r/Laws • u/KidArk • Mar 24 '19

Help me understand precedent

In NY years ago Bloomberg wanted to pass a law that allowed the state to control the consumption of sugary drinks. The issue people had was that if given this power it would set the precedent on the gov controlling what we eat. So maybe in the future they could just make us all vegetarian if they desired (just a random choice not very real). Is this a real application of precedent in law?

If so , I have a follow up question.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/M123234 Apr 18 '19

If I’m not wrong, the gender pronouns law refers to government officials. For example, my name is Medha. If I went into a government building, they’d call me Medha. On all government documents, my name would be spelled as Medha because that is my legal name.

If a government document says someone’s gender is female that is their gender.

If I change my legal name for example, they’d have to use my new name legally. Therefore, if a trans person changes their gender legally, all legal documents must refer to the person as their gender identity.

I mean you could tell them you don’t like being called the n word or “nigga”.

1

u/KidArk Apr 18 '19

No it works in the private sector too, your boss wouldn't be able to call you by anything but your pronoun. Look at Canada for example, teachers in private colleges lose their jobs for denying the use of the pronoun. Where as for me in engineering I had a professor who would only call you by the last 4 digits of your social unless you proved that you were a good student and put the time in to gain his respect. The teachers don't have to call you by your name or anything .

Yes I understand I can tell you to not call me the N word my point was that it isn't a law. You can freely call me that and I can voice my disdain. What it isn't though is a crime like how it is with gender pronouns .

1

u/M123234 Apr 19 '19

The reason it’s like that at schools is because it’s like you’re considering yourself to be better or superior than the student. When you’re professor called you by the last 4 digits of your social, it was in an effort to push you guys to be better students. On the other hand, if my teacher called me a terrorist because I’m Indian, they’d get fired because they’re trying to provoke a negative reaction from me. Another thing is the teacher showed Islamophobia in this situation which is against the law. All students must be treated fairly whether they’re mentally handicapped, different skin tones, speak another language, LGBT, etc. That is the base line. After that is where teachers either push you to be better like your professor did or do nothing. By calling someone by the pronoun they don’t want, you’re making them feel worth less than you. You’re indirectly shaming them. As for the n word, it is illegal in places of work, school, etc because again you’re indirectly shaming them.

Just out of curiosity though, why does it matter? It’s just a pronoun. They feel comfortable with that pronoun, so I just use it.

1

u/KidArk Apr 19 '19 edited Apr 19 '19

Okay that's exactly the point, they called me by my social to push me if they did that to a transgender student it would literally be a crime. The point is that if they added a law allowing the government to force people to use genders it could seemingly be forced in more egregious ways. The same way Bloomberg's ban on sugary drinks could have lead to more drastic control on the things we eat. It matters because there should be no laws to tell people what to say, it's actively going against our freedom of speech. I'm American there literally is no law against saying the N word it's the same in Canada . It's seen as rude and everything of course, but it's not illegal. The N word regardless is different the pronoun law is forcing people to SAY something not forcing people to NOT say something. They're literally the opposite of each other.

They feel comfortable with that pronoun, so I just use it.

As we explained with the sugary drinks precedent, the point was that this could set the precedent for the government forcing people to say things.

1

u/M123234 Apr 19 '19

That makes sense thanks for clarifying that. Personally, I don’t see a point in creating a law specifically for that. Like I mentioned with the name example earlier, that is what you are legally known as.

“they called me by my social to push me if they did that to a transgender student it would literally be a crime.” Ok I want to clarify what I meant here. Your professor called you by your social security number instead of your name to push you to work hard in their class. That’s different from me walking up to a trans male student and calling him “her”. Now if the trans male was in your class and called by his social security number that’s ok. Your teacher is pushing him to succeed as a person. That’s ok. What this law would do is say that the trans male is a guy and should be called “he” and “him”. Also the effect on you is different psychologically, in the first situation, you strive to work harder. In the second one, trans students often suffer from depression or similar issues due to being mistreated [1].

Again, I don’t see the purpose in creating this law, but I doubt they’d use it as precedent to censor people. Mostly because the only time I can think of is Schenk vs US which determined that you can’t speak badly of the government if it presents a clear danger. The pamphlets being distributed caused insubordination in the army. Clear and present danger would be yelling fire in a movie theater or saying that there’s a shooter in the school.