I think that 'thinks' goes beyond consent, certainly. I don't believe in thought policing, but I do think that behaviour is entirely different.
What someone says *about* you, again is entirely different to what people says *to* you, and again I don't think that what someone says to consenting adults who choose to hear it is a matter for state intervention. I think a person should have some measure of control about they have to deal with in day to day life.
But people ultimately have the right to be left alone, and having things randomly shouted at them or about them in the street isn't something that they should have to put up with.
I don't think publications and media should be restricted, as those things are free for viewers to opt in or out of, but I think that in public, and particularly when it comes to public services then I think that people should have a right to protection from insult and discrimination.
I think a doctor's receptionist should be able to say whatever she likes at home (as long as she honours confidentiality agreements from work). But if she's outside, and particularly at work then hateful speech isn't acceptable and a matter of consent. If she wants to write a book entitled FAGGOTS ARE SICK PEVERTS then she can do it at home, but she shouldn't leave a copy on her desk at work, or use the medical records she has access to as case studies. And if they started selling it on amazon then yes, I probably would say to amazon that it is financing homophobia and ask them to withdraw it, and ask others to do likewise...but I think the big ethical consideration isn't regarding how it impacts me as a consumer, but how it effects amazon's gay employees, who also have a right to do their jobs without being expected to tolerate homophobia in their workplace.
no subject
What someone says *about* you, again is entirely different to what people says *to* you, and again I don't think that what someone says to consenting adults who choose to hear it is a matter for state intervention. I think a person should have some measure of control about they have to deal with in day to day life.
But people ultimately have the right to be left alone, and having things randomly shouted at them or about them in the street isn't something that they should have to put up with.
I don't think publications and media should be restricted, as those things are free for viewers to opt in or out of, but I think that in public, and particularly when it comes to public services then I think that people should have a right to protection from insult and discrimination.
I think a doctor's receptionist should be able to say whatever she likes at home (as long as she honours confidentiality agreements from work). But if she's outside, and particularly at work then hateful speech isn't acceptable and a matter of consent. If she wants to write a book entitled FAGGOTS ARE SICK PEVERTS then she can do it at home, but she shouldn't leave a copy on her desk at work, or use the medical records she has access to as case studies. And if they started selling it on amazon then yes, I probably would say to amazon that it is financing homophobia and ask them to withdraw it, and ask others to do likewise...but I think the big ethical consideration isn't regarding how it impacts me as a consumer, but how it effects amazon's gay employees, who also have a right to do their jobs without being expected to tolerate homophobia in their workplace.