Abuse of Rights clauses, yes or no?

Flee · March 14, 2019, 07:59:56 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

DAS B00T x2 · March 14, 2019, 08:17:41 PM

The State giveth, and the State taketh away.
Given that rights are a wholly social construct granted to us by our governments, there's nothing inherently wrong about a government suspending those rights for individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.

Verbatim · March 14, 2019, 10:57:12 PM

how am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal now

Aether · March 14, 2019, 11:06:09 PM

Yeah I'm pretty much of the belief that anyone should be allowed to exercise their rights as long as they aren't infringing upon another person's rights.

Casper · March 15, 2019, 01:09:39 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on March 14, 2019, 08:17:41 PM

individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.

wait whats wrong with this?

Genghis Khan · March 15, 2019, 01:34:11 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on March 14, 2019, 08:17:41 PM

The State giveth, and the State taketh away.
Given that rights are a wholly social construct granted to us by our governments, there's nothing inherently wrong about a government suspending those rights for individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.

God gave us 2A, not the government.

Flee · March 15, 2019, 05:45:14 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Flee · March 15, 2019, 05:46:33 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Genghis Khan · March 15, 2019, 07:05:19 AM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 05:45:14 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 14, 2019, 10:57:12 PM
how am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal now
The US Constitution does not have an abuse of rights clause so go right ahead. The country is also the sole outlier in considering gun ownership a human right as opposed to the universally accepted ones of privacy, speech, fair trial, equal treatment, assembly and such, so all the more reason to go for it.

The EU does not have free speech.

velox · March 15, 2019, 07:31:03 AM

It's more or less required, right? It's going to be slightly contradictory either way. Say there's universal freedom of movement, but also right to privacy on your own property - trespassing is a violation of the latter right, but if you forbid it then you don't have the first right. You have to find the balance that has the best outcome overall. Sort of like the Paradox of tolerance.

Verbatim · March 15, 2019, 08:04:42 AM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 05:45:14 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 14, 2019, 10:57:12 PM
how am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal now
The US Constitution does not have an abuse of rights clause so go right ahead. The country is also the sole outlier in considering gun ownership a human right as opposed to the universally accepted ones of privacy, speech, fair trial, equal treatment, assembly and such, so all the more reason to go for it.

oh i know i was speaking hypothetically

Super Irish · March 15, 2019, 10:03:36 AM

It makes sense to me, can't have the rights being used to actively dismantle them for more nefarious purposes later on.

Free speech is the only grey one in there, because while holding a meeting or rally about violating other rights (i.e. "Let's genocide those people" or "I don't like the rights to privacy, anyone else?") isn't necessarily going to cause such a violation, but can stoke it. Curtailing a right to free speech to pre-emptively stop a genocide seems a bit too presumptive when the rights on that are already in place. You stop the people who think "well there's no law against it...", but it would always be difficult to stop people who are determined enough to carry out such a violation in the first place.

I think the only time free-speech should be limited or censored is when it's used as an excuse to limit free speech itself, going back to preventing a right being the reason to remove itself.

Aether · March 15, 2019, 11:05:29 AM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 05:46:33 AM

Quote from: Aether on March 14, 2019, 11:06:09 PM
Yeah I'm pretty much of the belief that anyone should be allowed to exercise their rights as long as they aren't infringing upon another person's rights.
Do you think that extends to speech as well?

I think people even have the right to express that other people shouldn't have certain rights, as long as they aren't inciting violence. (things like saying, "these people shouldn't be allowed to vote or to own property." "these people shouldn't be allowed due process.") The line for me is drawn where expressing their opinion turns into actually encouraging people to go and infringe upon other's rights.

What I am unsure about is people shouting down others. If someone is speaking in a public space and others come to disrupt their speech and prevent them from being heard, I feel like they technically have a legal right to do that as long as they are just "speaking" themselves, but I think our culture shouldn't promote that kind of behavior. People should protest as much as they want to, but let the person you're protesting say what they're going to say, especially if other people want to hear it.

Flee · March 15, 2019, 02:22:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Flee · March 15, 2019, 02:37:17 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Genghis Khan · March 15, 2019, 03:01:31 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 02:37:17 PM

Quote from: Aether on March 15, 2019, 11:05:29 AM
The line for me is drawn where expressing their opinion turns into actually encouraging people to go and infringe upon other's rights.
Out of curiosity, how would you apply this to:

- a politician campaigning for Muslims to not be allowed to pray or have mosques?
- an author releasing a book arguing that black people are subhumans who shouldn't be allowed to vote, that the holocaust never happened and that jews are a danger to freedom who should be treated as such?
- an influencer or media personality organizing marches for the preservation of the supremacy of the white race and against the muddying of the ethnicities of our representatives in the government?
- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)

A legit opinion but if they are citizens you can't stop them from praying. Unless they shout Allah akbar.

Quote

- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)

That's also your right.

velox · March 15, 2019, 04:52:54 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 02:22:37 PM

Quote from: Killua on March 15, 2019, 07:31:03 AM
It's more or less required, right? It's going to be slightly contradictory either way. Say there's universal freedom of movement, but also right to privacy on your own property - trespassing is a violation of the latter right, but if you forbid it then you don't have the first right. You have to find the balance that has the best outcome overall. Sort of like the Paradox of tolerance.
Very true, but this is more about deliberately (mis)using rights to indirectly undermine those of others and betray some of the core values of our society. That's why it's usually referring to the right of free speech and situations in which people are exercising their rights for the sole purpose of destroying those of others. What you say is indeed common sense ("your rights end where mine begin") as my freedom to walk down the street and swing my fists around doesn't give me the ability to punch you in the face and violate your right to autonomy and integrity, but what about situations where someone uses their rights to free speech, assembly, vote and such to actively seek out the destruction of others? Is or should my free speech still be protected if I use it to call for minorities to lose their right to vote, speak, have a private life, assemble, have their own religion and so on?

Ah, I slightly misunderstood then.

It's a difficult question for sure. I'd lean towards allowing most things that aren't outright hate speech and harassment - if we give governments the power to ban the expression of certain political views, then who knows what that could lead to in the long run?

Even if a view is in direct conflict with the ideas of democracy and the person expression that view is seeking to dismantle democratic systems - isn't it better to face them in debate, rather than trying to silence them?

Aether · March 15, 2019, 08:20:37 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 02:37:17 PM

Out of curiosity, how would you apply this to:

- a politician campaigning for Muslims to not be allowed to pray or have mosques?
- an author releasing a book arguing that black people are subhumans who shouldn't be allowed to vote, that the holocaust never happened and that jews are a danger to freedom who should be treated as such?
- an influencer or media personality organizing marches for the preservation of the supremacy of the white race and against the muddying of the ethnicities of our representatives in the government?
- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)

The first and the last examples are the two I would be more inclined to believe legal action can be taken against, as they are both actively pursuing or inciting others to pursue the infringement of other's rights. In the last example, lying about someone (specifically making false statements of fact) to damage their reputation or standing is libel/defamation so it would definitely be within the bounds of the law to prevent/persecute.

The middle two examples are only an expression of ideology and thus people have the right to do either of them. Although, as a private company, I think a publisher has the right to refuse to publish any book on the basis of the content within that book.

MarKhan · March 16, 2019, 01:01:30 AM

Quote from: Flee on March 15, 2019, 02:37:17 PM

Quote from: Aether on March 15, 2019, 11:05:29 AM
The line for me is drawn where expressing their opinion turns into actually encouraging people to go and infringe upon other's rights.
Out of curiosity, how would you apply this to:

- a politician campaigning for Muslims to not be allowed to pray or have mosques?
- an author releasing a book arguing that black people are subhumans who shouldn't be allowed to vote, that the holocaust never happened and that jews are a danger to freedom who should be treated as such?
- an influencer or media personality organizing marches for the preservation of the supremacy of the white race and against the muddying of the ethnicities of our representatives in the government?
- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)

I guess only one that I would look out for is the media, because in all of these cases person campaigning for whatever thing they believe need support of mases and it wouldn't get much support if it's not reasonable. But in case of media, media can fabricate some of the issues and might even attempt to shut down any criticism aimed towards them. In short I think media is the one I would look out for because they have much more tools to effectively misguide people.