Does someone have the "right" not to be offended. Bednar says we don't when someone says something to us. Kimball says we do when someone abuses their freedom of speech. I think the right to not be offended about an idea or insult is indefensible. Freedom of speech only protects speech that someone would want to stop. But I'm having a harder time with the right not to be offended with other non-verbal types of speech. Here's my hypothetical:
It is clearly a violation of my rights for you to inject me, against my will, with heroin as I'm standing next to you in the subway (assume a sterile needle). But is that only because of the needle prick? I think most people would agree that creating a heroin addiction is is worse than just being pricked with a needle. Taking out the needle, what if I just blew Angel Dust into the air and everyone around inhaled it unwillingly. That also seems like a violation of my rights. It seems that no one has a right to create an addiction (a slippery word) in me without my consent. So what if I show pornography, which studies have shown is as addictive as many illegal drugs, to an unwilling audience? Does free speech trump or do they have a right to mental integrity? I've been mulling over this for a few days. Do you think there should be any limits on speech? If we have a right to control what addictions we develop, shouldn't we have a right to ban pornography?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment