Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Australian judge rules 'N-word' not offensive
.:DaYg0sTyLz:.:
--- Quote from: illuminatic on August 13, 2010, 04:47:03 PM ---^ The judge makes a ruling based on the legal hypothetical concept of the 'reasonable person'. This is an ever changing concept, and judges are suppose to use current attitudes in society to guide them in forming an idea of what the 'reasonable person' would do. In murder trials this is usually left to the jury, as they are suppose to reflect a more accurate idea of the type of people that compose society and therefore a closer idea of the average 'reasonable person'.
What this means is that the law is, or should be, always changing with society, for better or worse.
--- End quote ---
I understand the idea. What Im saying is, it is impossible to tell anyone else what they should or should not be offended by. Everyone has different personal experiences. Something that could completely offend you...might not offend me. Which one of us is that make-believed "reasonably person"? Chances are we are both reasonable and both offended by different things.
Sikotic™:
A "reasonable person" as in, someone who is not of color?
LOL. The ruling itself is offensive.
StrEiht Up Menace:
aussies arent educated on any other culture but whites. They need to broaden their minds, because we all know its the most racist country full of idiots like this judge
The Overfiend:
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on August 13, 2010, 04:51:57 PM ---
--- Quote from: illuminatic on August 13, 2010, 04:47:03 PM ---^ The judge makes a ruling based on the legal hypothetical concept of the 'reasonable person'. This is an ever changing concept, and judges are suppose to use current attitudes in society to guide them in forming an idea of what the 'reasonable person' would do. In murder trials this is usually left to the jury, as they are suppose to reflect a more accurate idea of the type of people that compose society and therefore a closer idea of the average 'reasonable person'.
What this means is that the law is, or should be, always changing with society, for better or worse.
--- End quote ---
I understand the idea. What Im saying is, it is impossible to tell anyone else what they should or should not be offended by. Everyone has different personal experiences. Something that could completely offend you...might not offend me. Which one of us is that make-believed "reasonably person"? Chances are we are both reasonable and both offended by different things.
--- End quote ---
Of course, everybody is an individual and what is offensive is subjectively determined, however the reasonable person test is suppose to reflect what the majority of society feels on a particular issue. You or I may not find certain behaviour offensive, although society at large may disagree. For the sake of social cohesion the courts employ the reasonable person test.
The Overfiend:
Another thing, I'm not defending the ruling, I'm just trying to explain what the judge is suppose to do, something he has not done because Australians find usage of the word offensive.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version