Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177176

> Bart:
> In the United States, there is a concept known as "fighting 
words". It is recognized that words can be used for the purpose of 
getting someone violently angry. Legally, if someone uses "fighting 
words" before a fight, and the target of these words starts the 
violence, neither has any right to sue the other. An acquaintance of 
mine was arrested for using fighting words on a police official (he 
had just literally tricked her into unwittingly committing a crime 
and she told him what she thought; as it turned out, the incident 
actually got her some good publicity, as the situation was 
sufficiently absurd as to make the "strange news" columns 
nationally). 

lizzyben:

Well, that's not true at all. Take it from an American lawyer, 
here. "Fighting words" do NOT entitle you to take a swing at someone 
or use violence against them. Words & insults can make people 
violently angry - that doesn't give you the right to assault them. 
If that were true, it would vitiate the entire concept of free 
speech. What's the point of having free speech if people can hurt 
you simply because they don't like what you have to say? The concept 
of "fighting words" is a concept from Constitutional Law. While the 
right to free speech is normally protected by the First 
Amendment, "fighting words" or enticement are not constitutionally 
protected, and can be outlawed or punished. So, if you say "fighting 
words", legally you can be arrested by the authorities, but that 
still doesn't mean that citizens can decide to use some vigilante 
justice & assault that person.

An assult is an assault, & if someone physically assaults someone 
else, that person can be charged criminally or sued in civil court. 
The excuse of "he made me angry" does not cut it. And this is 
probably why I have such little sympathy for that argument in the 
Potterverse. Yeah, Draco made Hermione angry - she still assaulted 
him. Yeah, he's a jerk - the twins still committed an aggravated 
assault against him. But it's not seen that way in the text. And it 
makes me think that half of the appeal of the Potterverse is this 
wish-fullfillment of a world where we can beat up the bad guys w/o 
consequences.


> In Canada, the use of "fighting words", even if it does not cause 
any negative reaction, can get someone put in jail (a few years 
back, some minor headlines were made when a customer at a 
restaurant, frustrated at a waiter's inability to speak or 
understand English, made fun of his accent after he walked away, was 
arrested, and tossed in jail; I never found out how that ended up). 

lizzyben:

Jail, yes. (Though a civil liberties org. might fight it.) Physical 
assualt, never.

Bart:
> Interestingly enough, professional protesters in the United States 
are taught techniques on how to anger police officers into using 
violence without quite stepping over the line of justifying it. One 
common technique is to put one's face practically against the 
officer's face and start screaming; it is like having a mosquito in 
your ear, and not being allowed to swat it. 

lizzyben:

And police still aren't supposed to use violence. They are trained 
to ignore taunts & keep the peace. There's a very, very good reason 
for that. Kent State, 1968 Dem. Convention, Tiennaman Square, etc. 
Police have the arms & the power. And when police let protestors get 
to them & respond w/violence, it can turn into a police riot.

Bart:
> There was a movie, PACIFIC HEIGHTS, which was largely based on 
this concept; Michael Keaton plays a con artist who, staying just 
barely within the law, gets people angry enough with him to do 
physical violence, and then sues the hell out of them. 

lizzyben:

Right, because you can't just physically assault people who anger 
you. It's the law. I'm not sure how this is relevant to HP - is this 
Draco's sinister plan? 

Bart:
> Sometimes, context and tone of voice are key. If you've gained 
weight, and your clothes are feeling tight, all you need is for some 
smart alec to say, "I see you've lost some weight, there." But if 
you repeat it to someone else, it doesn't sound insulting at all. 
> 
> So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart 
adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions against 
him. 
> 
> Bart

lizzyben:

Here's the thing - why would he want to? Is it a whole lot of fun to 
get beat up, subjected to violent actions, publically humiliated, 
sluggified, stuffed in a luggage rack, knocked unconcious, stepped 
on? No. So why does Draco persist? Is he a masochist, or what? Well, 
I think he shows up because the text requires him to show up - 
because the characters (and readers) need to dish out some payback. 
Draco (like Dudley) is the whipping boy for the series; he pops up 
to get beat down.

Oh, but he "entices" people to perform violent actions with the 
things he says, and so they're ENTITLED to hit him. I really, really 
hate this argument & I'll tell you why. I work for a public interest 
agency that represents victims of domestic violence. And I can't 
even count how many times I've heard abusers use exactly that 
rationale - "Oh, well, she *makes* me hit her with the awful things 
she says." Or from victims as well - "If I didn't make him so angry, 
he wouldn't have to hit me. It's my fault". Verbal statements 
*never* justify using violence against someone; it's just that 
simple. 

The biggest epiphany for me is seeing how the entire Potterverse 
sort of encourages us to take the POV of the abuser rather than the 
victim. We're supposed to laugh at pathetic Moaning Myrtle, enjoy 
the Draco stomps & beat-downs, support Ginny's habit of hexing 
anyone who annoys her... and support the strong macho Gryfs in 
general over the weak, feminine, obsessive Slyths. Because the 
victims always deserved it. I have to ask this, it's none of my 
business, but was JKR ever a victim of domestic violence? These 
themes seem to keep popping up over & over again in the series. 


lizzyben