Right to Ridicule: Investigating Its Impact on Constitutional Rights

[Radrook]

My bold. Given the context of your post citing equivocation, can you please explain the specific meaning of "unnecessary pain" - what is "necessary pain"?

Necessary = unavoidable pain inflicted in order to remove a tumor or other medical reasons. Or pain administered via incarceration as a negative sanction in response to antisocial behavior.


Unnecessary = avoidable pain as in flaying someone alive prior to capital punishment. Or extraction of teeth without administering novacain in order to economize a little.


Of course "necessary" and "unnecessary" can also be understood from a totally subjective angle. But that requires that we ignore the human condition which imposes duties upon which the principles of our USA Bill of Rights are founded. Ignoring the human condition then leads to justification of anarchy both at the international and personal levels. In short it engenders or encourages amorality since it ignores an ultimate wrong or ultimate right. Under that modus operandi any progrom involving genocide becomes subjectively justifiable. That's why the United Nations has formally defined what human rights are-in order to avoid the evil which moral subjectivity inevitably generates.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Excerpt:


On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

 

[WhoWee]

Necessary = unavoidable pain inflicted in order to remove a tumor or other medical reasons. Or pain administered via incarceration as a negative sanction in response to antisocial behavior.


Unnecessary = avoidable pain as in flaying someone alive prior to capital punishment. Or extraction of teeth without administering novacain in order to economize a little.


Of course necessary and unecessary can also be understood from a totally subjective angle. But that requires that we ignore the humam condition which imposes duties upon which the principles of our USA Bill of Rights are founded. Ignoring the human condition then leads to justification of anarchy both at the international and personal levels. In short it engenders or encourages amorality since it ignores an ultimate wrong or ultimate right. Under that modus operandi any progrom involving genocide becomes subjectively justifiable. That's why the United Nations has formally stated what human rights are-in order to avoid the evil which moral subjectivity inevitably generates.

When posting "Given the context of your post citing equivocation, can you please explain the specific meaning of "unnecessary pain" - what is "necessary pain"? " - I was hoping for direct and relevant definitions - not off topic medical responses followed by an additional off topic discussion.

 

[thephysicsman]

Is the "advocate" - the person openly speaking in front of crowds - calling for support of genocide or terrorism contributing actively - under your description?

No, then he is merely uttering his opinion. To justify a proseccution, we must prove that he has ties to terrorist organizations.

 

[WhoWee]

No, then he is merely uttering his opinion. To justify a proseccution, we must prove that he has ties to terrorist organizations.

It seems by definition an "advocate" would be part of the organization - basically a spokesperson - a frontman?

 

[Radrook]

When posting "Given the context of your post citing equivocation, can you please explain the specific meaning of "unnecessary pain" - what is "necessary pain"? " - I was hoping for direct and relevant definitions - not off topic medical responses followed by an additional off topic discussion.

Why do you consider my response off topic? You asked what is necessary or unnecessary pain infliction and I gave a response using examples in order to illustrate. This topic is about the justifiability or unjustifiability of ridicule-correct? Ridicule is capable of inflicting psychological pain-is it not? The question, then, is whether that pain is justifiable based on the exigencies of the human condition and the resultant moral duty it creates or not. If it is then we can't condemn it. On the other hand if it isn't then it is definitely reprehensible. If the ridicule violates a human right-then it is unjustified. However human rights do clash and conflict and require prioritization. But since you might consider this off-topic as well I will hold it right there until you clarify further on how I am off topic.

 

[thephysicsman]

It seems by definition an "advocate" would be part of the organization - basically a spokesperson - a frontman?

Not according to my understanding of the word, but as said I'm not a native, so my understanding may be wrong. What I can tell you is that a frontman for a terrorist movement should be prosecuted.

 

[WhoWee]

Why do you consider my response off topic? You asked what is necessary or unnecessary pain infliction and I gave a response using examples in order to illustrate. This topic is about the justifiability or unjustifiability of ridicule-correct? Ridicule is capable of inflicting psychological pain-is it not? The question, then, is whether that pain is justifiable based on the exigencies of the human condition and the resultant moral duty it creates or not. If it is then we can't condemn it. On the other hand if it isn't then it is definitely reprehensible. If the ridicule violates a human right-then it is unjustified. However human rights do clash and conflict and require prioritization. But since you might consider this off-topic as well I will hold it right there until you clarify further on how I am off topic.

I first responded to your post (my bold) citing "equivocatio"

"Radrook Re: The Right to Ridicule?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be equivocation going on here and it has to do with objective morality vs subjective morality. If we define right and wrong as being socially determined as the pre Socratic sophists did, then there can be no right and wrong in the absolute sense and ridicule can be viewed within the context of where it occurs and how it is perceived by the locals using it. However, if we consider morality to be derived from or an extension of our human condition which imposes duties of compassion, honesty, refrainment from infliction of unnecessary pain, the granting of freedom to decide upon us-then ridicule takes on a completely different aspect and cannot be simply brushed aside as invariably harmless based on motives. "

I basically adhere to this working definition of the word "equivocation".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivocation

"e·quiv·o·ca·tion   /ɪˌkwɪvəˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled
[ih-kwiv-uh-key-shuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3. Logic . a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1350–1400; ME equivocacion < LL aequivocātiōn- (s. of aequivocātiō ). See equivocate, -ion
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

Related Words for : equivocation
evasion, evasiveness, prevarication, tergiversation"

I find your response to my direct question a bit - ironic - don't you?

 

[WhoWee]

Not according to my understanding of the word, but as said I'm not a native, so my understanding may be wrong. What I can tell you is that a frontman for a terrorist movement should be prosecuted.

Fair enough. The word "advocate" typically has a stronger meaning than (for instance) participant or commenter. "Advocate" may infer active participation whereby "speaker" could mean casual - spokesperson might also imply active participation. However, the "primary speaker" might also have a more active role. (Now in an effort to avoid needing to support all of this - I'll label this post my OPINION).

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't think you have a right not to be ridiculed. Indeed, some people ought to be ridiculed (nazis, racists, sexists, etc). You have the right to ridicule, but no right to put out threats.

You and I may not have a right not to be ridiculed, but ridicule is a poor substitute for reasoned or even sharp criticism. Moreover, it's childish IMO. However I do think there are situations where the "right" to ridicule should be curtailed : 1) regarding people with disabilities for their disabilities 2) for reasons of race, religion, national origin 3) generally regarding sexual preference 4) generally regarding subordinates who cannot reasonably fight back 5) in any case where it is persistent, cruel, and intended to produce personal distress and/or psychological harm. The main sanctions against these should be societal, (loss of employment, loss of status, public exposure) and legal (civil litigation). Only the most extreme cases should be dealt with criminally under existing laws.

 

[thephysicsman]

You and I may not have a right not to be ridiculed, but ridicule is a poor substitute for reasoned or even sharp criticism.

I agree, but it may be a good supplement to criticism.

However I do think there are situations where the "right" to ridicule should be curtailed : 1) regarding people with disabilities for their disabilities

3) generally regarding sexual preference

This is childish, pointless and stupid, but should not be outlawed.

2) for reasons of race, religion, national origin

Why? Would you imprison Pat Condell for ridiculing muslims?

4) generally regarding subordinates who cannot reasonably fight back

Example?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Why? Would you imprison Pat Condell for ridiculing muslims?

No. I did not recommend imprisonment for any of the categories I listed. I recommended appropriate societal sanctions and possibly civil litigation in some cases. Only in the worst situations, usually in category 5, did I say the criminal process might be appropriate under existing law (no new laws required).

Example? (Ridiculing subordinates)

Why ridicule a subordinate as opposed to criticizing? If a subordinate is disruptive or not doing his or her job, follow procedure accordingly. Terminate if necessary. Example: "This is stupid because... " (reasoned criticism, even with the word "stupid"), "This is stupid." (sharp criticism), "You're stupid." (ridicule).

It's my view that employees are put in a difficult situation when ridiculed by their boss. They can't fight back by ridiculing the boss unless they've already decided to quit. Then they have to worry about a bad recommendation for their next job. The intent of ridicule by its very nature is almost always (IMO) to demean, humiliate and assert power rather than to correct. Ridicule by a boss of a subordinate creates a hostile environment not only for the victim but for others in the workplace. If it can happen to one, why not anyone?

 

[thephysicsman]

I recommended appropriate societal sanctions and possibly civil litigation in some cases.

Like voluntary boycotts? But that's fine!

Why ridicule a subordinate as opposed to criticizing?

Some people are just not open to criticism.

 

[WhoWee]

Some people are just not open to criticism.

An employee that is not open to criticism might find it difficult to keep a job.

 

[thephysicsman]

Absolutely.

 

[Radrook]

I think that the only ones who tend to vehemently defend the right to ridicule without reservations are the ones who are in the bad habit of ridiculing or those who lack the necessary ethical backround to adequately determine where to draw the proper moral line between ridicule and a violation of a human right.

 

[WhoWee]

I think that the only ones who tend to vehemently defend the right to ridicule without reservations are the ones who are in the bad habit of ridiculing or those who lack the necessary ethical backround to adequately determine where to draw the proper moral line between ridicule and a violation of a human right.

I believe it's called taking the moral high ground - whether it is or not?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Here's some news on a master of ridicule. He won't be charged with a crime in the US (nor should he be), but he better stay out of China.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_en_ot/us_limbaugh_asian_americans

 

[WhoWee]

Here's some news on a master of ridicule. He won't be charged with a crime in the US (nor should he be), but he better stay out of China.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_en_ot/us_limbaugh_asian_americans

Speaking of ridicule - have you ever heard "banking queen" - the Barney Frank spoof?

 

[thephysicsman]

I have a constitutional right to ridicule. This right is totally harmless and does not impose any obligation on others. I don’t ask the government to force anybody to provide me a venue to perform this right, like leftists and conservatives do when they assert their right to health care, their right to stop people form smoking marihuana, etc. I have a right to insult and piss off everybody in this country so long as I refrain from initiating force.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have a constitutional right to ridicule. This right is totally harmless and does not impose any obligation on others. I don’t ask the government to force anybody to provide me a venue to perform this right, like leftists and conservatives do when they assert their right to health care, their right to stop people form smoking marihuana, etc. I have a right to insult and piss off everybody in this country so long as I refrain from initiating force.

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech. Private corporations can and do legally impose a "culture" on employees to maintain a productive workplace. You can lose your job, lose your social status, be sued or subject to boycotts if you are in business. You can be barred from professional associations, and even be expelled from those bastions of free speech: public and private universities for "disruptive" conduct. You can say what want but other people don't have to like it and can legally retaliate accordingly.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech. Private corporations can and do legally impose a "culture" on employees to maintain a productive workplace. You can lose your job, lose your social status, be sued or subject to boycotts if you are in business. You can be barred from professional associations, and even expelled from those bastions of free speech: public and private universities for "disruptive" conduct. You can say what want but other people don't have to like it and can legally retaliate accordingly.

Let's not forget a business needs to prevent harrassment and any discrimination that might be evident given unchecked free speech in the workplace.

 

[thephysicsman]

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech.

Of course I dont. That would be a violation of other people's rights.

 

[jonnyk]

Hi,

Just wanted to add my two cents hear. First I'm an ardent supporter of free speech AND AT BEST i can understand the ridiculing of FIXED features, such as race and disabilities, to not be sanctioned by society as a whole, THOUGH i wld prefer no legal action be taken against such either. HOWEVER RELIGION? Are you kidding me? 1st religion is a variable as is nationality. 2ndly if we impose restrictions on ridiculing religion then ppl will start protecting their ideologies by continuously centring a new religion around them. The whole point of free speech is to get rid of bad ideas and replace them with better ones thus leading to a self correcting system. Religion is the worst enemy of such a system since it aims to maintain the staus quo in the strongest possible way. I will never understand how even the most secular states like Sweden, Finnland and other scandinavian countries don't seem to get it into their thick skulls that if one can't ridicule religion, one can't have a self correcting mechanism in society and any claims of free speech is then utterly meaningless".

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Hi,

The whole point of free speech is to get rid of bad ideas and replace them with better ones thus leading to a self correcting system. Religion is the worst enemy of such a system since it aims to maintain the staus quo in the strongest possible way. I will never understand how even the most secular states like Sweden, Finnland and other scandinavian countries don't seem to get it into their thick skulls that if one can't ridicule religion, one can't have a self correcting mechanism in society and any claims of free speech is then utterly meaningless".

I never said I support criminal sanctions for ridiculing a religion. However, I think people should have access to the civil courts if they consider themselves victims of willful infliction of verbal abuse because of one's exercise of a constitutional right (freedom of worship). One would have to show that such abuse in some way interfered with this right. I don't know about the countries you mentioned, but in the US you can sue for just about anything.

I also distinguished between criticism, even harsh criticism, and ridicule. See my previous posts.

 

[Tregg Smith]

How long did it take you to come up with that brilliant response? I see you're a PhD. Interesting. I don't know if you took the time to see that the post refers to the linked article of the same name. The author holds a university post in London. His view may be ridiculous to some, but I thought it was an interesting position to discuss.

As far as I being ridiculous, could you expand on that? The article led me to ask a series of questions. How far does free speech go? Yes, publically calling for genocide is ridiculous, but I'm not sure it's illegal. It actually occurs in the US and appears to be tolerated if you are member of a minority group and are calling for the genocide of the majority group.

Do you have something more intelligent to say; something worthy of a PhD?

P h D post hole digger

 

[WhoWee]

P h D post hole digger

post hangover dementia

 

[mXSCNT]

the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

 

[WhoWee]

the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

I don't think anyone in the US is concerned with being shot over something they say - unless they do it on the wrong city street (perhaps).