Sentience and Disputing the Right to Cruelty Part II — Indecency Law
In Part I we concluded that there is no right to cruelty (sorry but you do have to read Part I in order to understand Part II). If correct and the right to cruelty doesn’t exist then what are the implications for society?
There is already a body of law that deals with the affect one person can have on another by potentially activating OP flags:
The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.
Federal law prohibits the possession with intent to sell or distribute obscenity, to send, ship, or receive obscenity, to import obscenity, and to transport obscenity across state borders for purposes of distribution. Although the law does not criminalize the private possession of obscene matter, the act of receiving such matter could violate the statutes prohibiting the use of the U.S. Mails, common carriers, or interactive computer services for the purpose of transportation.
This body of law is still being enforced and so long as it is challenged for potential overreach that is fine; we can’t say for certain under what circumstance an OP flag might get switched and cause a person to become unnecessarily lascivious.
However just as there are potential OP flags in the area of sexual activity there are also potential OP flags in the area of cruelty. So we can define a test for public displays of cruelty to protect people’s psyche:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to those seeking to see real (not fictional) human suffering caused;
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes cruelty in a patently offensive way; and
- Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
There are various sports that are arguably on the wrong side of 1–3 but the more interesting application is to the recent activity of American oligarchs.
Billionaire space barons want to build ‘mixed-use business parks’ in low Earth orbit
So does this appeal to those seeking to see real human suffering caused — YES. Does it depict cruelty in a patently offensive way — YES. Does it lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value — YES.
If billionaires want to ignore poor people unable to receive medical treatment, becoming debt slaves for education, and working insanely long hours for vastly unequal and unfair compensation in private then for now it’s not criminal. Any attempt to use government agencies such as NASA or public funding of any sort — including American roads, waterways, airports, etc. should be illegal.
Furthermore reporting on cruelty must be forced to use the same disclaimers and sensitivity that reporting on obscenity does. If you report on cruelty with the intention of profiting from greed porn then you are equally exercising a right to cruelty that doesn’t exist.
The same applies to a CEO working for a public company taking thousands of times the compensation of lower employees. Anyone wanting to display that kind of cruelty is free to work for a private company. Public companies use public funding by relying on a public financial infrastructure — one that includes government agency regulation and ever increasing bailouts.
The justification for extending indecency law to cruelty has already been well expressed by indecency law supporters:
In his writings and public lectures, Comstock passionately affirmed the sacredness of his mission. In his 1880 book Frauds Exposed, Comstock asserted that “lust defiles the body, debauches the imagination, corrupts the mind, . . . and damns the soul.”
Cruelty defiles the body, debauches the imagination, corrupts the mind, . . . and damns the soul. That fact is recognized by the many countries with laws against animal cruelty.
Why then is the suppression of cruelty so far behind the suppression of lust? Even before MeToo swung into action powerful men were attempting to keep sexual misconduct secret but no one feels the slightest shame anymore for busting a union, blocking a living wage or truly outlandish displays of wealth.
The reason is that there is a very long history of attempting to hold royalty to some standard of sexual conduct but similar restraints for cruelty are much less common. The issue is that sexual misconduct can affect other rich people as when King John took noblewomen mistresses but cruelty affects mostly the poor.
Cruelty is also much harder to define. For instance having sex outdoors is not illegal in California so long as you didn’t reasonably think you would be seen — you know obscenity when you see it. Is buying a very large yacht cruel? What if it’s built by fair trade labor?
Still one can start with the most obvious displays of cruelty. Even Harvard students are aware that almost $200K in chairs for the Yard is a no no in an institute that receives a lot of public funds. Maybe those students would even be willing to report Harvard for indecent cruelty.
Once the ball on ostentatious, cruel public displays of wealth gets rolling there would be enough case law to help reduce the ambiguity. Of course this wouldn’t help the poor directly or end the current gilded age. The idea is to prevent the minds of people, especially young people, from being corrupted.
In the larger picture a world with an increasingly complex culture capable of promoting sentience must work harder regulating that culture and the underlying technologies that make it possible. The stakes are simply too much higher than in the world of antiquity to take their laissez faire attitude.