It is interesting to hear about the case of sexual coercion being filed by Noelle Dunphy against former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. She claims she has tapes of his remarks to prove it.

This brought to mind the thought: “Hey, wait a minute! You can’t record someone speaking to you without their permission. That’s against the law. You have to ask them or tell them first!”

My wife told me, however, that this is not always the case. There are states/situations in which you can record conversations without the other knowing about it.

I didn’t let that deter me from continuing with this commentary, however. It starts flippantly, but it has led me down a more significant path.

Here is the path the case brings me down:

• You wouldn’t say to a potential murderer: “You know, I am somewhat afraid that you’re going to kill me or hurt me. Would you mind if I recorded this conversation?”
• It seems you are going to molest me. Would you mind if I … ?
• Since you might steal from me or cheat me … ?

It seems to me that if you are suspicious that someone might harm you, you have every right in the world to record what is about to be said and done, without their permission.

But what if the law says … ?

No, the law is not always right! When our nation was formed, the right to slavery was built into law. We finally abrogated that law and made slavery illegal.

Nevertheless, law or no law, it was and is always wrong.

It is good to obey the second law we made, but it was bad to obey the first law!

In general, we should uphold the law — when it is, and remains to be — the right, the good, the kind thing to do.

Sometimes, however, laws are passed that serve the desires of venal, cruel, conniving people. (Not today, of course!)

Most laws in this country were made by men, by white men! That, of course, is changing now, but we still have a legacy of prejudice — male prejudice, white prejudice, especially.

It is wrong, bad, to support that. Prejudice is what creates bad laws!

What gives an individual the right to decide whether a law is good or not? Thousands of people currently break the law every day, perhaps because they are venal, cruel, conniving people.

However, what guidelines could a “good” person (like you and me) use to decide whether it is right to break a law?

I think we have to go back to the ancient principle of “kindness.” This means that we are all “kin,” all related to each other, all part of the human family.

The rule of kindness has been expressed in dozens of ways, most commonly, probably: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

This is not true because somebody — Buddha, Lao Tzu, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Mr. Rogers — said so.

It is the opposite: They said so because it is true!

What I am saying here is that in order to have a society that works for everyone, we have to give up our fixed ideas of “right and wrong.” The world has been, and still is, guilty of immense unkindness — regardless of what is legal or not legal.

So, how do you do this? How does one decide? You simply ask: “Would I feel good if somebody did this to me?” If not, don’t do it — law or no law.

The golden rule is “right” simply because you and I say so, here and now. So, it is our awesome responsibility to look into our own feelings, experiences and sense of what’s right and wrong.

This freedom also implies that we allow others the same freedom. We welcome others asking us, in a nonthreatening way, why we think and feel the way we do, and conversely do the same for others.

Out of that, we decide what kindness calls for, here and now.

I respect the law, judges, juries, lawmakers and everybody else when they respect human kindness. When they don’t, I don’t respect them.