volition (and thus morality) so it cannot have any bearing on these issues. Forcing someone's mind means forcing them to accept a conclusion they know to be wrong, or forcing them to act on such conclusion. That doesn't happen here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you completely that if something is objectively harmful to you, and if it violates your rights, then someone can't force that upon you. I am challenging the view that these views here constitute such harm. So please, can we focus on that, rather than on the conclusions that follow from your premises?

Absolutely!

I think this is where we need to focus. So you agree, that if someone projects a stimuli onto your property which objectively harms you, that this is an initiation of force? That it is not proper to expect you to plug up your senses, on your own property, to avoid being harmed by a stimulus that another is causing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know where you stand on a few things.
I'm not quite sure, but overall I think this is a solution looking for a problem to solve. I know that people do not keep their pants up primarily because the cops will stop them from dropping them. Also, sub-divisions and housing societies can have rules and to the extent that laws are currently acting as stand-ins for such rules, that's fine with me -- analogous to my support for public schools upholding certain standards.

From my own experience, I don't find sexual sights repulsive. Mostly, when they occur they're weird or comical. For instance, where I grew up eunuchs used to be considered social outcasts. They would live mostly on charity, but the local tradition had it that they would visit a house when a kid was born. They would come around and dance outside and then ask for money. If they got what they considered was too little, they would start placing "curses" on the newborn, and they would also expose their butts and breasts. Even in a pretty conservative society, the nudity never hurt anyone. The curses scared people more than the exposed flesh did.

Similarly, a few times when growing up, a completely naked hermit would be seen strolling through the neighborhood, begging. The most it drew was giggles and crowds of young kids taunting the fellow.

One has to make a distinction between threatening behaviour and repulsive behavior. For instance, a man walking up to a woman and masturbating is quite different from a man masturbating in a shop-window, or in a photograph (i.e., in a context where everyone knows that that is where he is staying). So, that's really a different issue. In my view, a woman exposing herself to a man is almost never threatening. That would be more in the category of someone walking up to you and giving you the finger, while fully dressed in a formal suit. In my view, a man exposing himself to a woman can be threatening even without coming that close. So, no matter how ugly she is, I cannot see any reason to call the cops if only adults are around.

I think it is fine for the law to lay down a simple "non exposure of genitals" rule which would be the default assumption if no notice is posted. Personally, I think it is unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, no. That's not what forcing someone's mind means. An emotional response lies by its very nature outside the realm of volition (and thus morality) so it cannot have any bearing on these issues. Forcing someone's mind means forcing them to accept a conclusion they know to be wrong, or forcing them to act on such conclusion. That doesn't happen here.

The force, as you are looking for it, is the alteration of another's property: the creation of a hazardous condition on their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely!

I think this is where we need to focus. So you agree, that if someone projects a stimuli onto your property which objectively harms you, that this is an initiation of force? That it is not proper to expect you to plug up your senses, on your own property, to avoid being harmed by a stimulus that another is causing?

Yes, I think I can agree to that. Except, the on your own property remark is kind of superfluous here, because the actions we are discussing (that are objectively harmful) would also be violations of your rights when you were just walking down the street.

The force, as you are looking for it, is the alteration of another's property: the creation of a hazardous condition on their property.

Okay, I can understand that if someone did that, it should be made illegal. But how does projecting disgusting images on your wall create hazardous conditions for you?

There is a clear difference between things such as playing music at 150 dB next to someone's backyard and throwing a flask of chlorine gas into their living room on the one hand, and projecting an image of a mutilated corpse on their lawn or their living room walls on the other hand.

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...