Tweet
In justifying prohibitions on public nudity, non-nudists often suggest that by going nude in public a person is forcing the view of nudity on people who do not want it. Obviously, to force someone into a situation they don't want to be in is bad, and so public nudity should be prohibited.
While this argument has a grain of merit, I don't think it should go unchallenged.
First, it seems dubious to me to imply (as those promoting this view tend to do) that "forcing" someone to see something they don't want to see is in the same league as forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. The latter is certainly criminal, freedom of behaviour being one of the more important freedoms we possess. The former does not seem to be so.
Let's consider a different, potentially less loaded example of being "forced to see" something.
As I travel to and from work every day, I come across many advertisements. While some are merely inane, many reinforce cultural standards of beauty that I am convinced are the source of an alarming amount of suffering in several women who I care for a great deal. They tell women that, unless you are as thin as this or have breasts like that, you are inferior. Millions of women every year suffer through depression, self-loathing, diets, anorexia and bulemia, and even unhealthy surgery in (usually futile) attempts to overcome this feeling of inferiority. And because they believe the message, they perpetuate it and reinforce it, passing it on to their friends and daughters. These images offend me, because of the suffering they represent and perpetuate. I cannot avoid seeing them: such images are literally everywhere. But it would be preposterous for me to suggest that they be removed on the grounds that I have a right not to be forced to see such offensive filth. My only weapon to combat it is a resolute determination to have my actions and words forever combat the message they are sending.
Another, even more telling example that I feel is relevant to this question is that of smoking in public places. Many jurisdictions in my home country (Canada) have enacted laws prohibiting smoking in many public facilities, such as restaurants and school grounds. I have recently learned that Scotland (my current country of residence) is considering similar rules.
It may be argued that the smoking issue is parallel to the advertising issue (or the public nudity one). In this case, it is an offensive smell rather than an offensive sight, but the principle is the same. In the case of smoking, however, there is a proven public health risk associated with exposure to second-hand smoke. Even with this evidence, though, it is no simple matter to have smoking banned in public places. I would attribute this to a certain amount of social inertia, combined with a deep reluctance to deprive people of freedoms for any but the most solid reasons.
Now, I see two key differences between the issue of banning smoking and that of banning public nudity. One difference is that smoking is known to be harmful to both the participants and bystanders, while public nudity has no such consequences. Certainly, one of the roles of the law is to discourage or prevent people from harming others. If this was the only difference, you'll agree that smoking would be far more eligible for prohibition than nudity.
The second key difference is that smoking in public is not currently prohibited, and has been practiced for centuries. Nudity is currently prohibited, and has no such tradition in our society. In other words, social inertia favours allowing smoking, but does not favour allowing nudity in public.
Now, I don't choose to take a stand on whether smoking should be prohibited or not. I personally think it is one of the most vile habits I have ever had the disgust to be downwind of. I'd rather sit in a bus stop with a gang of morbidly flatulent ex-convicts than with some inconsiderate idiot nonchalantly taking drags on his cancer stick. But that's not enough reason to make it illegal.
But consider this. Smoking is damaging to innocent bystanders; nudity is not. The main argument in favour of allowing smoking is that of social inertia, an advantage public nudity does not share. Ask yourself: is the status quo such a precious resource to us as a society that we are able to prohibit nudity outright in public places without a qualm, while we hem and haw and dither about whether we are justified in maybe limiting smokers' rights to pollute the sidewalks and doorways?
And, just so you know that I'm not ignoring it, let me address the fact that there are many more people who would like to smoke in public than who would like to go naked in public. How does this fact affect to the above argument? Well, on the one hand, with (say) a million times as many smokers out there, they will do a million times the harm to innocent bystanders - more, in fact, because smoking is more demonstrably harmful than nudity is. And, on the other hand, those who would choose to go naked in public have a millionth the resources to defend their position (right or wrong) - and that's not counting the tobacco lobby, a multi-billion dollar industry with a lot riding on a favorable outcome for smokers.
I'll let you consider how that should affect the balance.
Well, that's how I see it anyway. I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments.
- Tim -
While this argument has a grain of merit, I don't think it should go unchallenged.
First, it seems dubious to me to imply (as those promoting this view tend to do) that "forcing" someone to see something they don't want to see is in the same league as forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. The latter is certainly criminal, freedom of behaviour being one of the more important freedoms we possess. The former does not seem to be so.
Let's consider a different, potentially less loaded example of being "forced to see" something.
As I travel to and from work every day, I come across many advertisements. While some are merely inane, many reinforce cultural standards of beauty that I am convinced are the source of an alarming amount of suffering in several women who I care for a great deal. They tell women that, unless you are as thin as this or have breasts like that, you are inferior. Millions of women every year suffer through depression, self-loathing, diets, anorexia and bulemia, and even unhealthy surgery in (usually futile) attempts to overcome this feeling of inferiority. And because they believe the message, they perpetuate it and reinforce it, passing it on to their friends and daughters. These images offend me, because of the suffering they represent and perpetuate. I cannot avoid seeing them: such images are literally everywhere. But it would be preposterous for me to suggest that they be removed on the grounds that I have a right not to be forced to see such offensive filth. My only weapon to combat it is a resolute determination to have my actions and words forever combat the message they are sending.
Another, even more telling example that I feel is relevant to this question is that of smoking in public places. Many jurisdictions in my home country (Canada) have enacted laws prohibiting smoking in many public facilities, such as restaurants and school grounds. I have recently learned that Scotland (my current country of residence) is considering similar rules.
It may be argued that the smoking issue is parallel to the advertising issue (or the public nudity one). In this case, it is an offensive smell rather than an offensive sight, but the principle is the same. In the case of smoking, however, there is a proven public health risk associated with exposure to second-hand smoke. Even with this evidence, though, it is no simple matter to have smoking banned in public places. I would attribute this to a certain amount of social inertia, combined with a deep reluctance to deprive people of freedoms for any but the most solid reasons.
Now, I see two key differences between the issue of banning smoking and that of banning public nudity. One difference is that smoking is known to be harmful to both the participants and bystanders, while public nudity has no such consequences. Certainly, one of the roles of the law is to discourage or prevent people from harming others. If this was the only difference, you'll agree that smoking would be far more eligible for prohibition than nudity.
The second key difference is that smoking in public is not currently prohibited, and has been practiced for centuries. Nudity is currently prohibited, and has no such tradition in our society. In other words, social inertia favours allowing smoking, but does not favour allowing nudity in public.
Now, I don't choose to take a stand on whether smoking should be prohibited or not. I personally think it is one of the most vile habits I have ever had the disgust to be downwind of. I'd rather sit in a bus stop with a gang of morbidly flatulent ex-convicts than with some inconsiderate idiot nonchalantly taking drags on his cancer stick. But that's not enough reason to make it illegal.
But consider this. Smoking is damaging to innocent bystanders; nudity is not. The main argument in favour of allowing smoking is that of social inertia, an advantage public nudity does not share. Ask yourself: is the status quo such a precious resource to us as a society that we are able to prohibit nudity outright in public places without a qualm, while we hem and haw and dither about whether we are justified in maybe limiting smokers' rights to pollute the sidewalks and doorways?
And, just so you know that I'm not ignoring it, let me address the fact that there are many more people who would like to smoke in public than who would like to go naked in public. How does this fact affect to the above argument? Well, on the one hand, with (say) a million times as many smokers out there, they will do a million times the harm to innocent bystanders - more, in fact, because smoking is more demonstrably harmful than nudity is. And, on the other hand, those who would choose to go naked in public have a millionth the resources to defend their position (right or wrong) - and that's not counting the tobacco lobby, a multi-billion dollar industry with a lot riding on a favorable outcome for smokers.
I'll let you consider how that should affect the balance.
Well, that's how I see it anyway. I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments.
- Tim -
Comment