5 ms·

If I'm understanding you right, the idea is that some harms, physical ones, are fair game for the law to cover, but other harms (mental ones) or a collection of

If I'm understanding you right, the idea is that some harms, physical ones, are fair game for the law to cover, but other harms (mental ones) or a collection of boundary cases are less (if at all) within the purview of legislation. I think there's a good conversation to be had as to what in particular makes physical harms so special as compared to others, and how existing law in every country (including the US) can constitutionally include some non-physical harms within its legislation (such as laws against sending threatening letters, or child pornography law, or fraud).

brightball 6y ago
Specifically, I’m concerned about government placing restrictions on individuals based on their mental health history. What is the process to dispute it? You can’t just take a blood test to say this isn’t really a problem.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  Oh right, I don't think I understood what you were saying, then. That's also a good question.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  Some problems don’t have easy simple solutions. Any answer will have some outside cases. If a schizophrenic parent has in the past harmed someone, should a court ignore this when determining custody. It is unfair. If you err on being too lenient some people will be harmed. If you err on being stringent some people will be harmed. Complex problem cannot be solved with ideology and maxims. All solutions will fail some people sometimes.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    That example seems like a easy problem to solve actually? > If a [] parent has in the past harmed someone, should a court ignore this when determining custody. There you go, no need to place restrictions on people based on mental 'health', just their actual actions.
nine_k 6y ago
> what in particular makes physical harms so special Such harms can be reliably detected, with stringent enough criteria. Mental harms, and the very notion of "normality", are much more nebulous.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Such harms can be reliably detected, with stringent enough criteria. Mental harms, in many cases, can also be detected by competent professionals; besides that, it is entirely possible for physical harms to heal and for supporting evidence of their infliction be used to convict. Further, many physical harms depend at least partially on the victim's characteristics or situation; a concert pianist is arguably harmed more by someone cutting off his finger than a schoolteacher would be, for instance. Many physical harms that are rightfully legislated against often require the testimony of the victim for the case to succeed. For a wide class of 'mental harms' it is accurate to say that they are indeed physiological responses - from PTSD to lethargy and insomnia. This is in contrast to the caricature that mental harms are necessarily merely 'hurt feelings'. I also have concerns that the difficulty or the fact of sometimes being nebulous features of mental harms should necessarily rule out such lawmaking. At best, the minimum for proving such harm should at least be set out by the legislators or judiciary, if the standard of evidence is the roadblock to legislation. It's also worth remembering that we're talking about harms here, not mere hurts. Harms are much harder to fabricate than hurts are.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Here's where mental harms "detected by competent professionals" leads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      It seems as though you're invoking a slippery slope fallacy; it's possible to say exactly the same about doctors working for the state who minify or trivilazize the examination of physical harm on dissidents too. The fact that expert testimony can be bought off or compelled does not preclude expert testimony from being an important consideration in general. The opioid crisis for instance has shown there are many incompetent doctors, but I doubt you'd refuse the testimony of a doctor to help your case when you are injured by someone else.
travisoneill1 6y ago
You can prove physical harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Mental harm is frequently concocted as a bullying tactic, e.g. the recent NY Times editorial controversy where employees said running an editorial they disagreed with made them "feel unsafe." https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871817721/head-of-new-york-times-editorial-page-steps-down-amid-controversy https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871817721/head-of-new-york-ti...
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  I don't see this as an argument against such legislation; consider that many physical crimes are also hard (or even impossible) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, considered case-by-case. Rape very often qualifies here, as does the mens rea of various other crimes, which may rely upon testimony. Both actus reus and mens rea are required for a conviction, and while the actus reus may be easier to prove (but again, in many cases not beyond a reasonable doubt), we do not abolish the role of intention in the justice system simply because it's hard to prove. Accusations of physical harms can also be concocted as bullying tactics too, in which the harm was suffered as a result of either a self-inflicted injury, or inflicted by somebody else. Such cases can be thrown out due to insufficient evidence. I see no reason why the same cannot be said for a subset of mental harms, in which there are equivalent doctors available to use their expertise to judge the harm.
- mountainboot 6y ago
  The article you link did not mention the employees saying running the editorial made them "feel unsafe". Neither the word safe nor unsafe appears in the article. It says the article "reportedly elicited strong objections" from the staff.

brightball 6y ago

Specifically, I’m concerned about government placing restrictions on individuals based on their mental health history. What is the process to dispute it? You can’t just take a blood test to say this isn’t really a problem.

claudiawerner 6y ago
Oh right, I don't think I understood what you were saying, then. That's also a good question.
fjdjsmsm 6y ago
Some problems don’t have easy simple solutions. Any answer will have some outside cases. If a schizophrenic parent has in the past harmed someone, should a court ignore this when determining custody. It is unfair. If you err on being too lenient some people will be harmed. If you err on being stringent some people will be harmed. Complex problem cannot be solved with ideology and maxims. All solutions will fail some people sometimes.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  That example seems like a easy problem to solve actually? > If a [] parent has in the past harmed someone, should a court ignore this when determining custody. There you go, no need to place restrictions on people based on mental 'health', just their actual actions.

nine_k 6y ago

> what in particular makes physical harms so special Such harms can be reliably detected, with stringent enough criteria. Mental harms, and the very notion of "normality", are much more nebulous.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>Such harms can be reliably detected, with stringent enough criteria. Mental harms, in many cases, can also be detected by competent professionals; besides that, it is entirely possible for physical harms to heal and for supporting evidence of their infliction be used to convict. Further, many physical harms depend at least partially on the victim's characteristics or situation; a concert pianist is arguably harmed more by someone cutting off his finger than a schoolteacher would be, for instance. Many physical harms that are rightfully legislated against often require the testimony of the victim for the case to succeed. For a wide class of 'mental harms' it is accurate to say that they are indeed physiological responses - from PTSD to lethargy and insomnia. This is in contrast to the caricature that mental harms are necessarily merely 'hurt feelings'. I also have concerns that the difficulty or the fact of sometimes being nebulous features of mental harms should necessarily rule out such lawmaking. At best, the minimum for proving such harm should at least be set out by the legislators or judiciary, if the standard of evidence is the roadblock to legislation. It's also worth remembering that we're talking about harms here, not mere hurts. Harms are much harder to fabricate than hurts are.
- samatman 6y ago
  Here's where mental harms "detected by competent professionals" leads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    It seems as though you're invoking a slippery slope fallacy; it's possible to say exactly the same about doctors working for the state who minify or trivilazize the examination of physical harm on dissidents too. The fact that expert testimony can be bought off or compelled does not preclude expert testimony from being an important consideration in general. The opioid crisis for instance has shown there are many incompetent doctors, but I doubt you'd refuse the testimony of a doctor to help your case when you are injured by someone else.

travisoneill1 6y ago

You can prove physical harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Mental harm is frequently concocted as a bullying tactic, e.g. the recent NY Times editorial controversy where employees said running an editorial they disagreed with made them "feel unsafe." https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871817721/head-of-new-york-times-editorial-page-steps-down-amid-controversy https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871817721/head-of-new-york-ti...

claudiawerner 6y ago
I don't see this as an argument against such legislation; consider that many physical crimes are also hard (or even impossible) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, considered case-by-case. Rape very often qualifies here, as does the mens rea of various other crimes, which may rely upon testimony. Both actus reus and mens rea are required for a conviction, and while the actus reus may be easier to prove (but again, in many cases not beyond a reasonable doubt), we do not abolish the role of intention in the justice system simply because it's hard to prove. Accusations of physical harms can also be concocted as bullying tactics too, in which the harm was suffered as a result of either a self-inflicted injury, or inflicted by somebody else. Such cases can be thrown out due to insufficient evidence. I see no reason why the same cannot be said for a subset of mental harms, in which there are equivalent doctors available to use their expertise to judge the harm.
mountainboot 6y ago
The article you link did not mention the employees saying running the editorial made them "feel unsafe". Neither the word safe nor unsafe appears in the article. It says the article "reportedly elicited strong objections" from the staff.