Freedom of speech or offensive? - Page 4

Despanan · 08-22-2008, 01:47 PM

Wait, tolerated or accepted?

I think it is socially tolerated for the most part (aside from the bus driver, but I already said he was wrong.) I don't see them being thrown in jail or fined for walking around on the leash. They're free to do that if they choose, and other people are free to be offended/stare/not care as well.

I'm saying If you choose to dress in a provocative manner, you shouldn't be surprised when you illicit a response.

onedarkly1 · 08-22-2008, 01:51 PM

Sadly, I believe these are many of the same arguements made against Homosexual couples for many years.

What if people see two men kissing? Two women? What if children see it?

In reality, whether I like it or not, or any one likes it or not, the mere act of her wearing a leash and him holding on to it is legal, unless there is a specific law/ordinance against it. It is definately a dominance/submission issue, but it is not a slavery issue, by definition one being enslaved is against ones will and not an optional submissive act.

If I were one of them, I would sue the city. bus company, etc.?

__________________________________
"I died a long time ago."

Lizzard · 08-22-2008, 03:39 PM

I can understand why the bus driver/other people would think this is offensive, but you can't just throw somebody off public transport because you don't like the way they dress, or the kind of 'accessories' they use. I think they look like idiots, true, but who is anyone to judge? Neither of them were doing anything illegal, and though submissive sexual behavior was implied, nothing actually happened. It's as if a woman were to walk onto the bus in a t-shirt with a dildo on it - I'm sure if that happened she wouldn't have gotten kicked off.

I agree with onedarkly1, the couple should have sued the bus company. It's supposed to be a free country, let people look stupid if they want to.

Fatbaby · 08-22-2008, 03:45 PM

I really thought it is a statement of expected social behavior. Is a wife any different with or without a chain?

Sir_Vex · 08-22-2008, 07:21 PM

Why are there comments likening this to homosexuality? This is much different. Kissing is kissing, even if between two people of the same gender. Now, "necking" and digging down one's partner's throat in public is unacceptable, regardless of orientation. I find this to be similar to grotesquely making out with ones partner. If they wish to engage in this behavior, that's perfectly fine by me, and even if it's not accepted by others it has to be respected if it's behind closed doors. Once it's in public though it becomes inappropriate.

$haDe · 08-23-2008, 05:31 AM

I think that as long as this couple didn't get into some government building or church... They have their rights to dressed whatever they liked also .. as long as it legal and not offending anyone

MitsyMayhem · 08-23-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $haDe

I think that as long as this couple didn't get into some government building or church... They have their rights to dressed whatever they liked also .. as long as it legal and not offending anyone

Reread that bit.

This is what this whole topic is about, people being offended.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 08-23-2008, 06:12 AM

Anything can offend people. You shouldn't ban freedom of expression for that reason.

Sir_Vex · 08-23-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Anything can offend people. You shouldn't ban freedom of expression for that reason.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes. Feel free to do it, in privacy. However, be respectful when not in private.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 08-23-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir_Vex

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes. Feel free to do it, in privacy. However, be respectful when not in private.

Its a chain around someones neck. Who gives a fuck.

Solumina · 08-23-2008, 09:16 AM

Part of it is a safety issue as well, if the two of them were on a bus and the bus happened to crash one of them could have been thrown a bit and since they are connected via her nick the girl could have suffered serious damage and the transit authority could have been held responsible and be open to a substantial lawsuit. That being said the solution is to ask the couple to simply not wear the leash while on the bus, not refuse to allow them on the bus.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-23-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir_Vex

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

A passive act cannot be compared to that.
I raise the example of protest again. It bothers those for whom the protest is staged and targeted, but legally protests can't block anyone.
Should they be prohibited because people don't like it?

onedarkly1 · 08-23-2008, 12:46 PM

I think the safety arguement is a stretch. Perhaps, the test could be, if parents who place their children in a harness that contains a leash so as to allow their children to only go so far, would also be denied access because of said harness and leash.

If they are also denied acees for safety issues (I have not heard of this happening anywhere yet, but perhaps it has), then a legitimate arguement for safety may be made, if not it is simply a case of bias on the part of the driver-which should not be tolerated.

Sir Vex-I think my comments on homosexual relationships as a comparison is pretty self explanatory, so I have no further comment on that issue.
__________________________________________
"I died a long time ago."

Sir_Vex · 08-24-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

A passive act cannot be compared to that.
I raise the example of protest again. It bothers those for whom the protest is staged and targeted, but legally protests can't block anyone.
Should they be prohibited because people don't like it?

I never said it should be banned or prohibited. It should just be enjoyed in private.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-24-2008, 12:26 AM

Oh, well, yeah, ok. I've been shifting between the political and the social in this thread.
You didn't say it ought to be prohibited or anything. But I think better phrased with the protest example is that they have the same social validity. The only difference is these guys aren't trying to say something but then again some people would prefer that to actual dissent.
My point is that they're not hitting anyone's noses so much as people see them swinging from far and fear they might get their noses hit. It's like a preemptive desire for censorship.

Sir_Vex · 08-24-2008, 12:37 AM

While I understand what your saying, I just feel that his holding a chain that was connected to a collar on her neck was too gratuitous for general public. It would have been more appropriate at certain clubs or private, but I feel that being in public it's just pushing the envelope for no reason at all.

$haDe · 08-24-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitsyMayhem

Reread that bit.

This is what this whole topic is about, people being offended.

No no,U missed my point

The point is they're not intend to offend

So,They have their rights

There are some guy in my country dressed 'Reaper' or.. Clown to the funeral only to offend and "mock" the dead guy

Which are...bad

But If u dressed 'Grim Reaper' and got on the same bus that some poor who lost his relatives are sitting in it.

If the poor 'offend' u then he is an asshole

Sir_Vex · 08-24-2008, 09:22 AM

I can't make this one out Shade. In the end, it seems like your saying if the person who lost his relative is upset with the person dressed as the grim reaper, the grieving man is wrong?

JCC · 08-24-2008, 09:36 AM

The grieving man is wrong.

If I dress in a blue shirt and some guy who's mortally afraid of blue decides he's offended by my public display of blue and wants me to be kicked off the bus, who's in the wrong: me for not pre-empting the fact that it may offend someone to wear blue, or him for being an oversensitive ass?

Bete Noire · 08-24-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir_Vex

I can't make this one out Shade. In the end, it seems like your saying if the person who lost his relative is upset with the person dressed as the grim reaper, the grieving man is wrong?

His point is that the person dressed as the grim reaper wasn't intentionally trying to offend the grieving man. For the grieving man to get upset over it, puts him in the wrong.

I'm not going to stop wearing my Christian Death shirt just because someone might get offended, or stop wearing combat boots simply because a man who lost someone close to war might be upset.

LiUsAiDh · 08-24-2008, 12:09 PM

With the grieving man scenario, surely neither is 'wrong' per se if he gets upset. Just in his state of upset, he can't blame the dressed up person.

KontanKarite · 08-24-2008, 05:04 PM

Honestly...

I'm disappointed at SEVERAL of you right now.

KontanKarite · 08-24-2008, 05:19 PM

Okay...

Being "shocking" for the sake of being "shocking" in public is no worse than being "conservative" for the sake of being conservative or because it's "acceptable" just you know, because "that's just the way it is".

Here's a novel idea, how about the lot of you who are even remotely bothered by this stuff, change your god damned minds and not be bothered about it. It's easy. Just don't let it offend you, so drop it.

Being socially conservative for the sake of conservatism is a PISS POOR excuse for repression.

Beneath the Shadows · 08-24-2008, 06:28 PM

I've given it some thought and... I just don't care. It's simply not important enough for me to give a damn.

WizardElement5 · 08-25-2008, 04:04 AM

Is it offensive?

Some people may well be offended because they misinterpret the couples sexually dominant/submissive roles as a more general view about the status of women in society. Of course most people are not familiar with SM realationships as SMers are both a minority sexuality and a sexuality that is still widely discriminated against in most societies. That someone can be sexually submissive whilst maintaining equal status with their partner and in so doing, continue to enjoy their full human rights, is beyond the comprehension of many people. However, that is indeed the position of consenual SM relationships.

While there are those who will be offended because of their lack of understanding at what they see, there will be others, namely SMers themselves, who may well be uplifted by the expression of their own truth within a society that very largely frowns upon and discriminates against their freedom of expression.

It is only by more people being open and out about their sexuality and brave enough to be themselves in a society that is mostly hostile towards them, that the level of understanding and tolerance can be increased to a point that minorities no longer feel threatened and repressed within their own society. For those who wish for a more liberal and friendlier world to live in, such expressions of truth can only be a good thing.