Abuse of Rights clauses, yes or no?

 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,697 posts
 
This is in my opinion one of the major questions regarding human rights. I asked Banjo on Discord but he proved unhelpful so I'm putting it out there for all.

For those unfamiliar with the term, abuse of rights clauses are essentially exceptions to human rights when they would be (mis)used to undermine any of the other freedoms. In other words, someone cannot invoke protection of his own rights when he's exercising them solely to destroy rights for others.

A notable example can be found in article 17 of the ECHR, which states that "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

An example of this would be someone using his right to free speech to rile people up towards destroying our fundamentals of democracy or taking away rights of others (such as fair trial, equality, privacy, assembly...). Under the abuse of rights clause, he would not be able to rely on his protection of free speech if he would be sanctioned for his behavior.

Thoughts?
Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 08:01:59 PM by Flee


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,221 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
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
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

46,657 posts
how am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal now


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,526 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
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 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Casper
IP: Logged

10,005 posts
Toys are hereby declared:
ILLEGAL
IMMORAL
UNLAWFUL
 anyone found with a TOY in his possession will be
placed under ARREST and thrown in the DUNGEON!
No kidding!               🅱
individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.
wait whats wrong with this?


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,917 posts
 
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
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,697 posts
 
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.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,697 posts
 
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?


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,917 posts
 
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.


Killua | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: True Velox
IP: Logged

6,738 posts
why are you peeking under here
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
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

46,657 posts
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


Leonard Kurtz | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Superirish19
PSN: Superirish19
Steam: Superirish19
ID: Super Irish
IP: Logged

5,897 posts
If I'm not here, I'm doing Photography. Or I'm asleep. Or hungover. One of those three, anyway.

The current titlebar/avatar setup is courtesy of Ugly Americans, with a little hint of Apocalypse Now.
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.
Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 10:05:10 AM by Leonard Kurtz


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,526 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
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
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,697 posts
 
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?


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,697 posts
 
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...)


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,917 posts
 
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.
Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 04:18:48 PM by Genghis Khan


Killua | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: True Velox
IP: Logged

6,738 posts
why are you peeking under here
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 | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,526 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
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.
Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 08:21:20 PM by Aether


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,144 posts
Apathy is death
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.