A right which correlated to an undesirable outcome

[leibowde84]

Im not asking if there is a problem with our system. Rather what is the best way to deal with rights that correlate to negative outcomes.

What do you mean by rights that correlate to negative outcomes?

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by rights that correlate to negative outcomes?

Generally we can agree that any right unfettered would correlate to unfortunate outcomes. Take for instance a hypothetical right-a right to own a computer. I believe that I can show indisputably that computer ownership correlates to cyberbullying. That is if no one owned a computer cyber bullying would decrease. Given this hypothetical right and the hypothetical negative consequence that correlates to this right (not follows from it), how should we approach the right.

Now, take that same process and apply it to all rights. Is there an approach that we can follow, if so what is that approach? If not, why not?

 

[leibowde84]

Generally we can agree that any right unfettered would correlate to unfortunate outcomes. Take for instance a hypothetical right-a right to own a computer. I believe that I can show indisputably that computer ownership correlates to cyberbullying. That is if no one owned a computer cyber bullying would decrease. Given this hypothetical right and the hypothetical negative consequence that correlates to this right (not follows from it), how should we approach the right.

Now, take that same process and apply it to all rights. Is there an approach that we can follow, if so what is that approach? If not, why not?

It is a matter of weighing the outcomes. What is gained and lost by getting rid of computers? Is it worth it to get rid of computers to stop cyberbullying? Of course not. We would lose far too much. The benefits do not outweigh the cost.

The same mental exercise should be done for any decision like this.

 

[Nous]

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.

I don't understand what you're saying here. To outlaw "fighting words" and false advertizing is certainly a limitation on speech. It's an "abrogation" of "the right of free speech" when one interprets that right as guaranteeing an absolute right. But it never was considered an absolute right by the Framers, and, indeed, the First Amendment is interpreted to guarantee many more forms of expression (e.g., pornography) than it did in the 18th century.

Similarly, the Takings Clause can be considered as alluding to a right of the government. And after the unpopular Kelo decision, many states enacted laws to prevent that kind of taking of private property.

I just don't see any harm arising from these revisions of what the rights enumerated in the Constitution are understood to entail.

 

[Curious George]

It is a matter of weighing the outcomes. What is gained and lost by getting rid of computers? Is it worth it to get rid of computers to stop cyberbullying? Of course not. We would lose far too much. The benefits do not outweigh the cost.

The same mental exercise should be done for any decision like this.

That is the exercise that people like to go through. I am proposing that the first question ought to be xan we address the harm in an alternative way. And if a right has been articulated or is commonly accepted then such weighing as you have presented here should be a last resort if accepted at all.

 

[Curious George]

I don't understand what you're saying here. To outlaw "fighting words" and false advertizing is certainly a limitation on speech. It's an "abrogation" of "the right of free speech" when one interprets that right as guaranteeing an absolute right. But it never was considered an absolute right by the Framers, and, indeed, the First Amendment is interpreted to guarantee many more forms of expression (e.g., pornography) than it did in the 18th century.

Similarly, the Takings Clause can be considered as alluding to a right of the government. And after the unpopular Kelo decision, many states enacted laws to prevent that kind of taking of private property.

I just don't see any harm arising from these revisions of what the rights enumerated in the Constitution are understood to entail.

You do not see the difference between carving out a very specific instance because that instance is an unfortunate circumstance and abrogating a right because that right correlates to an unfortunate corcumstance?

 

[Koldo]

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?

Doesn't it all come down to how much value you give to each right ?

 

[Curious George]

Doesn't it all come down to how much value you give to each right ?

I think that it does from an individual perspective which is why that there is a competing argument back and forth over correlation and causation etc. However, I am suggesting this is a backwards way to go about the discussion. The first step is to isolate the unfortunate circumstance and target that instead of targeting the right.

 

[leibowde84]

That is the exercise that people like to go through. I am proposing that the first question ought to be xan we address the harm in an alternative way. And if a right has been articulated or is commonly accepted then such weighing as you have presented here should be a last resort if accepted at all.

If it is a constitutionally protected right, that is another story. There is a very specific process that must be undertaken to consider such a change. Other than that, we are saying the same exact thing. You look at all of the possibilities/alternatives, weigh the benefits and costs, and take the least harmful, most beneficial option.