What behaviour is acceptable in public?

[Lord Gay]

This topic is a branch off from HERE.

In the thread, several people have expressed the general sentiment that people shouldn't be watching porn in public because others don't like it. Is that sufficient justification to ban things, and what other activities does it affect?

I'm no legal scholar but my view on the matter is an extrapolation of the principle of freedom of speech. FoS says that people have the right to say what they want; people DON'T have the right to not be offended. This is something that I think people very often forget, or overlook.

If A says something that B doesn't like, B doesn't have the right to make A be silent, or stop them from speaking. If B really doesn't like what A is saying, B can leave. Let me repeat that, to emphasize the point. B can leave. I apply the same concept to public activities.

If you don't like what somebody is doing, you don't have the right IMO to make them stop. You can leave. Your right to be somewhere doesn't trump anybody else's right to be there.

The issue in the other thread was public viewing of porn, but what about other things? What if I don't like people praying in public? What if I don't like people listening to music, or certain kinds of music? What if I don't like how somebody is dressed because their outfit is skimpy, or they have offensive images/ symbols/ statements? What if I don't like somebody smoking, or eating, or reading a book? What if I don't like people speaking in a foreign language, or breast feeding, or playing sports, or anything else?

What principles or guidelines apply to limiting what A can do, simply because B doesn't like it? Do we need to have more emphasis in society reminding people that the world isn't all about them and their delicate sensibilities, that people should leave or go elsewhere if they don't like what A is doing? Isn't B really the problem here, and not A?

What do you think?

 

[red_elk]

Reductio ad absurdum.
Imagine that you have kids and your neighbors made a habit of having group sex on their front yard.

There should be balance between A and B rights and it should be regulated by the law. Like it's already done with smoking. General rule - if this activity may hurt other people or their feelings, it must be forbidden or at least minimized. Disallowing people to do certain things in public can also hurt them, so each activity should be analyzed separately.

As for watching porn on public, it definitely must be forbidden in places where children can see it.

 

[Glassfan]

If you don't like what somebody is doing, you don't have the right IMO to make them stop. You can leave. Your right to be somewhere doesn't trump anybody else's right to be there...

What do you think?

Respectfully disagree. Everyone certainly has a right to "be there" (right to freely assemble), but not necessarily to have "sex there". If you want to have sex (or watch porn), You can leave, and go to a private place where it wont infringe on anybody else's freedoms.

...balance between A and B rights and it should be regulated by the law.
As for watching porn on public, it definitely must be forbidden in places where children can see it.

Agree.

While Freedom of Speech is a sacred right to be honored and protected, lewd acts and behaviors are simply not free speech.

As red_elk points out, the courts have to achieve a balance between the rights of different individuals. Obscenity has always been a grey area in the law, and the courts have traditionally sided with private sexual freedom.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What principles or guidelines apply to limiting what A can do, simply because B doesn't like it?

Best principle is the common sense.

Do we need to have more emphasis in society reminding people that the world isn't all about them and their delicate sensibilities, that people should leave or go elsewhere if they don't like what A is doing? Isn't B really the problem here, and not A?

What about if I like killing people? Should all others directly not involved turn away with smile "oh that just something between A and B or C but I am Z so I am at the and of the alphabet it does not concern me? After all B is just too sensitive and attached to his life...
To live in society is an advantage not duty but also it requires some self-restrain. If the majority in society finds that for its proper workings and keeping things in harmony some restriction is required naturally it will be imposed by moral code or by some other law.

 

[BvBPL]

Reductio ad absurdum.
Imagine that you have kids and your neighbors made a habit of having group sex on their front yard.

The Castle Doctrine supersedes Freedom of Speech. You're making a comment about what people can and cannot do on their property; not what they can and cannot do in public.

 

[holy king]

Best principle is the common sense.

it's just that "common sense" basically means "what i think".
now of course for you that's the best principle imaginable, but it kind of leaves out what all others think.

 

[red_elk]

The Castle Doctrine supersedes Freedom of Speech. You're making a comment about what people can and cannot do on their property; not what they can and cannot do in public.

Idea is the same, public place is just a place where other people can see you. And some activities must be hidden from other peoples' eyes.
I'm not allowed even to drink beer in my front yard here in Canada - apparently it might hurt people's feelings

 

[BvBPL]

Best principle is the common sense.

Except that totally varies from place to place and from person to person. Just look at some laws and how they differ from place to place.

• It is legal for a woman to walk around topless in New York state; it is illegal in most other states.
• It is legal for couples to have sex in public parks in Denmark; it is illegal in the United States.
• It is legal for a newspaper to print a defamatory statement about a public person without proof in the United States; it is illegal to do the same in the UK.
• It is legal for a female student to wear a veil in the United States; it is illegal in France; and it is illegal not to wear a veil in Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia, most of the countries listed above are liberal democracies. The differences in laws presented by those countries demonstrate that it is not possible to create a universal theory of what is and what is not legally offensive among liberal democracies. If we assume that the law in a democracy reflects the will of the people then we can't say that the public will about what is and what is not an acceptable activity in public is consistent between populations. As such, any attempt to determine what is or is not acceptable in public is totally up to the locality in question and trying to draw up a series of rules on a non-local message board is doomed to failure.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

it's just that "common sense" basically means "what i think".
now of course for you that's the best principle imaginable, but it kind of leaves out what all others think.

No thats not comon sense. Here is the definition from wiki:

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."[1] Thus, "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".[2]

 

[The_J]

Guys, you should probably exclude things from the discussion which are illegal. Might not necessarily make sense, but will sure increase the discussion. No need to talk about having sex or drinking in the front yard when there are better things to discuss .


General rule of thumb is probably Kant. Whatever I don't want to have done to me I shouldn't also do to others.
Would fit for wearing religious symbols, eating, reading, speaking, listening music.
If I like to wear a cross, I should not really argue against a headscarf. If I want to read a book in public or hear music, then I should not try to argue against it.
If I like to get my eardrums getting hammered with 100 dzb of music which I don't like, oh...okay, here we go. I don't like that, I shouldn't do it to others.
Can't see an example in the OP where it doesn't fit.

 

[BvBPL]

Idea is the same, public place is just a place where other people can see you. And some activities must be hidden from other peoples' eyes.
I'm not allowed even to drink beer in my front yard here in Canada - apparently it might hurt people's feelings

Why should your desire for your children not to see group sex on my yard overrule my desire to have group sex on my yard? Why is the offense to your eyes more important than our pleasure? You can walk your children up the street or bring them indoors; I can't move my parcel of land to a rural area where it won't offend people. If you are offend by what my friends and I do on my property then it is up to you to avoid watching us.

Also, I'm not sure why it is relevant whether or not children are watching us daisy chain. Parents should have no additional right to dictate the actions of other adults simply because they have children. Just send the little tykes indoors and ask to join us.

 

[Glassfan]

Why should your desire for your children not to see group sex on my yard overrule my desire to have group sex on my yard? Why is the offense to your eyes more important than our pleasure? You can walk your children up the street or bring them indoors; I can't move my parcel of land to a rural area where it won't offend people. If you are offend by what my friends and I do on my property then it is up to you to avoid watching us.

Also, I'm not sure why it is relevant whether or not children are watching us daisy chain. Parents should have no additional right to dictate the actions of other adults simply because they have children. Just send the little tykes indoors and ask to join us.

You really don't see? Well, I guess there's nothing further to say here.

 

[red_elk]

Why should your desire for your children not to see group sex on my yard overrule my desire to have group sex on my yard? Why is the offense to your eyes more important than our pleasure? You can walk your children up the street or bring them indoors; I can't move my parcel of land to a rural area where it won't offend people. If you are offend by what my friends and I do on my property then it is up to you to avoid watching us.

Also, I'm not sure why it is relevant whether or not children are watching us daisy chain. Parents should have no additional right to dictate the actions of other adults simply because they have children. Just send the little tykes indoors and ask to join us.

But I was talking about your children, not mine.
If you are fine with them watching live hardcore porn on neighbors yard, then I guess you'll be the one whose rights will be restricted by the law.

 

[BvBPL]

But I was talking about your children, not mine.
If you are fine with them watching live hardcore porn on neighbors yard, then I guess you'll be the one whose rights will be restricted by the law.

Or maybe when confronted with an offensive scene while walking along with my children I could remove my children from the area, maybe while using the experience as a means to provide instruction and impart my values to my children instead of relying upon the state to impose my morality over others. Or is that too much like parenting?

 

[red_elk]

Or maybe when confronted with an offensive scene while walking along with my children I could remove my children from the area,

This will restrict your right to go with your children wherever you want. In extreme case, even going to your own yard, or looking from the window.

maybe while using the experience as a means to provide instruction and impart my values to my children instead of relying upon the state to impose my morality over others. Or is that too much like parenting?

It's not about morality, kids should be protected from seeing certain thing such as violence, etc. because it can damage their development. Not sure what is proper English term for this. Children were just example, someone may decide that listening to loud music near your camping place (for instance) is just fine, and if you are not ok with this, you are too touchy.
I think it's obvious that people can do whatever they want, unless it hurts others or somehow violates their rights.

 

[BvBPL]

This will restrict your right to go with your children wherever you want. In extreme case, even going to your own yard, or looking from the window.

There is no such right. I don't have a right to take children where ever I damn well please. I can't take them into bars, I can't take to them onto private property without permission. There is no right to trespass.

In addition, we cannot control our environment absolutely. There will always be behaviors and activities that persist regardless of the individual's desire for their cessation. One of the best ways to avoid undesirable content is to simply remove yourself from its presence, and that should probably be the default action for anyone who feels uncomfortable in a situation.

Furthermore, parents are responsible for their children and this responsibility is more important than the rights of the parents or the children. A parent could exercise his or her right to drive out to Vegas and spend all of his or her money on pink champagne, but this would be unacceptable because it imposes a burden upon the children. This fact doesn't invalidate the parent's right to do so, instead it makes responsibility to the children more important than that right.

When parents want people to stop having group sex on the lawn for fear their children might see then that is a shifting of that responsibility to the child away from the parent and onto the people on the lawn. The people on the lawn suddenly become responsible to the children instead of the parents being responsible for the children. That is unacceptable in part because the people on the lawn do not have the authority to provide direction to the children so they are given a duty without the power to enforce it. Instead it is superior for the parents to approach the group fornicating on the lawn and explain their situation to them, and ask that they abstain from doing so in the presence of children. This is a much more productive means of settling this dispute as it results in the adults communicating their desires to each other as peers, a behavior that is most certainly a productive thing for children to emulate.

It's not about morality, kids should be protected from seeing certain thing such as violence, etc. because it can damage their development.

Yes, but who is to decide what is and what is not harmful to children? You may assume that having children exposed to sexual intercourse is a negative event for the child, but that's not borne out by Marget Mead's research. In Coming of Age in Samoa Mead demonstrates that raising children in a openly sexual society were children are exposed to intercourse not just between their parents but also between their parents and extramarital partners, between their siblings and their partners, between non-natal partners, and between couples of the same sex is responsible for the non-existence of sexual neuroses amongst the Samoan people. Obviously any number of scholars and religious leaders may disagree with this assessment, but absent universally understood truths about what children should and should not be exposed to the responsibility for making those decisions falls to the parent. It is right and appropriate for parents to exercise that responsibility in the manner they see fit rather than attempt to dictate the behavior of others.

 

[red_elk]

There is no such right. I don't have a right to take children where ever I damn well please.

Very true. But you don't have also right to drink beer or have sex on public. At least according to the law.
Do you think the ability to drink beer or have sex on public is more important than ability to take children in the same places?
I just don't see simple and general rule of thumb here, what should be allowed and what not in such conflicts of interests. Except what was already mentioned, such as common sense. Common sense tells me that it's more sensible to restrict people having sex in their homes, rather than keep their kids in their homes. Or maybe it's just human traditions.

Yes, but who is to decide what is and what is not harmful to children?

There is no way to decide with 100% confidence. But it must be decided anyway, allowing children everything just because it's uncertain whether it is harmful for them or not is IMO not a good idea.
As for who is to decide, I don't have better answer than majority of people in this local area.

 

[BvBPL]

Or maybe it's just human traditions.

Human tradition isn't universal in regard to what people can and cannot do in public. Public sexual activity was a for a long time a celebrated thing in many parts of the world. There are religious temples on the subcontinent established to honor it. The same can be said of public intoxication. There isn't anyway to determine what should be the universal standard for public behavior because all of these standards and mores are local. You say you can't drink or have sex in public, at least not legally, but that's not universally the case as New Orleans and Copenhagen have different standards for public behavior.

This thread is fatally flawed because it not possible to dictate what people should or should not do in public universally. These decisions need to be made on the local level. Suggesting that people should universally abstain from a certain behavior is absurd because there are assuredly cultures one can point to where that behavior is acceptable.

There is no way to decide with 100% confidence. But it must be decided anyway, allowing children everything just because it's uncertain whether it is harmful for them or not is IMO not a good idea.
As for who is to decide, I don't have better answer than majority of people in this local area.

The parents should decide what they want their children exposed to. They are the ones with both the responsibility and authority over children, but that authority doesn't mean they should be able to dictate the behavior of other adults.

 

[red_elk]

This thread is fatally flawed because it not possible to dictate what people should or should not do in public universally. These decisions need to be made on the local level. Suggesting that people should universally abstain from a certain behavior is absurd because there are assuredly cultures one can point to where that behavior is acceptable.

But this is what I'm talking about. Not only abstain from certain behavior, but allowing certain behavior is also a matter of local level decisions. There were also cultures where killing and eating other people was considered as acceptable behavior.

The parents should decide what they want their children exposed to. They are the ones with both the responsibility and authority over children, but that authority doesn't mean they should be able to dictate the behavior of other adults.

What if I don't want my children to be exposed to physical damage? I think I can dictate other adults to behave in such a way that it won't hurt my kids physically. You can say physical harm is not the same as moral, yes, but again who can decide what is universally acceptable?

Edit: I mean preventing adults from assaulting, shooting on public or other types of clearly dangerous behavior.

 

[LucyDuke]

Freedom of speech is a legal thing. If you say/do dickish things, you don't have to go to jail. You're still a dick and society has every right to treat you like one.