09-05-2007, 07:36 PM
Quote:(WARNING: The following does not imply moral equivalence in any sense. It is only an example from similar rights-based challenges.)
This is very much like the classic free speech defense of holocaust deniers. What do you say when someone should have taken a sensible course of action, but instead took an odious-but-correct stand on their rights?
Cops and corporations taking a mile when they've only been given an inch is a greater danger than jerks making scenes.
On the other hand, there is a certain 'softness' that makes society go 'round. If everyone stood on their rights every time, there would be no cooperation. Blood pressures would go through the roof, and the society would collapse into a mess of bickering.
So, I think guys like this are important, but only occasionally. It is important to remember that people are the source of rights, not government, not police, and certainly not Circuit City. But, just like if every book published was David Irving, if every shopper was this guy, we'd be going to hell in a handbasket.
-Jester
I can see the fine line you're trying to walk Jester, and I think you're successful in making your point. But I do think you may be giving this man too much credit.
As I see it, most laws are self explanatory: follow the letter of the law and there's no disgreement. For example, speeding, murder, or physical assault all have clear cut definitions. Break the rule, you get punished.
But for-better-or-worse, there are some laws needed for a society to function that can't be so clear cut. Take for example verbal assault. I'm not a law student, so I can't quote (nor feign correct interpretation) of the law. Unlike speeding which can rely on cold hard physics to determine when the line is crossed, some crimes like verbal assault are subjective. The law tries its best to put it in objective terms: 'perceived threat', 'intent of action', etc. But no matter how many terms you put into the law book, it can't provide a crisp clear line in the same way it can for other crimes.
There are a lot of dolts out there who are willing to use these more subjective laws to get restraining orders, press assault charges, or sue anyone who happens to look at them the wrong way. Ultimately these cases get dropped in court thanks to a judicial system with competent lawyers, judges, and juries. But the damage of these cases can be lasting (lost jobs, lost wages, social standing in the community, etc).
Now in the case of this man, I'm aware it wasn't concerning one of these more subjective laws. But he's in the same vein as these snap judgment suers. Just because they believe their rights may be encroached on, they raise a stink to the high heavens. The problem is this 'crying wolf' takes away from people who are fighting against true injustice.
Just because the law protects my right to slap a lawsuit on anyone who looks at me the wrong way, doesn't make me a hero for standing up and asserting those rights. In the same way, just because this man raised a stink and rode the technicality of his rights all the way to a jail cell doesn't mean he's a hero.
You're point about the need for people to stand up for their rights isn't wrong Jester. But I think to apply that to this case is giving him way too much credit. His actions aren't going to change anything for anyone, make anyone freer, preserve our rights more than before, make society better, or draw attention to a 'great injustice of society'.
Cheers,
Munk