OB Markers

[jw5]

Can someone explain to me what is the significance or meaning of the term "OB markers"? Don't tell me what it stands for or what it is supposed to represent, I already know all that.

Let's say that someone commits a crime. He is arrested by the police, charged by the prosecutor, and stands trial. If there is enough evidence against him, he will be found guilty and sentenced. Where does the concept of "OB markers" come in?

Ok, let's talk about things that we are "not supposed to say". Let's say we say something that we are "not supposed to" or say something about someone that he doesn't like or agree. The state or the individual charges the person or takes out a lawsuit, again the accused will go through the judiciary process. If he is found guilty, he will be sentenced. If not, he will be acquitted and let go.
Again, where does the concept of "OB markers" come in?

Is this concept or term used anywhere else in the world? What does it actually mean?

 

[Ramseth]

Where there's a written law, there's no need for any OB marker, as in the examples you've cited. The law just applies. Laws constraint the words and actions of people. OB markers are contraints within constraints. For example, the so-called media self-censorship is a manifestation of OB markers. There's strict definition of what's out-of-bound outside the law (e.g. murder, rape, robbery, arson etc.), but there's no strict definition of what is out-of-bounds within the law.

OB markers can be said to be like pre-emptive warning zones within the law, to stop people from going beyond that zone and risk breaking the law. For example, riots are certainly illegal and undesirable. How about a Malay scolding a Chinese a dog or a Chinese scolding a Malay a pig in public? Technically, a common dispute, yes? Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to quarrel, yes?

However, there may be a real risk of attracting more people involved and becoming a riot. So this type of situation will certainly be treated and handled more harshly then a non-interracial common public dispute, hence the manifestation of OB markers.

 

[middaydog]

I say_ it's something of moral justification, it may not have been in print in Bible or Sutra or even the book of laws but you know that when you do it you are crossing the line

it depends where the ball landed you may have to pay 2 strokes penalty

 

[jw5]

Where there's a written law, there's no need for any OB marker, as in the examples you've cited. The law just applies. Laws constraint the words and actions of people. OB markers are contraints within constraints. For example, the so-called media self-censorship is a manifestation of OB markers. There's strict definition of what's out-of-bound outside the law (e.g. murder, rape, robbery, arson etc.), but there's no strict definition of what is out-of-bounds within the law.

OB markers can be said to be like pre-emptive warning zones within the law, to stop people from going beyond that zone and risk breaking the law. For example, riots are certainly illegal and undesirable. How about a Malay scolding a Chinese a dog or a Chinese scolding a Malay a pig in public? Technically, a common dispute, yes? Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to quarrel, yes?

However, there may be a real risk of attracting more people involved and becoming a riot. So this type of situation will certainly be treated and handled more harshly then a non-interracial common public dispute, hence the manifestation of OB markers.

You have tried to explain it, quite well I may say.
But I think my questions still apply.
Why should there be anything "out-of-bounds within the law"?
In the case of the dispute, yes, people have the right to quarrel but if they choose to use such strong and undesirable language, then let the police and the court deal with it. Be harsh if necessary, as a future deterrent. Make such derogatory name calling aganist the law if necessary.
Why coin a concept called "ob markers"? Do other countries use this term and this concept?
Why does SG need this concept and this term?
Because we are more susceptible to implicit threats? Because we are more cowardly?
Why?