From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 08:19:16 +0800
To: Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Subject: [NOISE] Re: "German service cuts Net access" (to Santa Cruz)
In-Reply-To: <9601291935.AA19744@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960129130750.6235N-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

> olmur@dwarf.bb.bawue.de writes:
>  > Free speech ends where other people can reasonable claim that their
>  > feelings are badly hurt.
> 
> Ask yourself what standard in implied in this sentence...
> 
> Is it 
> "Man as a life-loving rationnal animal"
> or
> "Man as an ever sobbing, unable to cope, emotionnally controlled animal"

There was a lively debate in feminist/legal circles a while back about
introducing "the reasonable woman standard," "the reasonable gay man
standard," etc. into the legal currency. The movement intended to make
"date rape" and sexual harassment easier to prosecute. I didn't keep up
with it, but I'm sure the relevant papers are still being cited. I doubt 
and hope that no court ever took the argument seriously.

My personal rules are:

1. I have the right to get offended however often I want. It's a lot
   healthier than desensitization.

2. I have the right to respond however I want, as long as it's legal and 
   ethical.

3. I do not have the right to tell someone else not to be offended.

4. I do not have the right to control another's actions, much less words
   or thoughts, merely because I find them offensive. 

-rich