From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Summary...
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:14:11 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug18.012035.23384@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.172808.9517@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.051524.3667@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>
> 	(Deleted to save space)
>>
>>And if you tell them to "Piss Off!", they will go on their merry way and leave
>>you be.
>>
>>Tell me, if I were to stand out on the public sidewalk, set up a telescope, and
>>start to peer through your windows, how long before you felt I was infringing
>>upon your space?
>>
> 	You would be looking into my home, somewhat violating my privacy,
> NOT forcing me to do any actions I would not choose to do.  Remember, the
> argument is whether I am violating their autonomky, not their privacy.
> (But, since I do not follow them into their homes, or wherever they are
> going, and only watch for thewm on public places, then I am not even
> violating their privacy.  If they are out in public I have the right to
> watch them.  Your example dosent hold.)

On the contrary, my example holds quite well. I would not be violating YOUR
privacy one legal bit more than you violate any of your escortee's rights. YOU
bought the house with windows, YOU leave your blinds open--I am exercsing my
rights to look where I wsih--regardless of what you prefer.

As for violationg their autonomy--let's look at the root word
itself--autonomous. It means (second meaning according to Webster, as we are
not dealing with Government) existing or functioning independantly. They choose
to walk home alone, and you deny them that. You state that your "right" to walk
them home outweighs their right to not be bothered by you. You do NOT permit
them to function independently (free from influence and control of others --
a) self determined, governing, b) self-reliant.) but rather FORCE them to have
an escort. 

You are no different than an over-protective mother who refuses to permit a 17
year-old out on a date (without a chaperone) because you know what is best for
them.

You are confusing the 'legal right' to do this with the 'moral right'.

Whehter YOU like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is
wise or not, when a woman decides that she does not want you to follow her
home, she is exercising her right to her independance.

The minute you step out that dorr following her, you have decided what is best
for her, and you have ignored what she has chosen for herself.

Tell me, who are YOU to decide what SHE needs? Who assigned as her guardian?

And, you do not do it for her, you do it for yourself. You do it because YOU
want to follow her home--your reasons are self-centered, and selfish. (I do not
disagree with such category of reasons, but at least be honest about it.) Do
not say you are doing it for her--she doesn't want you there.

You simply decide that you know what is best for her, and if she doesn't agree
with you, you'll do it anyway.

> 
>>I'd have the legal right to look, and you would have the legal right to close
>>your blinds if you didn't like it.
>>
> 	Go ahead... :)  My blinds are usually closed anyway.

Then I hope you won't mind it when I start digging through your garbage,
reading your old bills and letters, examining your store receipts to see what
items you have bought, and when I am all through, printing the list and
distributing it to your neighbors along with advice on such shortcomings as
your diet and reading habits and encouraging them to try and help you out of
your erroneous lifestyle.

How many weeks of that before you would get pissed?

And, do not think I do not have the legal right to do so. You leave your
garbage out there for the public, it belongs to the public.


> 
>>And the only way a person can avoid being escorted by you is to sprint faster
>>than you can follow.
>>
>>Maybe you do not feel this is infringing upon their space, but it is pretty
>>blatent to me--IMHO.
> 
> 	It is not making it so that they can do any less than before, or
> forcing them to do anything at all.  They are in public areas when they go
> out, and therefore, ANYONE who wants to look at them, or even follow them
> would be guilty of same.  Also, I doubt that any of the other people who
> may follow them have intentions as good as mine...

Good intentions do not make up for bad actions. You know what they want and you
violate their wishes.

> 	If watching someone in public is wrong, then EVERYONE is guilty of
> it.

No, watching someone in public is not wrong. Following them against their
wishes may not be legally wrong, but I fail to see how you can morally justify
it.

> 	Case closed, there is no valid argument for why it is either wrong
> for me to follow someone, or if I would be violating their autonomy or
> space more than anyone else out there.  Hell, I'm increasing their
> autonomy, if you consider giving them more options if they get attacked.

Uh-uh. You specifically choose a course of action which is opposed to their
wishes. They do not want you there. You want to be there, and you say, "Since
you can't stop me from following you, you will just have to put up with me."

You FORCE them to put up with you because you do leave them a choice. You offer
the option, knowing full well that even if they decline, you will do it anyway.
You will go out there on the street, and you make certain they get an escort
not only if they do not want one, but even if they specifically do not want
one.

How the hell does that increase their autonomy?

> 
>>
> 		(Stuff deleted)
> 
>>
>>Adding your "opinion" does NOT relieve you of slander liability. We all KNOW the
>>other person is expressing an opinion* even if they do not say "In my
>>opinion..." Therefore, adding the qualifier does nothing as far as the court is
>>concerned.
>>
>>Just a little legal tidbit to keep in mind.
> 
> 	Actually, isnt the only way for someone to avoid a slander charge
> to either proove the accusation or statement made, or if they can proove
> that no damage to the victim was done?  Seems rather impossible to prove an
> opinion, and I doubt that any judge or jury would want to see proof of
> same.  Anyway, useless to debate it here.

If I call someone an ignorant slut who is dripping puss, we all know it is an
opinion, and it is real hard to prove she is a slut (slut is usually 
derogatory, and not the same as promiscuous, which might be true). If you say 
someone is a liar, you can prove they are a liar, that is your defense.

However, remember that when it comes to honesty, sexuality, disease, or morals,
you are open to punitive damages (known as spinning the big prize wheel to
plaintiff lawyers). What that means is if the jusry finds $1 in actual damages,
they can then assign an award on top of that to discourage you and others from
engaging in such behavior in the future. That could mean $1 actual and
$1,000,000 punative.

And, it is not hard to have $1.00 in damages.

DC


Newsgroups: talk.rape