← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

“A requirement that spectators have their faces uncovered is not to force anyone to act immodestly,” [the judge] said. “First, the exposure of one’s face in a courtroom cannot reasonably be viewed as an immodest act: subjective views to the contrary cannot rule the day, or the management of a courtroom. Second, if someone feels strongly that it would be improper for them to uncover their face in court, they can choose not to attend.”

Gradually, in large ways and small, the institutions of liberal democracies affirm themselves.

Margaret Soltan, July 21, 2018 7:14AM
Posted in: democracy

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=58598

2 Responses to ““A requirement that spectators have their faces uncovered is not to force anyone to act immodestly,” [the judge] said. “First, the exposure of one’s face in a courtroom cannot reasonably be viewed as an immodest act: subjective views to the contrary cannot rule the day, or the management of a courtroom. Second, if someone feels strongly that it would be improper for them to uncover their face in court, they can choose not to attend.””

  1. dmf Says:

    modesty or lack of is not a matter for objective measurement this is a weasley judgment they should just come out and say we are imposing a standard that pleases us because we can.

  2. Margaret Soltan Says:

    dmf: The standard of mutual and equal physical recognition seems intrinsic to the democratic public realm, whether in the public classroom or the public street. The principle has been articulated again and again, by political leaders and by judges – and of course by international courts – in societies committed to egalitarianism.

    This doesn’t make it an absolute, to be sure — people can and will continue to argue about it. But I think it’s quite far from an empty preference that we impose simply because we can.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories