Are there dangerous ideas?
November 18, 2020 at 4:39 am #34477
I’m a bit behind reading replies, and found this:
” Once, I explained some aspect of the law regarding when it’s necessary to obtain releases when shooting in public ”
A lawyer friend once told me there are no privacy laws in Australia. This means not only in public but also on private premises.Nobody has the right to tell you to stop, but you may be asked to leave private premises.
It is my understanding that privacy is nota right explicitly protected under the US constitution, but that the supreme court has ruled that such a right is implied.I forget by which section of the constitution or the bill of rights.November 18, 2020 at 4:49 am #34478
Fairly imaginative examples, unless you’ve actually experienced them.
In well into senior’s age and have never witnessed such crass behaviour. I’ve now been waiting for some years just to reply: “Well, I’d rather be an old fart than a young dickhead”
Arguably worse than having ignorant young shits being rude is becoming invisible. The young seem to look right through me. This not something I’ve imagined or invented.
I first heard about it a few years ago at a cocktail party. A close friend, in her 60s, dressed in a blue and white designer dress to signal the appearance of spring, was lamenting about not being taken seriously at her workplace and humorously remarked, “On top of all of that, no one in the world sees me anymore because I’m an older woman.”
However, she was only half joking. I then began to hear more of my older patients describe this experience of feeling “invisible.” And then it happened to me. I realized that when I walk down the street, younger people simply don’t see me. Not a glance, not a smile, none of the customary, friendly gestures we’re used to here in neighborly San Francisco. It was as if I actually disappeared from the sight of people much younger than I.”November 18, 2020 at 5:08 am #34479
@unseen I’m a bit behind reading replies, and found this: ” Once, I explained some aspect of the law regarding when it’s necessary to obtain releases when shooting in public ” Interesting. A lawyer friend once told me there are no privacy laws in Australia. This means not only in public but also on private premises.Nobody has the right to tell you to stop, but you may be asked to leave private premises. It is my understanding that privacy is nota right explicitly protected under the US constitution, but that the supreme court has ruled that such a right is implied.I forget by which section of the constitution or the bill of rights.
In the U.S., you have no privacy when you’re in public, meaning pretty much out where anybody can see you, so you’re in public sunbathing in your front yard on your own property. But as with everything, there are wrinkles. A fellow had installed a camera under a grate that took upskirt photos (video? not sure). He was caught and in court he argued that under the law, as he understood it, you can’t claim privacy. The judge wisely responded, “Surely a woman has privacy under her cl0thing.” Nowadays, upskirting is frequently against the law by statute.
When shooting in public, it all depends what you want to do with the photos/video. If it’s for your private use, no need to obtain a release. If you intend to profit off it somehow, and the person is recognizable, better get a release. No release needed for people appearing in news photos/video. However, there was a case where a piece of news video was later used by the station in the intro to their news hour. The person featured in the clip (which was only a few seconds long) claimed the station owed him money for using his likeness plus damages for failing to obtain his permission. The station’s attorney argued that the clip was exempt because it was part of a hard news segment. The judge disagree saying that they lost that exemption when they converted it from a news clip to a promotional and marketing device.
November 18, 2020 at 6:35 am #34482
- This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Unseen.
The “chimerical diaphanous dreck” of which you speak is nothing less than the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights, which you, as an Attorney and officer of the court, take an oath or affirmation support, uphold, and defend.
According to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island, in a letter to George Washington, that Constitution gives “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, but affords to all equal immunities of citizenship.”
Religion isn’t chosen any more than hate is chosen.
Speak for yourself or whomever pulls your string. My rejection of religion is fully chosen and embraced by me, as is my Jeffersonian “eternal hostility to any form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
I am not gonna look back at what you’ve written to find that fallacy. I am sick of this conversation already.
Well, a claim made without evidence can be dismissed the same way. Bye!November 18, 2020 at 7:32 am #34483
It is my understanding that privacy is nota right explicitly protected under the US constitution, but that the supreme court has ruled that such a right is implied.I forget by which section of the constitution or the bill of rights.
Perhaps the most ignored part of the U.S. Constitution–even by legal scholars, both Left and Right–is Amendment 9. It says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”
In other words, individual rights exist whether explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or not and in fact pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution only recognizes individual rights, it doesn’t grant them and the only limits on those rights are the equally-held rights of other individuals.
The Founders regarded individual rights as natural, not the product of law, and Amendment 9 was their way of acknowledging that.November 18, 2020 at 7:46 am #34484
I meant to add also: As an older person, you are not invisible. Younger folks can always stand to learn of the ways and insights of the youths that came before them. Please keep us informed. 👍November 18, 2020 at 8:49 pm #34485
I have a copy of the constitution in my office. Before i look at any files I get down on all fours on the prayer rug and pay homage and give oblations to almighty Jesus Constitution. It is a pretty cool document in the framework of the period. But lets not go cuckoo bananas over it. Judged through a modern lens it is sexist and racist. It is brought to life by those who interpret it. Guess what? Those Supremes have in many instances sucked. Hugo Black was a former member of the KKK. They have made decisions that are predictably a reflection of the ruling economic class and contemporary mores. See Dred Scot and Plessy Ferguson. They decided that the interests of slave owners in their property is greater than the interest of human beings in their autonomy or in any way.
Ya think it might help to give government the ability to go after the advocates of lynchings? Entire population of white christians in towns would go out for a day of entertainment to watch a “nigger” being tormented, dehumanized, tortured and murdered. They saw nothing wrong with their entertainment. Keep hate alive! Let the market place of ideas figure this shit out! the right of the most vile memebers of society have a god given right to say what the fuck they want and influence who they can to do what they will! And the rights of those who will be harmed by their free speech be damned! They can use the laws same as the rest of us after they are in the grave. You have your abstract notions of how law will protect ALL CITIZENS.
Trump has installed some real winners so the quality of the decisions and the resultant law of the land will likely deteriorate. But you again missed the point. I wasn’t knocking the sox off of the constitution. I was making the point that the historical hatreds are fed by mind viruses and you’re putting a cross and throwing holy water on Satan will do little to nothing for those victims in history and into the future. Again we have a great sample of how humans behave when hatreds are allowed to be disseminated without consequences. A decent society and decent humans protect the vulnerable minority groups from the will of the majority which has been fed by filth forever and a day.
I am guessing you have some atheists in your family or who have influenced you because you are very religious in your thinking. Consider the percentage of newborns born to fundamentalist families who become atheists v. newborns in secular culture and or with atheist/agnostic parents who have not mind fucked their kids in churches, synagogues and mosques. Do those people choose to be religious? You will find some of the same trends among kids born to racist parents in racist cultures. Speaking of your Jeffersonian hostility to any form of tyranny over the mind of man, do you suppose Jefferson ought to have had some hostility to tyranny over his own slaves? Would he have “chosen” differently under different influences?
You said, “Well, a claim made without evidence can be dismissed the same way.” Congratulations. That is a reasonable statement.November 18, 2020 at 9:38 pm #34486
“As an older person, you are not invisible. Younger folks can always stand to learn of the ways and insights of the youths that came before them. Please keep us informed. ”
How very kind of you to say. I do my best to contribute.
However, my observation is supported by studies. I realise this not a universal thing, especially in some societies in which the elderly are respected. But it’s definitely a thing in Oz.
I expect to earn any respect I am shown.
The great irony is that inside every old person there is a young person wondering what the hell happened.November 18, 2020 at 9:44 pm #34487
The great irony is that inside every old person there is a young person wondering what the hell happened.
That is a great line. It feels like time is accelerating. What felt like a week as a kid takes up a month..November 18, 2020 at 10:30 pm #34489
The severity of hate speech and its impact, it seems to me, can only be weighed by the recipient. What makes one person feel demeaned another can laugh off.
Or, if it is a direct precursor to a hate crime, it can serve as evidence for it. (Right Jake? Is “hate crime” even a legal phrase, or is it just a normal kind of crime plus evidence of a special kind of hate?)November 18, 2020 at 11:50 pm #34490
” It feels like time is accelerating. What felt like a week as a kid takes up a month..”
–and every time you blink seems like another year has passed.
No, you’re not imagining it. There’s a scientific explanation for this perception. It has to do with new experiences and hence new memories.
From The Scientific American, 2016:
“Where did the time go?” middle-aged and older adults often remark. Many of us feel that time passes more quickly as we age, a perception that can lead to regrets. According to psychologist and BBC columnist Claudia Hammond, “the sensation that time speeds up as you get older is one of the biggest mysteries of the experience of time.” Fortunately, our attempts to unravel this mystery have yielded some intriguing findings.
In 2005, for instance, psychologists Marc Wittmann and Sandra Lenhoff, both then at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, surveyed 499 participants, ranging in age from 14 to 94 years, about the pace at which they felt time moving—from “very slowly” to “very fast.” For shorter durations—a week, a month, even a year—the subjects’ perception of time did not appear to increase with age. Most participants felt that the clock ticked by quickly. But for longer durations, such as a decade, a pattern emerged: older people tended to perceive time as moving faster. When asked to reflect on their lives, the participants older than 40 felt that time elapsed slowly in their childhood but then accelerated steadily through their teenage years into early adulthood.
There are good reasons why older people may feel that way. When it comes to how we perceive time, humans can estimate the length of an event from two very different perspectives: a prospective vantage, while an event is still occurring, or a retrospective one, after it has ended. In addition, our experience of time varies with whatever we are doing and how we feel about it. In fact, time does fly when we are having fun. Engaging in a novel exploit makes time appear to pass more quickly in the moment. But if we remember that activity later on, it will seem to have lasted longer than more mundane experiences.
The reason? Our brain encodes new experiences, but not familiar ones, into memory, and our retrospective judgment of time is based on how many new memories we create over a certain period. In other words, the more new memories we build on a weekend getaway, the longer that trip will seem in hindsight.
This phenomenon, which Hammond has dubbed the holiday paradox, seems to present one of the best clues as to why, in retrospect, time seems to pass more quickly the older we get. From childhood to early adulthood, we have many fresh experiences and learn countless new skills. As adults, though, our lives become more routine, and we experience fewer unfamiliar moments. As a result, our early years tend to be relatively overrepresented in our autobiographical memory and, on reflection, seem to have lasted longer. Of course, this means we can also slow time down later in life. We can alter our perceptions by keeping our brain active, continually learning skills and ideas, and exploring new places.”November 19, 2020 at 12:00 am #34491
Pope there are a number of issues you raise.
1. Feelings or direct impact on an individual.
2. hate speech can be directed at an individual with intent to harm that individual.
3. hate speech can be broadcast or disseminated in various ways (radio, internet, pamphlets, assemblies with an orator, etc
but with intent to influence the listeners and in turn alter the zeitgeist perhaps making fringe ideas mainstream and
openly discriminating or prosecuting a marginalized group.
4. Hate crimes are distinct crimes. If you are to answer a multiple choice question to identify the odd motivation for
murder-a) jealousy b) revenge c) financial d)targeting individual for no other reason than being a part of a despised
sexual orientation or race You see? See Kristina’s explanation of hate crimes.November 19, 2020 at 12:03 am #34492
Sorry Pope, i forgot to answer your question!
If the hate speech is contemporaneous with the crime then it is evidence of the crime. Black guy gets his throat cut by a robed KKK who screams, “die you mutha fucking porch monkey nigger1”
On the other hand if there is no contemporaneous or temporal connection between the speech and the act it is an issue of law. It is hearsay and to get it into evidence it has to fit within one of the exceptions to hearsay. There is also a balancing between probative value and prejudicial effect. That is stuff for a judge to determine.November 19, 2020 at 12:15 am #34493
Glen, i think everyone i have spoken to about the topic of perception of time as we age is in agreement…getting older we feel time passes more quickly. I wonder if there are or have been experiments to see if you are correct that by being active and trying new things we can bring the pace of time passage down. Here is a depressing thought-if we use perception as the measure of our lives then middle age might be 34 years old…oh fuck!
Here is an experience i had that is probably universal. I was in a car accident-was stopped at a red light and saw a car coming from behind that was accelerating and knew what was coming. I let out an “aaaaaaaahhhh” which alerted my then gf we were about to be hit but once i felt the impact it seemed the spinning of my car was in slow motion. That sensation of time slowing in such moments is i believe universal.November 19, 2020 at 6:59 am #34494
The severity of hate speech and its impact, it seems to me, can only be weighed by the recipient. What makes one person feel demeaned another can laugh off.
Or, if it is a direct precursor to a hate crime, it can serve as evidence for it. (Right Jake? Is “hate crime” even a legal phrase, or is it just a normal kind of crime plus evidence of a special kind of hate?)
So if I chant, “Hoosiers will not replace us” while holding a tiki torch before kicking some guy from Indiana in the testes, that would be a hate crime, right?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.