Formal apologies to mysticblaze, who didn't specify a sex in her bio. If anything, perhaps she will forgive me because I did not assume that she was a woman just because I saw "knitting" in her community memberships? Hmm, nice try, eh? By the way, minstrel70 has also already pointed out my error as well. He does look after the interests of his friends. Nice to meet both you and mysticblaze.
It is true that "we" limit rights all the time. The better word is "infringe." I put it to you that the "can't-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy is a bad one, since it is not the speech itself, the content, that is criminalized, but rather the effects of the speech that are criminal. To understand this, consider what would have happened in the hypothetical case if there had been a real fire. The "speaker" would not be prosecuted, yet the content of his speech remained the same. Conversely, if you get up and recite the Gettysburg Address you can also be arrested, not for speaking your mind in a theater, but for disturbing the peace and violating the property rights of the theater owner and his patrons. Rights are absolute and non-contradictory, or else they cannot be considered rights, according to the classical definition. Cases where rights appear to be non-absolute or contradictory are merely cases of misidentification and mis-definition.
As for the pornography problem, that is merely a failure to enforce property rights effectively, not a good example of the "legitimate authority" to infringe the rights of free speech and expression. The case of libel is more accurately defined as fraud, and should be treated accordingly. As for the second amendment, that issue is another whole complex jumbo can of worms which would need to be carefully unpacked before we could even begin to discuss it rationally. If you want a long involved debate on it, we could, but I think it would dwarf the current debate, so here is probably not the place.
I commend [Unknown site tag] on his choice of friends. You're interesting people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Live by the sword... (Part II)
Date: 2003-10-30 09:10 am (UTC)It is true that "we" limit rights all the time. The better word is "infringe." I put it to you that the "can't-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy is a bad one, since it is not the speech itself, the content, that is criminalized, but rather the effects of the speech that are criminal. To understand this, consider what would have happened in the hypothetical case if there had been a real fire. The "speaker" would not be prosecuted, yet the content of his speech remained the same. Conversely, if you get up and recite the Gettysburg Address you can also be arrested, not for speaking your mind in a theater, but for disturbing the peace and violating the property rights of the theater owner and his patrons. Rights are absolute and non-contradictory, or else they cannot be considered rights, according to the classical definition. Cases where rights appear to be non-absolute or contradictory are merely cases of misidentification and mis-definition.
As for the pornography problem, that is merely a failure to enforce property rights effectively, not a good example of the "legitimate authority" to infringe the rights of free speech and expression. The case of libel is more accurately defined as fraud, and should be treated accordingly. As for the second amendment, that issue is another whole complex jumbo can of worms which would need to be carefully unpacked before we could even begin to discuss it rationally. If you want a long involved debate on it, we could, but I think it would dwarf the current debate, so here is probably not the place.
I commend [Unknown site tag] on his choice of friends. You're interesting people.