It’s not about setting up the model for ridicule but calling out the attitude and behaviour of the individuals who are making the remarks and maybe getting us to check our own attitudes and behaviours. What might be meant as harmless teasing may really hurt the recipient. Also from just the text alone what assumptions do we make about the individuals making the remarks? Would we expect them to belong to any specific social grouping and why? Had we been a fourth individual in that room what would we have done? If this submission prompts someone reading it to maybe stop and think before making personal comments about someone’s looks then it’s worth
Uncouth behavior should be challenged. However, this one crosses from being challenged to threats of fines or imprisonment. Whenever the heavy hand of the government gets involved, we all lose.
What if in your vigorous defense of the lady, you say something questionable? Will you then be cited for hate speech, too?
Anyone who believes in free speech must be willing to defend speech you do not like. The best defense against hate speech is more free speech, not the government trying to shape opinions.
Hate speech? Nope. Calling a lady a dog is an insult, not not hate. It is voicing a personal preference to what one finds attractive or unattractive. Just because you find someone unattractive does not infer you hate them. In fact, you could like them based on their personality or intelligence, but not on their looks. We have got to get back to understanding free speech may be insulting to you, but it is not a crime. This ought to be doubly so for law enforcement personnel.
I suspect it was an empty threat. And if this was in the US hate speech isn’t really even a thing legally. But for the sake of argument, permanudes are a protected class. In countries that do have hate speech laws, it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch to call this anti-PN discrimination. Would the unseen speaker have been equally likely to make that crack if she had been in uniform? I think not.
I differ on the stretch. There was nothing to indicate the “watch dog” comment reflected on her nudity. Even in a uniform, she may not have appealed to someone. The old hippie talk was to call officers and security guards “pigs.” If anti-PN discrimination tramples free speech rights, we are headed down the wrong rabbit hole.
If anti-PN discrimination tramples free speech rights, we are headed down the wrong rabbit hole.
Well of course. But the Nude World Order universe is speculative fiction, not a utopia. Combining the permanent nudity premise with what I see IRL leads me to believe a law like that could exist somewhere. I’m not saying I’d be in favor of it.
I agree. She actually has a really nice body too.
I don’t think it’s really cool to post someone’s picture in order to insult their looks. Be complimentary of everyone’s looks or don’t post the image.
It’s not about setting up the model for ridicule but calling out the attitude and behaviour of the individuals who are making the remarks and maybe getting us to check our own attitudes and behaviours. What might be meant as harmless teasing may really hurt the recipient. Also from just the text alone what assumptions do we make about the individuals making the remarks? Would we expect them to belong to any specific social grouping and why? Had we been a fourth individual in that room what would we have done? If this submission prompts someone reading it to maybe stop and think before making personal comments about someone’s looks then it’s worth
posting in my opinion
Uncouth behavior should be challenged. However, this one crosses from being challenged to threats of fines or imprisonment. Whenever the heavy hand of the government gets involved, we all lose.
What if in your vigorous defense of the lady, you say something questionable? Will you then be cited for hate speech, too?
Anyone who believes in free speech must be willing to defend speech you do not like. The best defense against hate speech is more free speech, not the government trying to shape opinions.
Hate speech? Nope. Calling a lady a dog is an insult, not not hate. It is voicing a personal preference to what one finds attractive or unattractive. Just because you find someone unattractive does not infer you hate them. In fact, you could like them based on their personality or intelligence, but not on their looks. We have got to get back to understanding free speech may be insulting to you, but it is not a crime. This ought to be doubly so for law enforcement personnel.
I suspect it was an empty threat. And if this was in the US hate speech isn’t really even a thing legally. But for the sake of argument, permanudes are a protected class. In countries that do have hate speech laws, it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch to call this anti-PN discrimination. Would the unseen speaker have been equally likely to make that crack if she had been in uniform? I think not.
I differ on the stretch. There was nothing to indicate the “watch dog” comment reflected on her nudity. Even in a uniform, she may not have appealed to someone. The old hippie talk was to call officers and security guards “pigs.” If anti-PN discrimination tramples free speech rights, we are headed down the wrong rabbit hole.
Well of course. But the Nude World Order universe is speculative fiction, not a utopia. Combining the permanent nudity premise with what I see IRL leads me to believe a law like that could exist somewhere. I’m not saying I’d be in favor of it.