I would hope that schools sit down with kids that say this and discuss what the statement means, how it is interpreted, and ask the kid to put himself in the other person’s shoes. Not a big fan of punishing kids harshly for things they may well have copied from their parents.
They’re all getting fed this trash by Nick Fuentes, 4chan trolls, Elon musk, Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh, Jordan Peterson, YouTube algorithms which push right wing content, and the list goes on.
You know, I wrote it kind as a flippant comment, not expecting anyone to pay attention (because, really, who pays attention to me?) and suddenly it's all over the place.
Anyway, I already responded to a lot of people who commented on the original post. I eventually had to mute it due to too much traffic. So if you want to see more, go look at what people were telling me over there. I don't disagree with most of it, and I think having a good discussion on the subject of this is probably a good thing.
Edit: It's also in the original post, I just noticed. Not used to Lemmy yet. And I'm treating the first part of your post as being as flippant as I tend to be. If you meant it, please let me know so I can swat you with the clue-by-four.
"Your body, my choice" does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of violence or lawless behavior. It's certainly not "fighting words" as defined by SCOTUS. Without an immediate threat of violence, you do not have a legal right to use physical force. Even in states with 'make my day' laws, this is absolutely not something you can respond to with violence.
I am not an attorney, I am not your attorney, and I would strongly suggest that you consult with a competent criminal defense attorney before you take this course of action.
I am not an attorney, I am not your attorney, and I would strongly suggest that you consult with a competent criminal defense attorney before you take this course of action.
Women absolutely have the moral right to nut-knee someone who says that to them. I wouldn't stop them or testify against them.
People generally don't have the legal right to do that. If someone tries that and gets sued, it will be up to them to prove that there was an imminent credible threat. If the guy is still alive, they'll be able to claim that YBMC is just a joke and it would be up to the victim to prove that it wasn't.
The law needs to catch up. MAGAs have been doing this for a while. Where they say absolute heinous stuff, under the gaze of "freedom of speech and expression" until it becomes accepted enough for some other asshole to be emboldened enough to try and get away with it or even get passed as law! A tactic loved by fascists around the globe. It works similarly to a false prophecy.
MAGAs can't rape women? They'll make it clear that women will have their rights revoked into the future so they better "get used to it" starting now. MAGAs can't kill women? They'll just take life critical healthcare away. With this combination it's not only EVEN MORE LIKELY than usual someone will get away with rape, but that it'll result in the woman's death!
"Your body, my choice" should be seen as a death threat and should be dealt with accordingly. Any kids saying this should be made vividly aware of just how fucking monstrous those words are, and should face detention or even the threat of expulsion if they refuse to stop it. This is not a light matter. We're talking about rasing rapist here!
But Americans sure don't seem to agree, they still see school shootings as a "whatever, put in more police officers" to shoot at the kids with guns kind of issue, so what do I know? I guess raping and shooting up kids is what America desires and I'm the weird foreigner brining in my weird values.
I'm not sure what law would be an improvement though. The courts tend to frown on laws that are directed at specific groups of people so you probably couldn't have something as specific as, "When a man says YBMC to a woman she's allowed to consider it a rape threat and knee him in the nuts." It also wouldn't be terribly effective since those people would likely find some variation that skirts the law but carries exactly the same message. That's so common a tactic we even have a name for it, "dogwhistles".
The most general form is a "stand your ground" law. Ie we don't question the motives of the "defender", we just assume they were right. That has some obvious issues too.
There might be something between those two that would work, but I don't know what it would be.
I've literally had people argue with me saying that someone wearing Nazi paraphernalia in public was legally an immediate threat of violence that you could respond to with lethal force. No, I'm not joking or exaggerating. A lot of people take this kind of thing at face value.
It's irresponsible to put into young girls minds that some fuckwit saying a political slogan equates to a rape threat and you should assault them.
She's literally telling people to feel safe committing an offence.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, go for your lives, but I'm not talking about the slogan or choice, I'm saying if someone says 4 words to you and you attack them, you will be held legally responsible.
But anyone saying that to women is a clear threat and I will defend myself against anyone saying this to me and not accept this rising level of violent speech.
Force can only legally be used against imminent threats. (This, BTW, is why women tend to get convicted of murder when they kill their abusive partners; they tend to do it at a time when their partner is not harming them.) Even if you are positive that someone intends you great bodily harm or death, you can not use force legally until the moment arrives when they are trying to cause that harm. You can not pre-emptively self-defend.
If you use lethal force in the absence of an imminent, immediate threat of great bodily harm or death, it is highly likely that you would be arrested, charged, and convicted.
Agreed. Also, "Your body, my choice" is possibly meant as a threat, possibly meant as a taunt. But, what it definitely is: a statement of power. Asshole men are saying this because they think the landscape has shifted so much that they can now get away with it -- and they're probably right.
American police are already some of the biggest right-wing assholes. Who do you think they're going to side with in a confrontation where a man says this to a woman? Even if legally a woman were 100% justified in responding with violence, in the real world where men have the power, and men are feeling even more powerful since Trump's victory, being legally right isn't enough.
Not sure where your getting the idea that you can't defend yourself from the threat of harm or realistic perception of that threat. You absolutely can.
Heck even if the perception isn't reasonable you still can. Your case is just much harder to defend.
If someone is just an ass and says YBMC to you that's probably not legit, but context matters too. If it's said in a threatening matter, that's a threat plain and simple.
As always flight should be the primary response but fighting off you can't run would be fine.
I'm the end, if you have to defend your life, then do so. Worry about the legality after. Don't let someone hurt you because the Internet said the law isn't on your side. Don't get hurt cus the cops aren't on your side, the cops are never on your side.
You might be right that it is an implicit threat and as a threat it constitutes verbal assault, but you'd have a hard time making any real headway in court with that, especially in a he said/she said situation. It might be a crime, but it's one which will see almost no prosecution.
I struggle to see what could be construed as a joke here
Edit: I think I get it. They think the joke is 'imagine if I was so awful!' . The problem is though, they voted for that exact action to occur in the world.
Absolutely in no instance should you ever say this or advocate saying this to a woman. If she voted for it and it's ever said to her, the leopard ate her face, but you should never be the leopard.
I'm not a big fan of enticing others to committing murder or useless violence (it's been brought up in other threats), ball busting rapists, or potential rapist misogynists however is a completely acceptable passtime.
as long as you feel that threat is imminent- and it's something a 'reasonable person' would agree with under the totality of circumstances- you're free to take them at their word and use reasonable force to prevent it.
Keep in mind, reasonable force might include running away. But if some one corners you, and says they'll fuck you up, you don't have to assume they're full of shit.
By choosing to respond to 'your body, my choice' you're also validating it as a statement that needs discussion or response. It doesn't need either. It's a bizarre statement that's meant to provoke. If you don't like the polarization that's happening, don't let yourself be provoked, don't engage, ignore unworthy nonsense. Responding with hatred, however well deserved you think it is, does not help us transcend polarization, it's just another step in the polarization dance.
Not sure I'm 100% convinced of the above sentiment, ignoring it could make things worse too, hatred does sometimes need rebuttal and just ignoring it could be dangerous too. Still I'm wondering if this would be the right approach. I think perhaps it would help if we would not let ourselves be provoked, take a deep breath, and respond in a matter of fact way, that's not snarky, that's devoid of any sense of hatred, that's not exciting, perhaps even boring but honest and true.
I take issue with "it doesn't need either [discussion or response]". There is a real possibility that people will use (or are already using) "your body, my choice" with malicious intent. If that's the case, I will not stand by and do nothing. A knee to the groin seems a good option to me.
Kicking a man in the nuts who wants to harm you (rape or murder makes not difference), doesn't work. It only makes them more aggressive. People tried and failed.
I don't think that's what they're saying, just that a different approach might be necessary rather than kicking in the balls, or that a kick in the balls might be effective only at buying you more time to implement a better resolution to the scenario.
The law would disagree. It is very clear and you should not inspire violence with the impressionable who will have to reap the consequences of your poor advice.