Clay Satow wrote:
> > If something does offend you, then you have the right (and some might argue
> > even the responsibility) to say that it offends you and to prohibit is in your
> > own house. Thatıs whatıs happening here. The NCAA as an institution is
> > saying that the use of certain images as mascots offends it, and itıs not
> > going to allow the use of those images in their tournament.
>
Nathan Hampton replied:
> This is BeerSuds. You do NOT have the right to ban something that offends
> you in your own house if the banning activity is costly (offensive?) to
> others. Just because you are offended does not mean didly. In a civil
> society everyone is offended by something (congestion, delay, opposition) so
> what matters is rather or not it is (1) UNREASONABLE offensive or (2) your
> damage from the offending behavior is greater than the damage caused by
> eliminating the offending behavior. It is the measure of one measurable
> damage versus another that matters, not the simple existence of what you
> claim offends you.
It appears that we define "right" differently. By my understanding of the term, whether it is
unreasonably offensive or what the relative damages to the two parties is irrelevant. For
example, it's pretty clear that the NCAA thinks that it is unreasonably offensive for schools to
have certain types of images as mascots. But they decided that they did not have the right to
prevent outright the schools from having them.
The NCAA clearly has the right to determine who will appear in their tournament. One exercise of
that right that we all accept (though don't necessarily agree with the result) is the
"bracketology" selection process. As to whether they can ban a team based on their mascot, you
apprently define as a separate "right" that they don't have. I define it as a criteria that they
applied, and I don't entirely agree with that way they applied it. But regardless of whether
you're using your defintion or mine, the "reasonableness" standard is inherently subjective. What
you may think constitutes "reasonable" I might not, and neither of us is correct.
>
> I may be offended by BU fans celebrating a win (in my home), or opponents
> throwing dead fish or dead gophers on the ice during a game. But so what.
> The NCAA's decision is not made by comparing relative damages (will the NCAA
> compensate North Dakota for removing their Sioux logo?) nor determining the
> reasonableness or seriousness of the offending activity.
I agree with you that they did no comparing of relative damages. As for determining
reasonableness or seriousness, I don't think you can say so unambiguously that they didn't. If
they did, I think that banning "Sioux," "Seminoles," "Utes," etc. was wrong. Apparently, in your
terminology, they didn't have the "right" to do that; in mine, it was a decision that they had the
right to make, but I disagree with it.
As for banning the use of "Savages" and "Redmen", I think that was a decision they had the right
to make, and I agree with it.
. . .
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
