Archive for category Individual Liberties

All about breasts?

Jodi Jaecks, a breast cancer and double mastectomy survivor, recently won the right to swim topless at Seattle public pools during adult lap swim times.  According to media coverage, the general rule about attire at public pools is that all women must wear tops.  (I couldn’t find a direct link to actual policy from the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department.)  According to a recent press release from Seattle Parks and Recreation, the decision for Jaecks extends only to her, and only for adult lap swim times.  At present, any subsequent similar requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, additional case-by-case evaluations seem like an inefficient waste of time, money, and other procedural resources.  Why should Parks and Recreation require similarly situated people to go through the appeals process to get essentially the same exception to the rule?  Maybe they officials realized this problem; additional coverage of the issue suggests that the Parks and Recreation Superintendent is considering a “wholesale” change to the policy governing attire at public pools, and that such a broad spectrum change wouldn’t destroy the “family friendly” pool environment.  (Parks and Recreation offered this “family friendly” argument in support of its initial denial of Jaecks’s request.)

Let’s think a bit about what the Superintendent and any committee members should consider when evaluating a wholesale policy change.  There has been much chatter in the press about normalizing visions of breast cancer survivors.  (Go here and here for a couple of examples.)  There’s also the fact that full bathing suits can be quite painful for women living after double mastectomies.  But I want to focus on a broader issue that The Stranger touched upon briefly in its early coverage of Jaecks’s story.  How does the current policy apply to trans and queer individuals?  A post-op trans FTM person might look similar to Jaecks, but would be allowed to swim topless because he’s a he.  A pre-op trans FTM also identifies as a he, but has breasts.  So Parks and Recreation would force him to wear a bikini top.  After all, the current policy requires “gender appropriate swimwear.”  And what about a pre-op MTF?  In this case, a woman with no breasts… is she forced to go topless to conform to her current gender designation, socially imposed upon her?  (Interestingly, that would produce a result directly opposite of that which Jaecks initially received… a woman with no breasts forced to go *with* a top.)  How are cross-dressers treated?

In short, what exactly are the officials trying to cover up through the current policy?  It seems to reach beyond breasts and nipples.  It seems to reach a much broader policy of covering up bodies that do not conform to traditional notions of sex and gender (not to mention bodies that violate conventional ideas of functionality and ability).  Especially in a city known nationwide for its queer and trans activism (and apparently one of 2012’s “Gayest Cities”), in a state whose legislature legalized marriage equality, Seattle Parks and Recreation has much to consider here… beyond breasts.

, , ,

Leave a comment

Granny dropped the F-bomb

I’ll start this post with a story.  Yesterday I made a quick trip to Trader Joe’s for a few things, and outside the store was a young guy with a petition about an effort to end anti-gay bullying in local schools.  He wasn’t blocking the door, the stairs or ramp to the door, the sidewalks, or either of the crosswalks leading to the store.  Some people stopped to talk to him, and others walked past to do their shopping.  On my way out, I was waiting to cross the street and an elderly woman, with a walker, crossed the perpendicular street toward the store.  The guy chimed in with his opening line: “Help stop anti-gay bullying in our schools.”  Now, instead of just ignoring him and walking by, this old lady started ripping this kid a new one.  She actually yelled — verbally abused — this kid just for standing on a street corner, trying to do social justice work.  I was nearing my limit of listening to this when she stopped.  She walked part of the way up the ramp toward the store and lo and behold, she started screaming at this guy again.  I couldn’t take this woman’s attack any longer, so I turned around and said: “Lady, give the guy a break.  He’s here trying to do social justice work…” and mid-sentence, this granny looked me square in the eye, gave me the finger, said “F*ck you!” and walked/rolled into the store.

I was shocked.  In fact, the whole thing shocked another guy on the street walking his dogs, who turned to me and said: “What was that all about?!”  I briefly recounted.  It didn’t even seem that she was upset by the kid’s social justice goal.  It could’ve just as easily been a petition fostered by Young Republicans for Ron Paul.  She was angry by virtue of the mere fact that the kid had the gall to speak to her.

As I walked home with my eggs, vanilla (yes, I was baking) and a head full of disbelief, I started to think about a local law I read about recently.  Since 1968, the town of Middleborough, MA, has had an anti-profanity by-law on its books.  The by-law says: “Whoever having arrived at the age of discretion accosts or addresses another person with profane or obscene language in a street or other public place, may be punished by a fine of not more than $20.00 dollars [sic].”  Why would this be in the news recently?  Well, because on Monday the townspeople voted to approve a civil fine (the same $20) instead of a criminal penalty.  The language of the by-law is the same; the difference is just that the cops can enforce it as a civil penalty rather than a criminal offense, which means none of the processes and procedures that apply to criminal violations apply.  Feel free to check out the by-law (downloadable here), the approved change, the authorizing statute, and some commentary here, here, and here.

For the moment, let’s ignore the somewhat obvious questions about potential conflict with the First Amendment and assume the by-law is constitutional, valid, and enforceable.  Who has rights to complain of an infraction here?  Probably I do, because granny dropped the F-bomb while addressing me.  But that’s not really the point.  What about the guy with the petition?  I honestly can’t remember what words the woman said to him.  Is it profane to scream at him regardless of her word choice?  Profane can be defined as contempt or irreverence for “sacred” things, ideas or principles (see here and here).  How sacred is the guy’s right to stand on a street corner and respectfully ask for help for his cause?  Exactly what does this law cover?  And who gets to make that decision… the cop who levies the fine?  Further, at the end of the day, is $20 — or even $40 assuming granny violated the law when she addressed both me and the guy — enough of a penalty to make a difference?

, , , ,

Leave a comment

This space is mine! Or, adventures in air travel.

We occupy spaces, and sometimes, those spaces come at a cost.  Let me give you three examples that bring this to a head (or a knee, as the case may be), all dealing with air travel.

A friend on Facebook recently posted this status: “I f*cking hate ‘Economy Plus’ concept. I am tall – give me leg room for free, and stop giving it to the 4’11” person who pays $50 extra.”  Now, to be fair, this person really is quite tall… several inches above 6 feet.  And it’s pretty easy to see his side of the argument; he physically needs the extra space, so the airline should give it to him.  Us shorter folks might appreciate the extra space for, say, easier laptop usage, but it’s not quite the same thing.  Regardless, the airlines charge more for the extra space.  And in the absence of the extra leg room, both the tall person and the person sitting in front of him/her are — well — uncomfortable for the duration of the flight because of knee or back pain.

Now consider another example… people who physically need more space horizontally rather than vertically.  I’m talking about fat people who spill over into the adjacent seat(s).  These people could probably make a similar argument to the one offered by the tall folks needing more leg room.  Think about it: “I am fat – give me tush room for free, and stop giving it to the thin person who [doesn’t need it].”  Again, the argument doesn’t fly (or hasn’t yet).  The airlines can charge more for an additional seat, and even require it in some cases.  And again, in the absence of the extra side space (i.e., an extra seat), both the fat person and the people on either side of him/her are uncomfortable for the duration of the flight.

The third example serves as a pseudo-remedy for half the people involved in the first scenario.  Just a few weeks before my friend’s Facebook post appeared on my news feed, the NYT published this article about a new contraption designed to block the person in front of you from reclining his or her seat.  It seems the people most likely to use this “Knee Defender” are the tall people, like my Facebook friend, whose knees are already pretty close to (or right up against) the seat in front of them before the passengers in the seats ahead push the recline button.  But isn’t it part of the seat’s functionality (for which people pay) to recline?  And if the person in 7C is using this Knee Defender contraption, I bet the person in 6C isn’t too happy about it.  6C paid for the seat.  The seat is designed to recline.  Isn’t it 6C’s choice to recline and use the functionality for which 6C paid?

The law’s answer is no.  The FAA says that the Knee Defender, costing $19.95, is legal.  The law also says that the airlines can charge $50 extra for additional leg room and require fat people to purchase a second seat (clearly for more than $50).  All three are about a person needing more space than standard coach seats allow.  The Knee Defender folks claim they are “standing up for the right of the tall guy to sit down.”  One could argue that the airlines, by requiring the purchase of an additional seat or extra leg room, are protecting the rights of the folks who fit in the standard seats.  Of course, there’s a fourth option: first class.  Tough for many air travelers to afford.  And if the spaces in coach are enlarged overall, it stands to reason that the cost of coach will come much closer to the cost of first class… prohibitively expensive in several cases, and likely an unpopular choice for the airlines to make.  Let’s assume that the spaces will not be enlarged any time soon.

So whose rights are actually protected by the law?  Thin people.  Short people.  Anyone who purchases a Knee Defender.  The Knee Defender manufacturer and the airlines, focusing on their profits.  Maybe all’s fair in commerce and air travel.  Stop and ask, though… is it really fair?  And which parts do you think are fair, while other parts perhaps are not?  Is it more fair to make fat people purchase additional seat space than it is to make tall people purchase additional knee space?  Why?  And what about our friends in 6C and 7C?  If 7C isn’t in Economy Plus, is it fair for 6C to have to sit with knees in his or her back for several hours?  [Tall folks aren’t (yet) required to pay for Economy Plus.]  On the flip side, is it fair to allow 7C to take away 6C’s right to recline?

Maybe the law’s answer should be that the rights to protect are those of the person who purchased the use of a particular space, and anyone who interferes with the use of that space is invading.  Or maybe the law’s answer should be that the airlines must accommodate now-larger Americans by increasing the spaces purchased.  What would be the costs?  And what are the costs we incur in the system as it currently exists?

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Social media, flash mobs, and the Constitution

We’ve seen a variety of situations recently where social media tools have been used for something other than social good.  A woman in Philadelphia posted an offer to pay $1000 for someone to kill the father of her baby, who is now dead… shot in the chest.  (Read the story here.)  The rioters in London used Blackberry Messenger (BBM), Facebook, and Twitter.  (Read here, here, and here, for example.)  The Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights saw more than just fireworks this year on the Fourth of July.  (Read here.)  Violent flash mobs have been so frequent in Philadelphia that the mayor imposed a curfew for teens.  (Read here and here.)  Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police shut off underground cell phone service last week in response to an above-ground protest.  (Read here and here.)  These are just a few examples.

Proponents of efforts to curtail the use of social media to incite violence seek to protect the greater good, i.e., keep the peaceful public safe from crazed mobs.  Opponents claim that such restrictions violate First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

In response to the July 4 mob and other similar activity, the Cleveland City Council adopted an ordinance as an “emergency measure” making it a misdemeanor crime to “use social media to induce persons to” riot, fail to disperse, or unlawfully congregate.  (See the press release or go here, click on July 27, and scroll down to printed page 1289 for the full text.)  The mayor vetoed the Flash Mob Ordinance, stating that it was too broad (so it would improperly criminalize peaceful flash mobs) and that any measure taken to curtail disruptive social-media-induced mobs needs to “be an effective deterrent to wrongdoers” (perhaps saying that the Flash Mob Ordinance didn’t go quite far enough with its punishment).  The ACLU hailed the veto as the right choice, describing the Flash Mob Ordinance as an unconstitutional prohibition on free speech.

Think about it in real life:

  1. Where is the line between unconstitutional infringement on individual rights, on the one hand, and methods of protecting collective safety on the other?  I can easily think of times when initially harmless groups have grown unruly and I felt unsafe.  Do we, as a society, want to allow communication advancements to be used to purposely create unsafe situations?  London already said no.  But London isn’t subject to the U.S. First Amendment.  Then again, the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech.
  2. How do you write a law that is a sufficient deterrent (by carrying a harsh enough punishment to mean something) and also sufficiently narrow to get the bad guys without getting the good guys?  Put another way, what happens when you plan your birthday party as a private event that mistakenly becomes public, and you have to flee your own party because of the Facebook-induced mob?  It happened to this poor girl in Germany, who avoided the mob, two small fires, broken glass, etc. by celebrating with her grandparents.
  3. How would a such a law be enforced?  Retroactively, law enforcement could trace posts on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, but that somewhat misses the point.  Isn’t it better to get the bad guys in advance, before anything truly harmful happens?  Now, I realize that most of our criminal laws function retroactively (like robbery and murder) but some of them function proactively (like conspiracy).  Particularly in the case of social media outlets, we now have a relatively easy way of finding out about flash mobs in advance.  Will law enforcement start regularly surfing the social media channels for chatter about this?  Would such scanning infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens?  Do you want the police scanning your Facebook posts?  Maybe your initial answer is no, but would you be willing to let the police scan your posts and Tweets if those efforts were likely to prevent violent mobs and rioting?  Now we’re back to the first question about the choices we make as a social system.
  4. Who pays for this law?  Let’s adopt the Cleveland model for a minute, meaning that someone has to monitor social media to find the crime-inducing Tweets and posts.  How much would these scanning efforts cost tax payers?  Someone has to get paid to do this.  Maybe instead of using the police, we create a law that forces Facebook and Twitter to do the monitoring in order to operate.  Then it’s the private companies paying for it instead of the public, at least at the start, until some administrative body goes in to ensure that the private companies are doing what they should be, and then it’s back on the taxpayers’ balance sheet.
  5. Against whom would the law be enforced?  Could this be another way of incentivizing profiling?  If so, who would be profiled?  Think about which people regularly access and use social media as tools.
  6. What is the difference between a teenage curfew (already enforced in Philadelphia) and a law like the Flash Mob Ordinance (vetoed in Cleveland)?

These are just a few questions to get you thinking.  There are plenty more.  (As always, comments are welcome.)  I suspect that at some point, some group of lawyers or politicians will figure out a sufficiently deterring/harsh and sufficiently narrow way of writing a law that criminalizes the use of social media (and maybe even text messaging?) to create violent/unruly flash mobs.  At least, it will be sufficient to get the thing passed, and then we’ll see what the courts do with it.

, , , ,

2 Comments