I recently had two or three marathon arguments with my mother on Google+ and on Facebook about freedom in India. As you know, freedom of expression doesn’t just include speech. It’s also about being free to wear whatever you want, partying wherever and whenever you want, and being with the person you want without interference from others.
Read the discussions for yourself if you want to get a full idea of the back and forth, but the main point she was making is this – individuals need protection from the law against emotional “hurt” even if there is no physical component. Protection from offense. Protection from ridicule. Protection from having their faith challenged. Protection from wounds to their self esteem.
My stand is that the law has to only protect us against physical abuse. Confinement, threats to physical safety, assault etc. because we’re not capable of defending ourselves against all of these. You cannot just “walk away” from a real physical threat. You’re forced to deal with it. Emotional harm on the other hand is something we can control. Worst case scenario, we can just walk away. If we’re not allowed to walk away, then that’s confinement and becomes physical harm.
So my question to everyone out there is this: Assume you were Superman or Supergirl. No one can touch you and you know it. And everyone else knows it as well. Would you ever need police protection from “emotional abuse”? In other words, take the entire physical component out of a situation. Does the need for protection by the police vanish? Note my emphasis on the word “police”. We can always object, use our own freedom of speech to respond, or walk away to protect ourselves. But do we need legal protection?
I say no – the need for the state to intervene when there’s no physical component to abuse vanishes entirely.
Physical protection is the only kind we really need from outside. We’re fully capable as adults of protecting ourselves from mental harm by others – pure mental harm. The ultimate protection is the power to distance yourself from the source. Either by pressing the back button in your browser, or by leaving the vicinity. We don’t need the police to protect us from offense, insults, mockery or ridicule.
This may sound obvious, but anyone living in India knows that most people don’t think this way. The recent case where Sanal Edamaruku has an arrest warrant against him for exposing a fake miracle and “hurting the sentiments” of people is a perfect example. People want the state to protect their feelings even when there’s no physical threat. As if they’re not strong enough of mind to deal with it themselves.
I say that every healthy adult has the capacity to shield themselves from such “mental hurt”. It’s just that the Indian state treats its adult citizens like children. And when you treat people like children, they behave like children and expect the government to “protect” them.
By the same token, I don’t believe that “mental cruelty” should be a factor in domestic violence – again, for adults. Only physical abuse, threats, confinement etc. should need the involvement of the government. The police cannot come in to a house and tell a person to be polite. That’s not their job, nor their business. If one partner feels “emotionally hurt”, they can make their feelings clear the other person and if that individual still doesn’t listen…well then there’s no point in remaining married is there? Remind me again where the police comes into all this?
Bottom line – we need protection from physical violence. No doubt about that. We do not require the help or the protection of the state when it comes to our mental or emotional problems as long as we’re healthy adults. What do you think – do you agree with my mom, or with me?
The thing is more about the personal way of thinking of an Individual
In reply to VVK
But the law has to be the same for everyone.
So my question is how is emotional abuse being defined here? From my definition, it’s whole difference ball park than just simply getting one’s feelings hurt. Unless this is a cultural issue that I’m not aware of, emotional abuse is quite different. Better yet, it probably should be defined as psychological abuse. So I’m wondering how is emotional abuse defined in Indian culture?
When people are arguing and criticizing you (on whatever issue that may be) they’re not trying to hurt you, there’s no malice behind their words, they’re just stating their opinions.
Now emotional abuse on the other hand, there’s malice behind that, in fact it’s viewed as a type of domestic violence. The goal is to psychologically destroy the person.
In reply to RenKiss
A classic example is the “emotional abuse” from the in laws directed against the daughter in law.
But I think I would understand your question better if you gave an example of trying to “psychologically destroy the other person”. I don’t believe such a thing can exist without a component of physical abuse.
Even if there is malice, do we need legal protection from insults and ridicule? I’m not saying it’s good. Or that the perso at the receiving end has to stand and take it. I’m saying, should the government have to get involved?
In reply to bhagwad
I think I kind of see what you mean, because I guess coming from my background emotional abuse is wide range of behaviors.
Now as far as needing protection from emotional abuse..well see this is one of those things where it gets complicated. Of course on the surface I’d agree that we don’t need government protection, that’s why I’m all for helping people realize when they’re being emotionally abused so they don’t become victims of physical abuse. Just working with victims of domestic violence, early on it started with emotional abuse. So even with emotional abuse, it’s not that easy to walk away from. That’s why it’s important to just educate people.
In reply to RenKiss
That’s exactly why I used the hypothetical example of Supergirl :) She would never become the victim of physical domestic abuse, for obvious reasons. So would someone like her ever need legal protection from emotional abuse?
In reply to RenKiss
“So I’m wondering how is emotional abuse defined in Indian culture?”
I don’t think they really are defined “in Indian culture” because they are copy-pasted Victorian-era, conservative Christianity-based bullshit, that even the Britishers don’t adhere to these days. The fact that a person can be implicated for someone else’s suicide, as per Indian laws, for simply dumping him/her is ridiculous.
“Now emotional abuse on the other hand, there’s malice behind that, in fact it’s viewed as a type of domestic violence. The goal is to psychologically destroy the person.”
I volunteer for a anti-domestic abuse program here in the USA, and they do place emotional abuse as a case of domestic abuse. However, they’re also clear to point out that the “emotional abuser” is not going to get punished for simply emotional abuse- unless of course, as Bhagwad pointed out, there are instances of physical abuse, confinement, financial control (there have been cases where husbands give their wives “allowances”), etc.. The only recourse for the victim in the case of emotional abuse is to file for divorce.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you. Why else does the law require monetary compensation in cases involving emotional distress?
Agreed, we’re adults, but we’re not Gods. In my opinion, independence and personal responsibility that so prevail in the West has outgrown its original intentions. They have a hand in creating this alienated society that we witness today. Two sides of a coin, my friend… lose the balance, and neither is good.
In reply to Narayanan
I’m really not aware of any case that is pure emotional distress without having some kind of real financial malpractice or physical assault backing it up.
Can you give me an example of a “pure emotional distress” case?
Could you help me understand what exactly an “alienated society” means?
But financial malpractice is still not physical assault. And yes, there have been several cases of defamation and libel where emotional distress was established. For e.g., wrongful character attack against say, a therapist. Here, there is no physical assault or financial malpractice. Even if there is any financial loss from loss of potential clients, it’s possible that it’s only incidental and not direct intention. In such cases, compensation for emotional distress is in addition to compensation for losses, if any. I don’t see how this is not “pure emotional distress”, whichever way you cut it.
Let’s drop the ‘alienated society’ part for now. Even an essay won’t do justice here. Let’s reserve it for a lengthy discussion, perhaps if we meet someday:)
In reply to Narayanan
Financial cheating is very much akin to physical assault. Money after all is the key to keeping yourself healthy. I never intended to draw a distinction between physical and financial malpractice.
Libel is of course interesting. Several courts in the US for example have held that loss of business must be proved before any kind of suit is brought forward. Defamation is even more convoluted and the law is even more unsettled here – it’s pretty much handled on an ad hoc basis.
But in a country like the US, the bar for defamation is set tremendously high. So high as to be almost never used in practice. A person should have the right to ridicule, insult and mock another person freely and without fear. It should be like that in India also.
In reply to bhagwad
Not quite. A person is not protected by first amendment if his or her statement against another person or entity is false. In fact, such lawsuits are fairly common where celebrities win settlements against tabloids that present incorrect facts, which at that time the tabloid might not have known to be false. I allow myself this assumption because no tabloid would intentionally state wrong facts and risk getting sued. Once again, the compensation for emotional distress in such cases is not due to financial loss (that is accounted for separately) but in fact, emotional hurt, as you had specified.
The below excerpt is from http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
Generally speaking, in order to win your lawsuit, you must show that:
Someone made a statement;
that statement was published;
the statement caused you injury;
the statement was false; and
the statement did not fall into a privileged category.
Also, I’m speaking of common citizen here and not public officials, in which case ‘actual malice’ has to be proved, as defined by Hustler v. Falwell. But that’s beside the point, anyway.
In reply to Narayanan
You’re omitting a key component – the necessity of proving actual malice. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that malice must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence”.
Other forms of speech are comedy (which literally has carte blanche in the US). In “Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler”, the Supreme court went even further and said that the charge has to be believable. Meaning that if I defame Barack Obama and claim that he’s a mass murder, no charge can be brought against me because no one seriously believes it to be true.
Finally, in “Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc” the Supreme court once again extended the protection of the first amendment by stating that “Opinions cannot be considered defamatory”. To quote:
” It is, therefore, permissible to suggest, for instance, that someone is a bad lawyer, but not permissible to declare falsely that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.”
Finally, intent is also important as shown in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
All these cases have served to make it more and more difficult to pursue a charge of “emotional distress” in court. After all, proving malice can be ridiculously difficult or even impossible. Even more tough is to prove intentional distress since tabloids almost never have a personal agenda against the celebrities involved.
Nonetheless, you have a point. I admit these are weaknesses in US free speech which would not exist in an ideal world. In an ideal world, no amount of pure emotional distress would be sufficient to draw down the ire of the law. So far, the US comes closest to implementing this ideal.
Defamation and libel are probably the closest in the barrier between free and non free speech, and I concede this point. But only this point as I’m sure you’ll agree. No other form of pure emotional distress should be relevant in the eyes of the law.
In reply to bhagwad
Old post but oh well…
I’m afraid I’m not omitting the ‘actual malice’ component, but you are. Actual malice needs to be proven only in the case of public officials. This is what I stated earlier.
The reasoning is that the job of a public official also carries with it a responsibility to undertake public scrutiny and criticism. This makes it harder to prosecute a tabloid with wrong facts unless actual malice is proven against the official.
The same does not extend to common folk. Here, actual malice need not be proven in order to claim defamation or libel when wrong facts are present and the other four criteria above are met. The cases you’ve listed are against public officials as are mine.
In reply to bhagwad
Here’s another snippet that I came across today that reminded me of your article, with which I disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
“In November 1983, Larry Flynt’s pornographic magazine Hustler carried a parody advertisement of a Campari ad, featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his “first time” was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk. Falwell sued for $45 million in compensation alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[54] After a civil trial, known as Falwell vs. Flynt, which lasted from December 3–8, 1984, a jury rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events, but ruled in favor of Falwell on the emotional distress claim and ordered Larry Flynt to pay Falwell damages in the amount of $200,000. This was upheld on appeal. Flynt then appealed to the Supreme Court, winning a unanimous decision on February 24, 1988. The ruling held that public figures cannot circumvent First Amendment protections by attempting to recover damages based on emotional distress suffered from parodies. The decision in favor of Flynt strengthened free speech rights in the United States in relation to parodies of public figures.”
Note the “public figures” part in the last statement.
In reply to Narayanan
So…this is a good thing no?
In reply to bhagwad
Whether it’s good or not, I’m not sure. But it clearly states actual malice need not be proven in a defamation lawsuit unless it’s against a public official.
Sorry for “breaking” the above thread.
Does Supergirl ever call in the Superfriends for help?
Emotional abuse is the basis for all physically violent relationships. Without emotional and verbal abuse, physical abuse would never work. Physically abused people ARE emotionally abused people.
Anyone can call the police if their abuse (of any kind) gets to be too much. The abuser may not be removed from the home (and in the case of emotional/verbal abuse is unnecessary unless the abuser is threatening death to self or victim). HOWEVER – the victim of such domestic violence CAN be taken to a shelter or temporary living quarters depending on what s/he wants to do EVEN IF there are no physical marks.
This action HELPS the victim of domestic abuse. Calling the police does not mean charges will be pressed! Please do not persist in propagating the idea that police “should not” be called. You are correct in your statements that laws against “emotional abuse” are difficult if not impossible to enforce. I do not advocate we, as a society, attempt to tell people what they can or cannot say. However, I do advocate for the victim’s right to access emergency services regardless of the “type” of abuse they’re suffering.
I think your article shows a lack of understanding of the underlying abuse dynamic. The thoughts you present on whether or not an abuse victim “should” call the police or not show judgment upon domestic abuse and the victims of abusers. I can tell you, judgment at any time is NOT helpful to abuse victims, and oftentimes such societal judgment impairs the victim’s ability to leave the relationship as severely as the abuser does.
In reply to Kellie Jo Holly
I’m not making any kind of judgement when domestic violence takes place. My question has just one focus: “Should we call the police for pure emotional abuse when there is no danger of physical violence?”
So would supergirl ever need the police for protection if she’s living with a regular guy?
In reply to bhagwad
I must point out that abusers are not “regular guys” (or gals). Abusers are out to destroy their victims emotionally, mentally, and ultimately physically. Whether they do this consciously or subconsciously is irrelevant – the outcome is the same (disastrous for the psyche of the target of abuse).
Emotional and verbal abuse are signs of impending physical violence. Just because an abusive person hasn’t hit the victim in the past, there is no guarantee that it won’t happen in the future. Because NONE of us can predict the future, as soon as a victim feels threatened, yes, s/he should call the police.
The idea that supergirl lives with a “regular guy” (one that is not abusive) implies both adults are mentally and emotionally healthy. When that is the case, if supergirl calls on “regular guy” to stop talking to her in that way, he will. Regular guys aren’t out to hurt anyone. Supergirl doesn’t need police protection if she’s living with a “regular guy” because the statements “regular guy” would make would be mistakes. He would feel bad for saying them as soon as he looked into supergirl’s face and saw her pain.
To answer your direct question, supergirl will not ever FEEL THE NEED for police protection if she is living with “REGULAR GUY”.
In reply to Kellie Jo Holly
By “regular guy”, I meant anyone with normal physical strength who posed no threat to supergirl :)
If there is never any danger of physical violence, the police need never get involved no matter what happens. That is the point I’m trying to make.
In reply to bhagwad
Perhaps our disconnect in communication comes from living in two entirely different countries. I have no idea what it means to “call the police” in India. Here in the US, calling the police for domestic violence does not guarantee any charges will be filed. However, calling the police for DV can give the victim of DV a chance to get away to a safe place. I advocate for that use of the police – prevention is better than waiting around until you have a case for physical abuse.
We both also agree that the law (the government) should not be able to mandate politeness. They should not be allowed to charge people and send them to prison for emotional abuse. Bruises (or worse) are the only “proof” that domestic violence has occurred and I understand and agree with that.
You said, “By the same token, I don’t believe that “mental cruelty” should be a factor in domestic violence – again, for adults.” Mental cruelty (emotional, mental abuse) is a warning sign of impending physical abuse and should be taken seriously. That is why the police can help the VICTIM to a safe place – to prevent violence.
You said, “Only physical abuse, threats, confinement etc. should need the involvement of the government. The police cannot come in to a house and tell a person to be polite. That’s not their job, nor their business.” I also agree with this statement to a degree. However, I do believe that police can come to your house and tell the adults there to calm down IF and only if one of the partners or a concerned neighbor calls them. Police can and should act to prevent physical DV. (No charges unless there are bruises!)
You said, “If one partner feels “emotionally hurt”, they can make their feelings clear the other person and if that individual still doesn’t listen…well then there’s no point in remaining married is there? Remind me again where the police comes into all this?” This statement is where I take issue.
Abusers put on a show to suck victims into relationships and marriage. They act one way before there’s a commitment, but take off their masks after marriage (or engagement, pregnancy, or some other emotional commitment). Domestic abuse victims initially believe their abuser is a wonderful person with bad habits. They think if they are patient and love the abuser enough, the abuser will stop being “mean”. Victims often if not always make their feelings known to the abuser believing that if the abuser would just “understand” their point of view, then s/he would WANT to be nice to them.
It is during this long phase that emotional abuse does it’s damage to the victim. The confusion, pain, and love for the false person the abuser presented in the beginning keeps them in place. During this time, financial issues combine, women (especially) stop working to have babies and lose independence. Victims come to believe they are unworthy and unable to make it on their own without the abuser.
Your statement that “there is no point in remaining married” (although technically true) is NOT realistic. The victim, once a Healthy Supergirl, is now mentally and emotionally degraded by being in the presence of a mentally disturbed individual. All of the damage is done without physical violence. It doesn’t matter that she was Supergirl – her physical invulnerability does not protect her from mental cruelty.
When she finally realizes that she is an abuse victim, she should be able to call the police for help (although there will be no charges pressed) because in the victim’s weakened state, she may not clearly see “leaving” as an alternative. The mental prison she is confined to by the abuse limits her abilities, or more accurately, limits her BELIEF in her ability to free herself.
Your statement, “If we’re not allowed to walk away, then that’s confinement and becomes physical harm” illustrates my point when it comes to DV. Abusers work very hard to make “Supergirl” believe that she cannot walk away. Abusers isolate the victim, and attempt to transform her version of reality. Victims believe they are confined, believe they cannot walk away. No bruises, same crime.
I think that you and I would agree entirely on the substance of your article if the paragraph about domestic violence victims were omitted.
In reply to Kellie Jo Holly
It’s a tough situation, I agree. And yes – if no charges are filed, then I think it’s reasonable to take any steps meant to prevent the situation from escalating to full blown physical abuse.
Many women are able to walk away from abusive partners. We have better laws now that provide for their financial security as well as any children involved. I feel that abused women need to make use of these facilities. That’s what freedom is all about – you have to help yourself. And the law will meet you half way.
I agree that people play on the psychology of the victim making them vulnerable and feel worthless. But distressing as that does sound, I believe it’s entirely up to the individual in question to extricate herself from the situation, take her life in her hands and move on.
In reply to bhagwad
That is what it boils down to, isn’t it? It’s the duty of society to recognize domestic violence and find ways to educate people about it (through non-profits and governmental social services). It’s the duty of the police to come when they’re called. It’s the duty of the victim to come forward, request help if needed, and take charge of their own life.
Many women do walk away. I did. The law did not help me with financial security because of the DV, and the law gave full custody of my boys to their abusive father. A year later, as they experienced life with dad, they chose to live with me. Nevertheless, I consider myself to be supergirl because I walked away, created a new life, and now thrive with my children by my side.
Hi, if you are still following this post, just want to know your definition of Emotional abuse include unsolicited calls and sms or mails. Though there is no physical harm, the unwanted calls and messages do disturb the mental peace of any person and would be regarded as an issue to “call the police”. One might choose to ignore but 1000 sms averaging in 10 days too much right.. What is your thoughts on this…Especially when a young lady is being harassed so..
In reply to Confused Mind
Two things.
First, a phone call is different from say a Facebook message since a person has no choice but to hear the phone ring and can’t really ignore it. Plus picking up the phone means a direct intrusion into one’s home. That is not just emotional, but a physical component as well. A phone call is not easy to ignore. So repeated phone calls to a person can indeed be construed as harassment.
As for SMSs, if 1000s of SMSs are coming in and there’s no way to block them, then again it’s not merely emotional hurt – it’s genuine inconvenience.
Social networks however are another matter since blocking someone is trivial. I would not consider that harassment.
I have been raised by a single mom,and i have a younger sister.
So maybe for you the fact that facing “mental abuse” is a personal choice,but for me and my family it has never been.
We did everything to stray away from bad people,not to get involved with other business.
But know what,others tried their best to interfere with us,we never complained,just listened and forgot about it.
This went on for 20 years since my father died.Then there was an incident where my mother was sujected to insult in a room full of men.
reason:we got our house renovated.Trust me we had all permissions,and nothing was illegal or damage causing.
They didnt stop troubling us until we called the police,the reason why they did it was because we were all women,with no male support.
So i completely disagree with the fact that we dont require the state to protect us.The truth is,we really do
when your family or loved ones have to face this,maybe you would then realize.
In reply to jyoti kashyap
Of course you need the state to protect you if you were in danger. My question about mental abuse is contained in the title of this post. If you were an all powerful and supremely strong being, would you still need the police to protect you from pure mental abuse?
In reply to bhagwad
But we are not all powerful and extremely strong. If we were, none of us would ever be involved in a mentally abusive relationship. The mental abuse creates a prison that only the victim and abuser can feel or see. The confinement is THERE, it is simply invisible. Because the mind is such a powerful thing, it “believes” the prison/confinement is real.