A right which correlated to an undesirable outcome

[Curious George]

I was being a bit facetious with the penalty.



The outcome may not be the only issue though. It's also the motive behind someone exercising a given right. I don't think the right itself should be abrogated, but there can be ways of dealing with those who abuse those rights.

And is this the case with every right?

 

[DavidFirth]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

What about lefts? You discriminatin' against lefties?

 

[Nakosis]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

The problem with this is then who watches the watchers. This would be a lot of power to place in the hands of a group of people. A lot of temptation for abuse.

I think the only thing you can do is provide educational awareness of the negative outcomes associated with the right in question. Then leave it to each individual to guard themselves against such negative outcomes.

 

[Curious George]

The problem with this is then who watches the watchers. This would be a lot of power to place in the hands of a group of people. A lot of temptation for abuse.

I think the only thing you can do is provide educational awareness of the negative outcomes associated with the right in question. Then leave it to each individual to guard themselves against such negative outcomes.

For all rights?

 

[Nakosis]

For all rights?

Education of legal rights? Sure, what's not to like?

In High School, education and open discussion of legal rights would go a long way to prevent misuse and abuse.

 

[Curious George]

Education of legal rights? Sure, what's not to like?

In High School, education and open discussion of legal rights would go a long way to prevent misuse and abuse.

No, is this process, focusing on the harm without abrogating the rights of others not harming, a method which ought to be employed when dealing with all rights?

 

[Nakosis]

No, is this process, focusing on the harm without abrogating the rights of others not harming, a method which ought to be employed when dealing with all rights?

Hard to say in general. The abrogation of rights should be avoided wherever possible IMO. That doesn't mean I won't come across circumstances I might agree it would be necessary.

Rights are never absolute, it's just what people are willing to enforce.

 

[Nous]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

As you well know, as the Court has repeatedly noted, no right guaranteed in the Constitution is absolute. The First Amendment does not protect a right to engage in defamation, false advertizing or "fighting words".

To the best of my reckoning offhand, every right secured in the Constitution might be said to allow some adverse consequences. What some people want to do as an exercise of their religion is harmful and/or disturbing to others. Many people have wanted to fall on their own swords because of what the Court has held the Equal Protection Clause to guarantee. Even the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel can be seen has harmful, as it presumably does help to acquit the guilty.

 

[Curious George]

As you well know, as the Court has repeatedly noted, no right guaranteed in the Constitution is absolute. The First Amendment does not protect a right to engage in defamation, false advertizing or "fighting words".

To the best of my reckoning offhand, every right secured in the Constitution might be said to allow some adverse consequences. What some people want to do as an exercise of their religion is harmful and/or disturbing to others. Many people have wanted to fall on their own swords because of what the Court has held the Equal Protection Clause to guarantee. Even the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel can be seen has harmful, as it presumably does help to acquit the guilty.

I suppose i wasn't very clear as I keep having to explain. The question is regarding how we ought to approach rights and limitations to them.

 

[Curious George]

Hard to say in general. The abrogation of rights should be avoided wherever possible IMO. That doesn't mean I won't come across circumstances I might agree it would be necessary.

Rights are never absolute, it's just what people are willing to enforce.

So you think so, but are not willing to commit because there might be an exception. One poster excepted the right to own and carry guns, would you agree?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Also, ridicule is a great tool to fight back against bullying, lying, etc.

It is. Look at all the Hitler parodies.

 

[Stevicus]

And is this the case with every right?

It would seem that the same principle could applied to every right, unless there's something else you're getting at here.

It may depend on whether a given right is regarding the individual's relationship with the government versus the individual's relationship with fellow citizens. For example, the right to be free of unlawful search and seizure, that relates only to the government searching and seizing something. We're already protected against some average Joe coming in and searching our property.

 

[Curious George]

It would seem that the same principle could applied to every right, unless there's something else you're getting at here.

It may depend on whether a given right is regarding the individual's relationship with the government versus the individual's relationship with fellow citizens. For example, the right to be free of unlawful search and seizure, that relates only to the government searching and seizing something. We're already protected against some average Joe coming in and searching our property.

I agree. But one poster has put forward the right to bear arms as a potential exception. Thoughts?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree. But one poster has put forward the right to bear arms as a potential exception. Thoughts?

I don't see why it should be made an exception. Someone who is merely keeping and bearing arms does not affect me in any way - at least not any more than when the government keeps and bears arms. It's only when they start shooting people is when it becomes an issue, but there are already laws against that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

It's a good question, ideally we'd all have the right to do anything, and the sense to choose not to exercise that right, in any undesirable way.. without that personal guidance, rights are bound to clash. And in the context of this forum, that's where morality comes in; do unto others what you would have them do unto you, this can never be legislated through rights or oppression of them

 

[Curious George]

It's a good question, ideally we'd all have the right to do anything, and the sense to choose not to exercise that right, in any undesirable way.. without that personal guidance, rights are bound to clash. And in the context of this forum, that's where morality comes in; do unto others what you would have them do unto you, this can never be legislated through rights or oppression of them

I am think laws are useful and effective in governing a society. I think for anyone based on any morality, lines get blurry. Even do unto others..., fails in some instances. And since diverse people hold diverse views we need a system to keep us afloat. The question is regarding how we should approach such a system.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We should not abrogate the right to privacy of individuals in society regardless of how much privacy correlates to violence or death.

Why?

 

[Curious George]

Why?

1) On principle. At the heart of this it suggests sacrificing freedom for safety. Not a good exchange.

2) Slippery slope. There is no way to easily distinguish rights therefore disregarding the reason to preserve rights can lead to absurd consequences.

3) on logic. The reasoning for doing so is faulty logic that creates a false dichotomy. It is not either or. There are multiple ways to address problems so attacking the right itself is not necessary. So, instead of looking at the situation as whether we should sacrifice something we value for something we value more (if auch is the case) we ought to see if there us a way to have both. The idea that we should abrogate rights to avoid negative corrweations is a zero-sum way of looking at the issue.

 

[Nous]

I suppose i wasn't very clear as I keep having to explain. The question is regarding how we ought to approach rights and limitations to them.

I did consider myself to be alluding to your question: The rights guaranteed in the Constitution (and elsewhere) are not absolute, and we can and do enact laws that prohibit those acts that are not included among those rights. I think it is harmless to have such laws. It doesn't infringe on anyone's well-being to be prohibited from spewing "fighting words" (for instance).

 

[Curious George]

I did consider myself to be alluding to your question: The rights guaranteed in the Constitution (and elsewhere) are not absolute, and we can and do enact laws that prohibit those acts that are not included among those rights. I think it is harmless to have such laws. It doesn't infringe on anyone's well-being to be prohibited from spewing "fighting words" (for instance).

But herein lies the difference. Fighting words are the unfortunate consequence that we would seek to eliminate.

This is very different than suggesting that the right to free speech be abrogated to in an effort to prevent fighting words. That is: we can make illegal the instance of fighting words because that is what we are trying to prevent.