#10

Homework #10

First off, I must state that while I do support these laws, I wouldn't walk around NYC topless for reason that needs not to be stated.

Laws prohibiting this were most likely relevant during the time of their creation. .In terms of sexuality and appearance, society was more conservative. Victorian era values were still apparent (they're still vaguely around today).  The law reflected the moral values of the time. Time is a bit strange in that the passing of it correlates with change.

Looking round the bus I am presently riding in, I see two teenage girls wearing matching revealing bikini tops. Another woman who has no business wearing shorts that reveal her thighs is wearing shorts that do such. A group of boys are wearing wife eaters (white undershirts).

Looking at the ads posted along the ceiling, I see an ad for Abercrombie & Fitch featuring a topless man. Right next to it, well there’s ad showcasing the progress of some new train station in Brooklyn. In the newspaper, I was reading there is an Ad of a woman in a bathing suit focusing on how wide her legs are open (apparently a flagship store for a popular brand of clothing is open). The point is that times have changed.

This means that people are no longer as sensitive about public displays of sexuality. It shouldn’t be inferred that all displays of sexuality are acceptable. The people are more open about the subject. These news laws that permit a woman to be topless is a reflection of that.

I must admit there is a fragile peace with this law. I can easily the potential for sexual assaults to become more prevalent. Some men can’t help themselves nor can they keep their hands and other body parts to themselves. If this occurs by all means, there should be action taken to prevent this. Women are being harmed if this occurs.

On the notion of harm, I believe that Mill would agree with me in supporting these laws. No one is being harmed if a woman is walking around topless. People would most certainly be upset (Victorian values) but laws aren’t intended to necessarily prevent most emotional harm. The prevention of emotional harm is a potential consequence of the prevention of physical harm.

Mill would agree that being topless is a form of expression. Like the male who flaunt confidence in their figures when they remove the shirts, women are doing the same. It may be a bit odd at first, since the general population is not adjusted to seeing women in this manner outside of a sexual relationship. I’ve known a decent amount of women who show off their confidence by being topless. There is nothing wrong with it.

#9

1. What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?

Mill was a utilitarian, and as one, he wanted people to be treated equally. He wanted everyone to be happy.  His problem with democracy was that neither happiness nor the opportunity to do so was satisfied by his own standard.  Unfortunately when we view happiness today, and even before, happiness is mostly measured if one has the money and alliances, such as someone with higher status or influence, that can control anything around us. For example today, government limits people on liberty. For example, the internet, once was used to make connections with others world wide, now politicians have made it strict to the point as to check our accounts, same goes for phone calls, or even the freedom to travel. 2. Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?

I agree with Mill. Some laws are made in the interests of a particular group while ignoring others. I believe anti-prostitution laws violate his principles. It is a violation of the liberty of tastes and pursuits. While the laws are now meant to apparently stop and contain the spread of AIDS and other STD’s, these laws are not needed to do so. It is in the best interests of a sex-worker (prostitute), to not spread or become infected with an STD. As doing so would reduces the amount of clients a worker has. Therefore, the law is not justified under its current premise. 3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

In a democratic country, there will be groups that are not represented in government. Freedom of expression will allow certain groups to have a voice even though they are not represented in government. 4. Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?

The classic example for yelling fire in a movie theater is a case where freedom of expression is not protected by the first amendment. It should be unlimited, ideally, but as we have seen, there are certain types of expression we could do without. Yet, there would be no discriminatory means to moderate any expression. As the cost of having to listen to terrible things, freedom of expression should be unlimited. 5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?

This criticism seems to be fair. We must take into consideration that mainstream religions have adapted to coincide with existing laws  (Christianity) have become special exemptions from these laws to an extent (Judaism). Yet, before we go on and approve every religious freedom, we must consider the effect of allowing said freedom to exist within the group.For example, the use of peyote wouldn’t affect people of other religions since that freedom would only be granted to the Native American. Of course, the sale and distribution of it among that group would have to be regulated.We must also consider how far reaching the freedom will be. For example, polygamy would be allowed among Mormons and Muslims but should these marriages be entitled to the same privileges of a monogamous marriage? While I do not have the answer for this question, it does bring up some thought.As we say, Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. I’m sure if the sides were reversed, similar arguments would be made.