People Who Are Offended By Written Words Have Too Many Legal Rights

[Boojatta]

I'm not talking about being offended by what seems to be defamatory. There are laws in place to deal with defamation. If you think you have been defamed, then you can sue.

However, if you are offended then you cannot use the courts to pursue a solution. If you become violent, then everybody loses.

A possible solution: some people will be classified as "Sensitive Souls." For example, all citizens of the UK who participate in public marches against Rushdie can be required to have all of their official identification indicate that they are "sensitive souls."

There can then be laws in place requiring bookstores to see identification and to refuse to sell books that have been classified as "potentially offensive" to people who are classified as "sensitive souls."

[Cocoa]

1. people that are suing for being offended

would have to sue under a particular law.

What laws are these, and wouldn't it be better to go after the law you don't like rather than the people using the law?

[Boojatta]

2. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think India banned The Satanic Verses.

Would it have been possible for employees of the Indian Embassy in Britain to have pursued a case against Salman Rushdie in the British courts?

Would it have been possible for employees of the Indian Embassy in Britain to have pursued a case against Elton John on the grounds that they disliked Elton John's sexuality?

Sensitive souls try to take away the rights of writers and readers. Sensitive souls fail only because the percentage of voters who are sensitive souls is too small.

Why should sensitive souls have a legal right to buy and read books that would be illegal to buy and read if there were more sensitive souls?

[Cocoa]

3. even if a lot of people are offended

they wouldn't be able to ban books, at least not in the U.S.

Is your problem with potentially not being able yourself to read the book? Or do you just not like hearing people that are offended express it?

If it's the latter, I suggest we don't make any changes. I suggest you just learn to live with it. Think of it as a good thing even.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. They can too ban books

in a practical manner. Simply intimidate retailers not to carry them.

The Dutch cartoons are still fresh in my mind. Look how many apologists came forward suggesting how we need to be "sensitive" to Muslims.

The rights of a free press and free expression trumps the non existent right not to be offended. That includes what some consider hate speech. Some of the nonsense in Canada and Europe is very scary.

[GirlinContempt]

6. Such as?

"Some of the nonsense in Canada and Europe is very scary."

[Boojatta]

5. Does the name Hitoshi Igarashi mean anything to you? e.o.m.

[Cocoa]

8. no

who is Hitoshi Igarashi?

[Boojatta]

7. "do you just not like hearing people that are offended express it?"

Uttering death threats goes beyond saying "I am offended."

[Cocoa]

9. there outta be a law against uttering death threats

oh wait, there is...

[Boojatta]

10. However, it's criminal law, not civil law. So police have the option of

ignoring death threats. Of course, if you threaten a politician, judge, or police officer with death, then you will feel some backlash. However, people threaten death routinely and even begin to riot and nothing is done because "they're just letting off steam." Eventually if a riot is severe and spreading then the riot police or national guard gets called in.

[Boojatta]

11. Kick