Comments on: Morality and What We Wear http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/ Jillian C. York is a freelance writer and blogger. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:03:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: single-parent http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-3320 single-parent Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:44:18 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-3320 Great article, Good work! Great article, Good work!

]]> By: Brown http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2572 Brown Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:46:49 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2572 Are you a professional journalist? You write very well. Are you a professional journalist? You write very well.

]]> By: Jillian http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2569 Jillian Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:51:24 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2569 I agree that Bush is a criminal...but I don't agree that this blogger is necessarily one. Is it a crime to call someone names? Does it matter if those names are a true reflection of the person's character or not? I agree that Bush is a criminal…but I don’t agree that this blogger is necessarily one. Is it a crime to call someone names? Does it matter if those names are a true reflection of the person’s character or not?

]]> By: razan http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2568 razan Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:22:21 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2568 I was rather arguing theoretically speaking, cause legally speaking, some are still trying to file a lawsuit against bush :) but that still makes him a criminal. as for photographs and american context, it's the firs time i hear about this, and since i know nothing about, i can only be amazed. I was rather arguing theoretically speaking, cause legally speaking, some are still trying to file a lawsuit against bush :) but that still makes him a criminal.
as for photographs and american context, it’s the firs time i hear about this, and since i know nothing about, i can only be amazed.

]]> By: Jillian http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2567 Jillian Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:13:07 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2567 Razan, (Sorry, first of all, for not being able to reply in the thread; I'm working on getting that fixed). The issues you raised are all good points, but again, to the best of my legal knowledge, she has no recourse for legal action: 1) She doesn't have a defamation case for the reasons we've already discussed. 2) She doesn't have a harassment case for the fact that the comments were elsewhere on the Web and not intended to harass (of course, she could try to prove that they were, but the facts speak for themselves) 3) She was not being stalked - the person made no attempt to even contact her 4) Legally speaking, as a celebrity/public figure, she is subject to a certain allowance of public criticisms that we non-famous people aren't (though again, it could perhaps be argued that she's not actually that famous). I have, obviously, mixed my personal sentiments and those more legal sentiments in this discussion, so it's gotten a bit convoluted. That said, my above defense relates to the fact that I believe Cohen has no legal recourse whatsoever, despite how "offended" she might be. As for the Facebook issue, in the US, Facebook photos have been used in court - for example, there have been more than one case where a person claimed a certain injury and was then seen in Facebook photos skiing or playing sports. In another instance, there was a reckless driving/manslaughter case where the person who committed the crime was shown (in FB photos) to be out partying. Legally, at least in the US system, one's moral character can be determined on the basis of photographs. So whether or not it's okay for me to judge her (and I haven't said that it is), it's completely acceptable for her character to be judged in a court of law based on photos such as the one above. (Incidentally, if there are any lawyers reading this, feel free to offer contradiction, as I admittedly am not a legal expert and could certainly be wrong about certain facts). Razan,

(Sorry, first of all, for not being able to reply in the thread; I’m working on getting that fixed).

The issues you raised are all good points, but again, to the best of my legal knowledge, she has no recourse for legal action:

1) She doesn’t have a defamation case for the reasons we’ve already discussed.
2) She doesn’t have a harassment case for the fact that the comments were elsewhere on the Web and not intended to harass (of course, she could try to prove that they were, but the facts speak for themselves)
3) She was not being stalked – the person made no attempt to even contact her
4) Legally speaking, as a celebrity/public figure, she is subject to a certain allowance of public criticisms that we non-famous people aren’t (though again, it could perhaps be argued that she’s not actually that famous).

I have, obviously, mixed my personal sentiments and those more legal sentiments in this discussion, so it’s gotten a bit convoluted. That said, my above defense relates to the fact that I believe Cohen has no legal recourse whatsoever, despite how “offended” she might be.

As for the Facebook issue, in the US, Facebook photos have been used in court – for example, there have been more than one case where a person claimed a certain injury and was then seen in Facebook photos skiing or playing sports. In another instance, there was a reckless driving/manslaughter case where the person who committed the crime was shown (in FB photos) to be out partying.

Legally, at least in the US system, one’s moral character can be determined on the basis of photographs. So whether or not it’s okay for me to judge her (and I haven’t said that it is), it’s completely acceptable for her character to be judged in a court of law based on photos such as the one above.

(Incidentally, if there are any lawyers reading this, feel free to offer contradiction, as I admittedly am not a legal expert and could certainly be wrong about certain facts).

]]> By: razan http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2566 razan Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:01:50 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2566 Dear Jillian, I did not mention Cohen in my comment to suggest my case and hers are similar. I am very aware it isn't, but not based on the reasons you mentioned: I dont understand why the comment "should" be on her own blog-if she has one- to be bothered with it? she cant be bothered with it on other people's blog? this case is not worth the attention because the other blog not a "well known blogger"? i dont understand seriously. someone called her names, she was offended, she wants to do something about it, period. That being said, even if she really is filing this lawsuit to self-promote herself, does that make, the case itself, less powerful? the only thing that is wrong with this case is this: it's a defamation lawsuit. you said to Anas: "If Ms. Cohen is then conducting herself like a porn actress (as one might attest by the above photo), then is it okay to judge her on that?" "judge"? no its not, it's not ok to judge anyone, as far as i am concerned. how many photos are like the one above on facebook? all of them are subject to our judgment? honestly i am quite shocked right now. are we talking about a stupid lawsuit or about a porn star who filed a lawsuit to defend herself? i think things are getting mixed up here, i dont know if the problem to you, dear jillian, is about the wrong approach she took to sue this blogger, or about her photo, or about her self-promotion. as i told you on chat, if she appears naked in public, she should "expect" bullshit from people, but she should not "accept" it. Dear Jillian,
I did not mention Cohen in my comment to suggest my case and hers are similar. I am very aware it isn’t, but not based on the reasons you mentioned:
I dont understand why the comment “should” be on her own blog-if she has one- to be bothered with it? she cant be bothered with it on other people’s blog? this case is not worth the attention because the other blog not a “well known blogger”? i dont understand seriously. someone called her names, she was offended, she wants to do something about it, period.

That being said, even if she really is filing this lawsuit to self-promote herself, does that make, the case itself, less powerful?

the only thing that is wrong with this case is this: it’s a defamation lawsuit.

you said to Anas:
“If Ms. Cohen is then conducting herself like a porn actress (as one might attest by the above photo), then is it okay to judge her on that?”

“judge”? no its not, it’s not ok to judge anyone, as far as i am concerned.
how many photos are like the one above on facebook? all of them are subject to our judgment? honestly i am quite shocked right now.

are we talking about a stupid lawsuit or about a porn star who filed a lawsuit to defend herself?
i think things are getting mixed up here, i dont know if the problem to you, dear jillian, is about the wrong approach she took to sue this blogger, or about her photo, or about her self-promotion.
as i told you on chat, if she appears naked in public, she should “expect” bullshit from people, but she should not “accept” it.

]]> By: Anas Qtiesh http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2565 Anas Qtiesh Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:32:08 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2565 As I said, if that's the case (and I assume it is) then it's reasonable for people to question her morality. Yet still, it's something I don't do for a many reasons, the morals being subjective is one. As I said, if that’s the case (and I assume it is) then it’s reasonable for people to question her morality. Yet still, it’s something I don’t do for a many reasons, the morals being subjective is one.

]]> By: Jillian http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2564 Jillian Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:26:40 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2564 Anas, You said: <blockquote>The notion of morality (and that doesn’t mean I condone judging people by that) should be limited to a person’s conduct, not wardrobe.</blockquote> If Ms. Cohen is then conducting herself like a porn actress (as one might attest by the above photo), then is it okay to judge her on that? Anas,

You said:

The notion of morality (and that doesn’t mean I condone judging people by that) should be limited to a person’s conduct, not wardrobe.

If Ms. Cohen is then conducting herself like a porn actress (as one might attest by the above photo), then is it okay to judge her on that?

]]> By: Anas Qtiesh http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2563 Anas Qtiesh Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:25:07 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2563 I agree with Razan on this: <blockquote>As for judging people’s moralities based on their clothing, it’s seriously a bullshit idea, let alone misleading.</blockquote> I've never understood why it's ok to wear bikini or even a one piece bathing suit on a public beach, but not ok to show just as much skin going to the local super market to buy groceries or go watch a movie for instance. The notion of morality (and that doesn't mean I condone judging people by that) should be limited to a person's conduct, not wardrobe. I agree with Razan on this:

As for judging people’s moralities based on their clothing, it’s seriously a bullshit idea, let alone misleading.

I’ve never understood why it’s ok to wear bikini or even a one piece bathing suit on a public beach, but not ok to show just as much skin going to the local super market to buy groceries or go watch a movie for instance.

The notion of morality (and that doesn’t mean I condone judging people by that) should be limited to a person’s conduct, not wardrobe.

]]> By: Myrtus http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/19/morality-and-what-we-wear/#comment-2562 Myrtus Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:03:32 +0000 http://jilliancyork.com/?p=571#comment-2562 Ughh I thought this BS was done and over with a long time ago. Jillian I totally agree with you on all aspects in this case. It's been clearly a case of self-promotion right from the get-go, because nobody even knew who or what Ms Cohen was prior to the name-calling. If anything, Ms Liskula probably should reward that blogger(buy her a nice dinner or something) for providing her with this huge opportunity for free publicity (which she seems to enjoy) to avoid being called a bloodsucker or something even worse. Common practice is that when the name-calling occurs, you address it and move on, whether it happens online or in RL. There are worse things online that cause way more damage and in some cases threaten public safety, such as "hate speech", yet nothing is done about it, because it's outweighed by "freedom of speech". Ughh I thought this BS was done and over with a long time ago.
Jillian I totally agree with you on all aspects in this case. It’s been clearly a case of self-promotion right from the get-go, because nobody even knew who or what Ms Cohen was prior to the name-calling. If anything, Ms Liskula probably should reward that blogger(buy her a nice dinner or something) for providing her with this huge opportunity for free publicity (which she seems to enjoy) to avoid being called a bloodsucker or something even worse.
Common practice is that when the name-calling occurs, you address it and move on, whether it happens online or in RL. There are worse things online that cause way more damage and in some cases threaten public safety, such as “hate speech”, yet nothing is done about it, because it’s outweighed by “freedom of speech”.

]]>